This is an archive of past discussions about User:GB fan. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Thanks for your swift and helpful explanation. It seems familiar; I probably knew it at one time when I was performing this sort of edit more frequently. Shall try to remember it (and use it more often :-) -- Cheers, Deborahjay (talk) 11:09, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
If you did this because the references should be removed from the article, you have misunderstood the situation. Most likely, the article originally contained both <ref name="foo">...</ref> and one or more <ref name="foo"/> referring to it. Someone then removed the <ref name="foo">...</ref> but left the <ref name="foo"/>, which results in a big red error in the article. I replaced one of the remaining <ref name="foo"/> with a copy of the <ref name="foo">...</ref>; I did not re-insert the reference to where it was deleted, I just replaced one of the remaining instances. What you need to do to fix it is to make sure you remove all instances of the named reference so as to not leave any big red error.
If you reverted because I made an actual mistake, please be sure to also correct any reference errors in the page so I won't come back and make the same mistake again. Also, please post an error report at User talk:AnomieBOT so my operator can fix me! If the error is so urgent that I need to be stopped, also post a message at User:AnomieBOT/shutoff/OrphanReferenceFixer. Thanks! AnomieBOT⚡11:58, 22 August 2010 (UTC) If you do not wish to receive this message in the future, add {{bots|optout=AnomieBOT-OrphanReferenceFixer}} to your talk page.
Request for mediation rejected
The Request for mediation concerning Windows 7, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. An explanation of why it has not been possible to allow this dispute to proceed to mediation is provided at the mediation request page (which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time). Queries on the rejection of this dispute can be directed to the Committee chairperson or e-mailed to the mediation mailing list.
Hi GB fan! I am thinking about starting an "Unknown Presidents" task force and I noticed that you are an active contributor at WP:USPREZ articles. I was wondering if you would like to join me in starting this task force. The following Presidents would be included:
Our Mission: To expand the knowledge of the "Unknown Presidents." Specifically getting all these articles to GA class or higher. Let me know what you think. Thanks!--Schwindtd (talk) 22:40, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
How do you block people who vandalize things? How do you delete a picture and put a better one there e.g. better quality.
Plz respond asap.Cheers! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beedum (talk • contribs) 19:49, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
The only people who can block another user are admins. Usually they will only block a user if they are doing things to compromise the encyclopedia and then only if they have been warned to stop. So if you know of a problem user you should warn them that their actions could lead to them getting blocked. If they continue to harm the encyclopedia after escalating warning then you can report them and an administrator will evaluate their actions.
Only an admin can delete an image. The best way is to upload the image with a name that hasn't been used yet. If you have an image that is free image that you want to upload, the place to do it is at the Commons. Images there are available for anyone in the wide range of wikimedia projects to use. If the image is a fairuse then you will need to upload the image here to wikipedia with appropriate fairuse rationale. Hopefully this helps, if you have any questions let me know. ~~ GB fan ~~02:53, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
My wikipage 'Oneryu' is nominated for deletion
My wikipage 'Oneryu' is nominated for deletion
Reason : Delete - No indication this is used by anyone other than the creator. No significant coverage in reliable sources. ~~ GB fan ~~ 18:41, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:34, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Thank you
Born2cycle has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can Spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!
Hi, had to make page after saying lesbian in my english class. The teacher said what!! and i randomly made him up. He said he would google him and if he was not real id possibly be excluded for lying because hed ask the headteacher . Then my friend added the mustang part
I am not an admin so I can not restore the article or even see the deleted article. The first step would be to talk to the deleting admin. Cirt deleted the article. If you need any help let me know. ~~ GB fan ~~17:27, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
I wanted to talk about the citation stating that Adam is married with children. If you look at the citation and then try to find the article it is refering to, it doesn't exist, at least not that I can find.
The only article I could come up with was one written by Mr. Babineau mentioning Adam playing in a golf game. No mention of his family.
Should it still be left in there, if the citation is wrong?
I'm really new to all this, but if you could explain it to me, I would love to understand how it works. :-)
I've re-added it with a hopefully good link. I can retrieve the article through Newsbank, but the link is the only public one I can find. The line says "FAMILY: Wife, Ami, and three children." ☎Chickie04:29, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi GB fan! I would like to point out that I have no horse in this race. I had never even heard of Little Green Footballs until I came across it last night while Huggling! Thus, I am not a regular editor of that page and my only concern is to prevent WP:BLP issues, something that has become of paramount importance here at Wikipedia. I posted my comments on the brouhaha with this edit. Thanks! — SpikeToronto18:02, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
I had never heard of this site either until today. I looked at the "source" and agree that it is not a reliable source. I have removed the section based on that and its contentious nature. ~~ GB fan ~~18:46, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
There was no threat, it was a warning about putting poorly sourced contentious material about a living person into an article. I have been using the talk page, you showed up and started putting the information in the middle of a discussion without entering into the discussion. ~~ GB fan ~~14:58, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Also, please don't leave ill considered threats about edit warring on my talk page while edit warring yourself. Not a good look. Vividuppers (talk) 15:12, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Still no threats, you are edit warring to add contentious material without reliable source. I fyou can't find any reliable sources to verify the information it does not belong. ~~ GB fan ~~15:15, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Given your recent edit of the Hale Bopp article, I would like to invite you to give your feedback regarding the placement of the Heaven's Gate information. There is a discussion currently under way in the talk page & your thoughts would be appreciated. Thank you. Erikeltic(Talk)16:19, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
conspiracy theories by the British royalty
Makes a nice title :-).
But more seriously I saw cleaning up after british royalty with his recent edits. However imho not only the form was the problem, but he essentially labeled real world events as conspiracies, which is not appropriate (politely put it seems at least misleading), so I removed the conspiracy template from this articles altogether (in one instance somebody else was faster than me).--Kmhkmh (talk) 10:54, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
I don't know anything about those subjects, just noticed that British Royalty was pasting the whole navbox into article, I just went behind and transcluded them. Thanks for letting me know they don't belong. ~~ GB fan ~~11:01, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Ray Ban Aviator
Місhаеl Jасksоn isn't a person due to be referenced.
Да, правильно сделали наши коллеги-Битломаны, что укокошили его!!!
But others are suffer with Beatle-phobia, их тоже пора укокошить!!!
Jesus disappearance
I agree the mistery is not in his death, but in his body's disappearance.
The issue then is if the page "List of people who disappeared mysteriously" is limited to people who disappeared alive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flowergreg (talk • contribs) 11:35, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
The proper place to discuss this is on the talk page of the article. In my opinion he was dead when his body disappeared. He did not disappear. ~~ GB fan ~~12:39, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Re. Jesse V, the UDT and what has proved to be a long odyssey.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Howdy,
The "Compared to SEAL teams, UDTs saw less combat and took fewer casualties" was compromise language to build consensus on the talk page and it is backed by the citation. It was the reason CDR.Salisbury wrote the article and why this has been a point of contention since. It would be great if you could have a second look at that edit in that it was vetted rather vigorously. Thank you for your consideration. V7-sport (talk) 10:02, 25 October 2010 (UTC)V7-Sport
I read through the conversation and see where it was proposed to be in the consensus version, but I do not see anywhere that sentence was discussed. What does that specific sentence have to do with Jesse Ventura? I do not see it having anything to do with him specifically. It appears to me that the sentence sheds Ventura in a bad light since he was UDT. I still do not believe it belongs. ~~ GB fan ~~10:48, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
I believe it belongs because has to do with why his credentials were questioned by CDR.Salisbury and why he asserted that it was important to make the distinction between UDT and SEALs. I believe it was important to include it, you may feel differently. Apparently the solution to disagreement (that I have recently observed) is for one of us to stage a world class hissy fit, impugn the others character, engage in sock puppetry, refuse to read a single word the other is writing, drag innocent bystanders in to observe the hysterics and then skulk off when our wiki-shrine to ourselves is discovered which contains information that outlines a financial motive for bad faith edits.... Or I could just leave it to you, letting you know I think it is incomplete but trust in your judgment and temperament to do what you think is correct. Yeah, I think I'll do that second one... Cheers. V7-sport (talk) 20:03, 25 October 2010 (UTC)V7-Sport
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I just wanted to say thanks for the way you handled that and the SEAL list fracas. It was even-handed straight down the line. V7-sport (talk) 17:43, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Citing WP policy?
Hey GB fan, regarding your vandalism revert at Flag of the United Nations, do you know where actual policy/guideline is that states that Wikipedia can't be a source? I completely agree (having reverted the same vandalism for the same reason), and I'm pretty sure I've read it somewhere, but I'm just curious to find the actual policy so that I can cite it (heh heh) in the future. Cheers, -M.Nelson (talk) 03:53, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for giving those. I know I had read it also but wasn't positive where I had seen it, now I know. This isn't the most blatant circular reference I had seen lately. An editor put into the Elizabeth Mitchell article that she had a relationship with Gary Bakewell and referenced his article. The same editor added the same information into the Gary Blakewell article referencing Elizabeth Mitchell. So we had a complete circular reference. ~~ GB fan ~~06:43, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Registered user jaspel has resorted to using an IP address to undo my edits from today onwards, this can be gaged from the fact that the IP 180.215.196.42 is mainly undoing those of my edits that jaspel undid using his registered account a day ago, or he has invited someone else to do this for him, I dont know the wiki term for this, but read about it somewhere on wikipedia and inviting someone to do such is against wiki rules too, so please take note, what levels people will stoop to?
He's also undone some referenced edits like Air Arabia resuming Kabul, I didnt add references for the same at Sharjah and Kabul airports but common sense says as an editor all he has to do is look up Air Arabia destinations on wikipedia where there is a reference, or Air Arabia website to get a reference, rather than being disruptive and vengeful, he can be helpful, isnt a wiki editor supposed to help out rathar than cause problems?, I add references this was at times by looking up airline sites or google to verify and then add found reference to article, that's how it should work. 116.71.5.86 (talk) 15:06, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
That new IP had undone Air Arabia referenced edit again and I had to re-edit it, despite being reported of disruptive behaviour you arent bothered? his newer IP is 180.215.191.144 now.119.155.58.245 (talk) 11:58, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Save City Tatts
Hi GB fan
Thanks for your reply about Save City Tatts - sorry I didn't get back to you before this.
Maybe I should have just added a short section about the Save City Tatts website on the club's own Wikipedia page ie. City Tattersalls Club (I didn't do this at first because I wasn't sure if I should interfere with the actual City Tattersalls Page - I'm new to Wikipedia).
Why did you remove the link to http://twitter.com/USAFBEE? I am a senior Air Force Bioenvironmental Engineer routinely posting career field information to that account. Information is relevant and helpful to other BEEs and those interested in the career field. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kwculp (talk • contribs) 21:43, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
On the guideline page, Wikipedia:External links, there is a section about links to generally avoid. At the top of that section it says the following list are links that generally should be avoided unless they are official pages of the subject of the article. #10 on the list is social networking feeds such as twitter. Your description of the link you added was that it was an unofficial twitter page. That is why I removed it. ~~ GB fan ~~02:33, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Preamble to the United States Constitution/text until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Cybercobra(talk)06:32, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
I nominated it because of the tone of the article and edit summaries made by the author. Going back and looking at G10 I shouldn't have done it. It was obvious to me that his only purpose in creating the article was to disparage Nixon and I did not think that was appropriate. It was because of edits like this and his edit summaries on 1st two edits here. The intentions were clear to me that it was intended as a disparaging article. But I do not believe looking at the criteria now that it meets the definition of G10. ~~ GB fan ~~05:18, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Oh, I didn't see the tag in context. I'm actually tempted to reverse my decision... but it's getting late here, and I need some sleep. If I have time, I'll look into this more tomorrow. Thanks for the detailed reply! Airplaneman ✈05:47, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Unblock
{{unblock-auto|1=153.26.178.61|2=Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Djbuffnutzack". The reason given for Djbuffnutzack's block is: "
Your account has been blocked indefinitely because its username is a blatant violation of our username policy – it is obviously profane; threatens, attacks or impersonates another person; or suggests that your intention is not to contribute to the encyclopedia (see our blocking and username policies for more information).
We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia, but users are not allowed to edit with inappropriate usernames, and trolling or other disruptive behavior is not tolerated.
If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.
".|3=Daniel Case|4=2229549}}
I applied the IP block exemption flag in lieu of clearing that autoblock. Please let me know if you still have trouble editing. Kuru(talk)04:33, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Merry Christmas
The UtahraptorTalk/Contribs has given you a Christmas tree! Christmas trees promote WikiLove and are a great way to spread holiday cheer. Merry Christmas!
Spread the WikiLove by adding {{subst:User:The Utahraptor/Christmas tree}} to any editor's talk page with a friendly message.
hi GBfan, this is 3swordz. Didn't want to bother you with this, but there is a user, User:Winston786 on the Punjabi people article who has been disrupting the article's infobox (the personalities) and is not cooperative, forcing his will to add people of limited notability but suit his tastes more (he is an Indian national, and his tastes are not reflective of better known people) . he has been usurping the section and adding people he is a personal fan of. I have made concessions and compromises but this has not stopped him. He is a relatively new user with a little over 100 edits and has demonstrated a pushy streak and blanked sections of other articles; he has also violated 3RR. I added one new personality out of 12, he opposed this and remade it to suit his tastes, adding five new people without consensus, I have even replaced my own choice to satiate him, but he continues to own the article. I have warned him about this, but he simply mimics me instead of being mature and cooperative. I would appreciate your help with this user (and perhaps check if it is a sock?). thanks, 3swordz (talk) 16:59, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
You both are edit warring and both should stop and discuss the pictures that should be in the infobox. I do not know anything about these people, so I can not help you solve your dispute. I will leave a message on Winston786's talk page to try to get them to discuss the pictures there. If they do not discuss it there you can ask for full protection of the article for a while and an admin might grant that to get them to discuss the changes. ~~ GB fan ~~21:05, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
360 degree feedback
Hi GB fan, Like you I have reverted the deletion of the wikilink to Watson Wyatt in the article on 360 degree feedback and when this was reversed I reverted again and have added a request on the Talk page that the policy supporting the non linking be referred to. There appears to be a confusion between adding link spam for commercial purposes and adding wikilinks as far as I can see. Cheers Tmol42 (talk) 02:01, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
360 Feedback
GBFan, Tmol,
I can see we continue to reverse each others' changes regarding the Watson Wyatt link on 360-degree feedback . My reason for deleting the Watson link is that it refers to the Wikipedia page for Watson Wyatt (a commercial enterprise), rather than to the study being mentioned. Having gone through a year ago and cleaned up all the references/citations on this page, I found there were a large number of "studies" that linked to commercial information (although the WW link is a Wikipedia link, it still describes a business), and not the study itself. In order to preserve the non-commercial element here, it's important that this not start up again. For example, I recognize many of the others of the articles cited in the references section. They are solid references and strong studies. Many of them belong to commercial enterprises, and these enterprises conducted the studies-- similar to Pfau of Watson Wyatt. However, does this mean that each of these should refer back to their companies via a Wikipedia link? If the link is regarding 360-degree feedback, great. However, the link does not describe 360, it describes a company. Additionally, although WW is cited here, the WW study isn't considered to be at the same level of rigor, primarily because it was conducted by a commercial enterprise in order support it's own motives and purposes. Linking to a WW page could only serve to promote SEO rankings, as well as promote WW as a business doing 360 feedback. Is this what we're aiming for in this link?
Also, regarding your "citation needed" remarks, the WW study is already cited in the Pfau and Kay reference later in the paragraph.
Thanks for your review. I really do respect the dialogue here. My goal is to provide accurate, unbiased info, without promoting one commercial enterprise over another.
Coaches360 (talk) 23:51, 17 January 2011 (UTC)Coaches360
GB fan,
Thank you for keeping an eye on the Fitchburg, WI Wiki page. I am quite new to the Wiki thing and have made many mistakes with it, as you well know.
I would really like for more information to be able to be included on this Wiki page, however i guess i'm not sure what is appropriate to include. I had added the neighborhoods/associations based off what Fitchburg, MA has on their Wiki page (the links, which where a big mistake/oversight and i apologize profoundly for that, where my attempt to help people get in touch with current residents to learn about Fitchburg incase they are looking into moving here).
Other than the demographics information, what is acceptable to include on this page? (The city motto, Get to Know Us!, has already been vetoed) Can you provide any insight or suggestions on how to make our Wiki page more informative and helpful to people looking for information on Fitchburg, WI?
I know these are very noobish questions, but as nothing i've done has actually been ok, i think i need a bit more help and guidance than the "how to's" provide! I know you're not listed as an 'adopter' and i'm not looking to get that involved, but as you seem to be monitoring the one page i care about, i figured you may be a good resource.
Hi, Skipper, your edits weren't bad, but they don't follow the Manual of Style for Wikipedia. The major one that I saw in your edit was that external links do not belong in the text of the article. If they are appropriate then they belong at the end of the article in their own section. The pertinent guideline is Wikipedia:External links, that page explains what links should be and what shouldn't be included. Adding in information about neighborhoods would be a good addition to the article. Lists embedded into the article with no prose are discouraged at, Wikipedia:Manual of Style (embedded lists). You can probably add in some of the neighborhoods but instead of using a list, write a paragraph about them. If you can find any reliable sources that discuss the neighborhoods, you should add them as references. If you need any assistance let me know. ~~ GB fan ~~13:03, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
3RR violation reported
I am placing this notice on your page because of your prior involvement with User:Markglad and the article Thomas Jefferson. After responding to a request for third opinion I placed the article on my watch list, within hours I noticed the occurring of constant reverts. After viewing the article history, it appears that four editors(including yourself) have been reverting unilateral additions by Markglad against consensus. Viewing his edit history, he seems to have very few edits outside of the edit war on the Jefferson article. I believe this to be grounds for a block of some sort so I have placed this matter before the administrator's noticeboard. If there is anything you can add to the report there, please do so.
nonsense with thisWikiManOnespeaking drivel!17:33, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
IRC invitation
Because I have noticed you commenting at the current RfC regarding Pending Changes, I wanted to invite you to the IRC channel for pending changes. If you are not customarily logged into the IRC, use this link. This under used resource can allow real time discussion at this particularly timely venture of the trial known as Pending Changes. Even if nothing can come from debating points there, at least this invitation is delivered with the best of intentions and good faith expectations. Kind regards. My76Strat09:15, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Biography banner parameters
Hey, I've been noticing you are adding the bio banner and adding parameters to new articles. Thank you, especially adding the work-group and listas parameters... they are almost never added. I saw you weren't assessing the class parameter. Could you do that too. 150,000 biography articles haven't been assessed, so if you don't do it, nobody will. Just a quick "stub" if the article is short or "start" if it is long. Just use your best judgement.
I also saw you requested approval for AWB. That program is a time saver. I just wrote some instructions (how good of instructions is a different story) on how to use AWB with the biography banner for another new user of AWB. Instructions are here. Yell if you need any help.
btw.. I've been coming behind you and adding DEFAULTSORT and Persondata to the articles. If the bio banner has to be added, I bet $10 that DEFAULT and/or Persondata has to be added to the main article too. I've been using AWB for that. Bgwhite (talk) 06:07, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the info about AWB. I had gotten access and hadn't figured out how to use it, your instructions really helped. I am working on how to use AWB, but I have started to do the assessments and adding persondata and defaultsort. ~~ GB fan ~~22:40, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
I have two AWBs running at the same time. One for the talk page and one for the article. I create the list of talk pages in one AWB, copy the list over to the other AWB using ctrl-c/ctrl-v. At the top of AWB under "list", choose "convert from talk page" and the list of talk pages you copied now becomes a list of the main articles. Only two options I change when doing the articles is "Enable Regex TypoFix" under option in the bottom middle screen... might as well fix typos at the same time. The other is under "options" at the top of AWB. Make sure "restrict DEFAULTSORT change/addition" is not checked. Yell any time. Bgwhite (talk) 23:12, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Sory I knocked out your template. We seem to have edit conflicted, but I've put it back now so it should be ok. While I'm here just wondering if you know what the correct category should be for someone British born outside the UK. If you don't, no worries, I'll ask at the helpdesk. Cheers. TheRetroGuy (talk) 13:15, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
No I don't know, I am just working with Biographies adding Persondata into the article and the WPBiography template on the talk page, haven't done much with categories. ~~ GB fan ~~13:17, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
I went through the article. I cleaned up a lot of promotional language that does not belong in an encyclopdic article. I removed the tag at the top of the article, but I placed a bunch of specific fact tags because there is a bunch of glowing information that is not sourced. Wikipedia is not the place to write a campaign ad, these will have a short life in the article unless they are sourced. Also I have nominated the picture used in the article for deletion because it comes from http://www.kdvr.com/news/politics/kdvr-mejia-picks-up-pena-endorsement-20110316,0,6324847.story If you have any questions let me know. GB fan (talk) 00:21, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hello
While I appreciate you finding the article that referenced the subject as "40 Biggest Players Of Australia's Digital Age" it was from 2007 and the claim should be rewritten in the past tense. Neither the subject or his company http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/The_Podcast_Network would be considered to be in this position now. His company is barely in existence and the subject is now a marketing manager for a outdoor decking company. He is no longer involved in the MODM, Melbourne's Online Digital Media forum and as for his contribution to online media issues - these are solely confined to his Twitter feed.
I believe the article on Mr Reilly deserves deletion due to it's content being outdated and Mr Reilly is not a person of importance. Does everyone who has a podcast deserve their own Wikipedia page? While his accomplishments in the past have been recognised they are hardly of any historical importance that they require preserving for the ages.
As have stated Mr Reilly is now longer involved in the industry to the same degree that he once was. This should be reflected in the article or the article should just be removed.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I am script illiterate also, I saw the script that I gave to you at the HD. I would suggest asking Anomie or maybe posting back at the Help desk. Sorry. GB fan (talk) 20:51, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
I apologize, I don't even remember doing that edit. ALL I can think of is that I must have accidently clicked on the revert link. I did not mean anything by it and once again I apologize. GB fan (talk) 20:38, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
NWO talk page plagued by incessant personal attacks
GB fan, if I recall correctly you are an administrator. This probably isn't Wikipedia protocol, but because I have never had to deal with something that got quite this bad before, I'm unfamiliar with the standard procedure. Basically, there's a user (TheIsraelite777) who is hellbent on returning to the Talk:New World Order (conspiracy theory) talk page to launch personal attacks against myself, Loremaster, and other editors, as well as soapbox the truth to us. We've tried reason and debate, but we can't assume good faith on this user's part any longer. The user ignores all references to and explanations of policy and insists that we are conspiring to remove his comments from the talk page (some were removed for personal attacks, others were simply archived) and keep his edits out of the article. The user has also gone to my user page to retrieve information from my user boxes and then use it in his arguments on the talk page to attack me personally (which doesn't actually bother me - after all it's info I knowingly published on my user page, but I'm unequipped to prevent him from spewing it onto the NWO talk page, where that kind of stuff doesn't belong). If you could take a look, or advise me on what to do next (is it worthy to report it on the noticeboard, or need it get worst first, etc.?) I'd appreciate it. Cheers, JohnShandy` • talk00:43, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Sorry John I am not an administrator. I would recommend taking this to Wikiquette alerts, from the little I have read on the talk page his actions are inappropriate. You should be able to get some impartial editors to talk to him. If you post there make sure you let him know that you raised the issue there. GB fan (talk) 01:15, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi GB fan/Archive 3. The Wikipedia Schools Project has set up a dedicated help and feedback page at WP:WPSCH/H. This for elementary/primary, middle, and high schools (often called college in the UK). It is not for universities or other degree awarding institutions. If you regularly give advice to users, you might wish to send enquirers there - we are quick to respond. However, WT:WPSCH still remains the place for general discussion about the management and policy of school articles. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:24, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
I've declined your speedy because the article is not the same as the deleted at AfD one. You are welcome to try any other category that fits, or prod it or AfD it again. I'm no dog expert, but the pics at http://www.dogbreedinfo.com/alopekis.htm suggest mutt to me.... Peridon (talk) 17:07, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know, I didn't know if it was the same, Someone else prodded it and I noticed it was already deleted via an AFD. Will probably resend it to AFD later. GB fan (talk) 19:55, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
According to a former poodle breeder I know, it's not on the Kennel Club lists here in the UK. The dogbreedinfo.com site looks as if it may rely on sent-in stuff. I'm not sure. Peridon (talk) 20:06, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
"Tras confirmar el procesamiento, los jueces también ratificaron el embargo de 200 mil pesos, pero descartaron la posibilidad de que los empresarios fuesen detenidos"
"Fueron embargados por 200 mil pesos y quedaron al borde del juicio oral."
I think it would good to have an Argentine lawyer, or someone familiarized with argentine Law (legal tranlsator) to interpretate what the source say or at least a good legal dictionary available for free (from Argentina of course). I think you have to go to trial before being found "culpable" (guilty) (Art. 18.- Ningún habitante de la Nación puede ser penado sin juicio). I have also tried to find the meaning of "embargo" (which i don't know) in wordreference http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=234654 and other places, although without being a lawyer it would be difficult to fully grasp what embargo means considering i'm not familiarized with argentinian law, but it looks like "embargo" in Argentina is a "medida cautelar".
Furthermore, if it is a medida cautelar, this part:"were sentenced to pay $ 200,000 (USD 50,000)." may not be a correct translation (maybe they will be returned the money or not depending on the results affter the juicio oral). If it is not a medida cautelar, and there is a 100% certainty they will pay that money, and won't see that money again, i think it's ok to say that they were sentenced to pay that amount. In short: Talk:Taringa!
You noticed the gregarious amounts of new articles without living parameter today. Vast majority was done by a %(#*(? sockpuppet that has been around three to four years. The case is open at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sheynhertz-Unbayg and the archives in the case show copious amounts of other instances for the past year. User:Kusma has been the point person on the sockpuppet. I usually undo what the sockpuppet has done if the article wasn't created by him. If he created the article, I just keep WikiProject Anthroponymy and/or WikiProject Disambiguous.
Thanks for keeping up with the new additions. I also try to keep up. Hopefully between the two of us, it will stay clean. Bgwhite (talk) 22:52, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Rebecca Black
Here is the Verifiable reference for the Rebecca Black thing, www.rebeccablackonline.com. I am talking with Billboard.com right now, because they are the source of the false information. For god's sake, Wikipedia lists www.rebeccablackonline.com as Rebecca's official website. Scroll down and look on the right side, it lists her management. Please help, thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DillonMN (talk • contribs) 00:09, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
I don't know that he is alive, but that field must be no if we know he is not alive or yes if we have no objective data that he is dead. The article says that he is possibly living, so we add yes to that field. So we err on the conservative side and treat people as living until we know that they aren't. GB fan (talk) 14:28, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
As one of the editors who has made improvements to the United States Bill of Rights article recently this notice has been left to inform you that it has been selected as the United States Wikipedians' Collaboration of the Month for June 2011. The goal this month is to get this article to Good Article standards or better by July 4th, 2011. You can also vote for next months article of the Month or submit a candidate for article of the month here. --Kumioko (talk) 02:22, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
I just wanted to take a minute to thank you very much for supporting me in my recent RfA. Even though it was unsuccessful, I appreciate your trust. With much gratitude, jsfouche ☽☾Talk02:15, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Help with adding biography banner parameters
I know you just loooooove adding the living parameter to bio banners. So, I'm wonder if you want to love other categories or if you are just a Wikipedia monogamist. It is getting harder and harder to keep up with the new articles that don't contain the listas parameter in bio banners. A group of us have cleared out those starting with A-G and T-Z. We are trying to work on the rest. At 0z everyday, a bot runs adding the bio banner to new articles. Some days there are 20 new articles, but other days there are 70. So, I'm getting swamped with new articles and not giving enough time to the old.
Adding listas can be tricky. Chinese names are ordered surname firstname. Vietnamese, Burmese, Icelandic, Arabic, Latin and Spanish/Portuguese names also follow different patterns. Old Japanese names follow the Chinese pattern, new names follow the western pattern, but Sumo wrestlers still follow the old pattern.
I do work on them from time to time, I probably will spend more time trying to get that backlog cleaned up with you. I won't be on as much this week as I normally am but I will try to spend some time on helping. GB fan (talk) 11:32, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. This will really help out alot. You only have to do the new names in A-G and T-Z, plus names you are comfortable with. There are alot of Latin and Icelandic names I haven't done because I'm not sure what to do about these. An "expert" has been sick an off wiki for awhile. Bgwhite (talk) 17:25, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
There is still a lot of discussion going on and it has only been open for about 24 hours. I don't believe it is a valid close at this point. I won't undo it again no matter who does it. GB fan (talk) 01:31, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Pocketbook Reader
Hi GB Fan,
I'm wondering why you ask me to split it up to separate points because this way it will take weeks to go thru them
all. Wikipedia Discussion is not really made to go back and forth really quickly and that is why I added those points
and made a specific line for every item and also argued for every item why it needs to be changed.
Using a citation to back up a broad fact that is implied for all devices while the citation article mentions one device
only does not seem to be correct.
The reason I suggest that is because the two of you have a history. Part of the complaint that I have seen on the pages is that mass changes are done and then undone. So if you start out slow and get in the habit of working together instead of against each other the two of you might find common ground. Then you can probably start taking bigger chunks. Also with a long laundry list of discussion points it is hard to have a coherent conversation about the points. Hope this explains my thought process. GB fan (talk) 13:03, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Okay I understand the reasoning and I try to not feel wronged because if you look at the edits that Brainsteinko undid in bunchundo, most of that you did too in your cleanup. He did not clean up specific points but he just went undo on all of it.
But still could you comment on the issues where a citation has been used to back up a claim that is the way its presented implied for all devices while the citation is for one device specifically. BottomDog (talk) 13:10, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
I will look at the citation and the sentence. I probably won't have time for a few hours but I will look at it today. I can probably get by with some stuff that you can't with Brainsteinko because I don't have the history of back and forth editing with them. GB fan (talk) 13:37, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Very much appreciated. This is quite an involved process, thanks for the mentoring. Since you have moved ahead with the changes I've updated the talk page to reflect this and highlighted the next point on the list. This will be a tougher nut to crack - at least to a newb like me. How do I proof that the article gets it wrong from start to finish besides showing that the info presented is nowhere to be seen on the official page. The site itself does seem to be legit, but the article is from before the release of the models. BottomDog (talk) 20:42, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Could you please check the Pocketbook article. Brainsteinko is again changing the article without talking about the changes first. BottomDog (talk) 09:20, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Brainsteinko appears to be talking now. I will continue to follow the article and if you two need assistance I will try to help but this isn't an article I am really interested in editing. I was more interested in trying to get you two to talk and not get blocked. GB fan (talk) 11:08, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes indeed. Thanks for the intervention, I'll let you know if things work out or if the edit-disagreements heat up again. BottomDog (talk) 16:34, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Wonderful!
Thank you for adding the image of Jay Scott Pike! It is so rare for there to be a usable image of comic book artists from his era, and I am just so happily surprised to see Mr. Pike's there. Just wanted to pass along a compliment to a fellow editor. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:30, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
I saw you put List of dog breeds up for peer review. I was just wondering what you thought of the idea of linking the individual breed standards to the individual kennel club classifications for each breed?
eg:
I like the idea. We are going to have to ignore a guideline if we do this. WP:EL says that external links "should not normally be used in the body of an article." If we put everyone of those as a reference, we would have an unmanageable number of references at the bottom of the page. I pulled the table into Excel and had it count up the number of citations we would need to properly reference all the cells. There are 501 breeds on the list.
Cells needing referencing
Countries of origin - 501
Extinct - 27
FCI - 328
AKC - 233
ANKC - 179
CKC - 186
KC - 186
NZKC - 194
UKC - 315
That gives us 2149 cells to reference, minus the few that already have references. Some of these would be able to be duplicated but we are still talking over 1500 individual references on this list. I think that is justification enough to use inline external links to the different breed standards. We could probably reference the country of origin column, but that would still be 501 references on the list. GB fan (talk) 16:51, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes I see what you mean about WP:EL. I certainly think that the inline external links would be well worth it. Perhaps it would also be a good idea to put a note on the page discussion outlining why the WP:EL wasn't followed to the letter. I get on to putting the references in :) Keetanii (talk) 23:51, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Oh that, You closed it and didn't want anyone else to place comments. You then continued to comment, you should abide by what you decided about that conversation, so I just stated that. GB fan (talk) 00:39, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
59.96.59.55
That IP address made unauthorized changes to the article. It should be clearly known that we know damned well Myspace and such is not accepted. I tried to remove everything that was wrong.Please help us keep this strong and clean and correct.We'll do our best. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnotherGenericUser (talk • contribs) 16:28, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
You say that IP address made "unauthorized changes to the article", who do you think should authorize changes to the article? How do you know the IP has been banned? Your original post the helpdesk said you were threatened or harrassed, is this same IP address the one who is threatening or harrassing you? If so how are they doing that because I see no evidence on wikipedia of that happening? The edits you removed from the article, while not technically the best and not that bad and aren't something that need to be reported anywhere. GB fan (talk) 20:46, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
WDTN
Discussion copied to Talk:WDTN and should continue there
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I respectfully disagree with your addition of that tag in that specific section of WDTN. First, per WP:V, not everything must be referenced (that is, we're not Veropedia). Even WP:BLP doesn't require that everything be referenced--merely stating that unreferenced information must be removed if contentious or negative, and that other unreferenced information can be removed. Second, the presumption is that the information is referenced--it's referenced on the blue-linked pages of the people themselves. In fact, if we looked at those pages, and the information was not referenced there, then they should actually be removed from the WDTN list per WP:NLIST. Now, I monitor a fairly large number of TV pages, and routinely remove people from lists of these type unless they either have their own Wikipage or they have a reference verifying that they worked at the station and are at least somewhat important (NLIST says something like "important enough to be mentioned in prose in the article"). Theoretically, all of the blue-links should be checked, but the effort of doing so is so tremendous that it goes beyond what anyone I know is willing to do. But if a reference was found on the person's page, there is no requirement that the reference be duplicated on the station page. I respectfully request that you remove the unreferenced section tag, as no policy requires it. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:11, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
And I respectfully disagree with your standpoint. WP:V says I can remove any material in an article if there isn't a source that directly supports it and that if someone readds it, the burden is on them to show it belongs. I am not removing any material just asking for it to be sourced. If you remove it again I won't reinstate it again, but I won't remove it. Julie Chen's article says she worked there but there is no reference tied to the statement. Jodine Costanzo's article also says she worked there but there is no citation. Phil Donahue's article says he worked at WLWD (now WDTN), but still no reference tied to the statement. Johnny Gilbert's article is the same as Phil Donahue's. Kris Long's article has no reference tied to the statement he worked there and the one reference on the article does not mention WDTN. Dan Patrick's article doesn't even mention WDTN. So I do not believe asking for citations is to much to ask. GB fan (talk) 00:33, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
In that case (and I thank you for making the detailed check), it seems that WP:NLIST requires that we remove all of the names from the list. Do you agree? Qwyrxian (talk) 00:50, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Removal or give it a little but of time to see if sources are found. I am willing to wait a little, but if you feel that they should be removed right now I won't object. But then we should also look at removing the information from the respective articles also. GB fan (talk) 00:54, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Give me a chance to find sources before removing. Just returned to Wiki after a couple week break and discovered this. (Also should have placed on Talk:WDTN, not here.) I've found sources for Len Berman, haven't added yet. Not sure about Johnny Gilbert. Dan Patrick definitely worked in Dayton radio, can't remember that far back if he did TV work, will investigate. The other staff mentioned did work at WDTN, will try to source. Julie Chen should additionally have a slightly longer description, as she's more well known today for Big Brother and The Talk. --Chaswmsday (talk) 12:03, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
I had no intention of removing those names any time soon. I believe them to be true, but they need to be sourced and I thought sources could be found. I would have just pulled sources from the respective articles if they had been there. The articles talk page would have been better but this is where it started. GB fan (talk) 12:10, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Sorry for misunderstanding, but you have 876th place in most edits (38002). Nice! Probably changed by the time you read this. Here:
Hello! Since 10.28.2010 has given you some cookies. Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully these have made your day better. Happy munching!
Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:plate}} to someone's talk page, or eat these cookies on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munchplate}}.
Thank you very much for your support on my RfA. I shall endeavor to meet your and the community's expectations as an admin. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:50, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Editor review
Hi, I noticed the link in your signature asking for a review a while ago and have looked at the page at Wikipedia:Editor review/GB fan 2. What exactly do I have to do in order to write a review of your editing? I haven't done this before. Can you give me some links where I can read about how that works? Then I would be happy to review your editing, if you like. Please leave me a talkback template on my talkpage after responding to this question, because otherwise it might be possible that I will overlook it (since I have hundreds of pages on my watchlist). Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 00:29, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
I assume you misread what you were doing when you made this edit, because it didn't make any sense. Apollo 18 is a cancelled mission; Apollo 18 is not cancelled missions. Theoldsparkle (talk) 18:19, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
I didn't remove the band link, I moved it to the proper place on the page. And, from WP:PIPING --> Exceptions --> Where piping may be appropriate --> "When the link is in the description, rather than at the start of the entry, piping can be used more freely." Referring to the Apollo lunar program is clearer than simply referring to "Apollo missions." Theoldsparkle (talk) 22:19, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Confirmed status
about the confirmed status request: the image i wish to upload is the logo of the project for that very same article page. i gained the rights to upload it to the English wikipedia, not on commons. You can see the logo either on the webpage of the project, or on the German version of the article. Many greetings — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.149.101.153 (talk) 09:17, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi I am from India, People called me Kalki Avatar. Hindu Holy Book says Kalki Avatar comes in Judgement days. Holy Koran says Isa Asalam comes in Judgement days. Holy Bible says Jesus comes in Judgement days. Kalki Avatar will have all three names. I am Kalki Avatar. I what you to put my website link (Redacted) in Harold_Camping page. Harold told Oct/21/2011 is Judgement days and Jesus appear. I want send my message to world through Harold_Camping page. Please keep (Redacted) link in Harold_Camping page so that by Oct/21/2011 world will know Jesus came to world. Please do this help.
Your personal website does not belong anywhere in Wikipedia. External links on articles are only for links that help expand on the subject of the article. Your website is your personal opinion about things and Wikipedia is not the place to publish original thoughts. If you become notable your page might be appropriate for an article about you. GBfanplease review my editing14:05, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
As I am not an admin, all I can do is look at the request and ask for more information if it is needed. I can also deny requests if it will not be possible to do the request. GBfanplease review my editing16:42, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
your RfA
Hello GB fan, I just wanted to know that I put forth two questions on your RfA. I want to know your knowledge of this policy before I cast out my official opinion, to make sure you know what you are doing. smithers - talk04:49, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. After my last RFA one of the concerns was my username so I changed it and I am a big Green Bay Packers fan so I went with that. GBfan16:59, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for handling the disruptive permissions request -- I've redacted the edit summaries since the auto-summary included the disruptive section name. Cheers, Feezo(send a signal | watch the sky) 17:02, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for cleaning that up. I should have removed that from my edit summary before saving, lesson learned. GBfan19:55, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Creating my talk page
Dear GB fan,
Thanks for creating a talk page on my behalf on September 4. This was highly appreciated. It just took me a while to respond because I still had a problem in creating my user page, and I concentrated on that issue. My user page now has been set up, and I am looking forward to start making contributions to Wikipedia.
--Rtlam (talk) 19:48, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
You are welcome and if you ever need any help, let me know. I will either try to help or at least point you in a direction to get help. Once again welcome to Wikipedia. GBfan19:53, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
You have my sincere condolences on your recent downgrade to administrator. I really hate to see such a great and outstanding editor turn to the darkside. Thank you for the help you have given me. Bgwhite (talk) 05:00, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
(You are receiving this message because you are either a task force member, or you have contributed to recent discussions on any of these pages.)
The number of nominations continues to nosedive seriously, according to these monthly figures. We know why this is, and if the trend continues our reserve of active admins will soon be underwater. Wikipedia now needs suitable editors to come forward. This can only be achieved either through changes to the current system, a radical alternative, or by fiat from elsewhere.
A lot of work is constantly being done behind the scenes by the coordinators and task force members, such as monitoring the talk pages, discussing new ideas, organising the project pages, researching statistics and keeping them up to date. You'll also see for example that we have recently made tables to compare how other Wikipedias choose their sysops, and some tools have been developed to more closely examine !voters' habits.
The purpose of WP:RFA2011 is to focus attention on specific issues of our admin selection process and to develop RfC proposals for solutions to improve them. For this, we have organised the project into dedicated sections each with their own discussion pages. It is important to understand that all Wikipedia policy changes take a long time to implement whether or not the discussions appear to be active - getting the proposals right before offering them for discussion by the broader community is crucial to the success of any RfC. Consider keeping the pages and their talk pages on your watchlist; do check out older threads before starting a new one on topics that have been discussed already, and if you start a new thread, please revisit it regularly to follow up on new comments.
The object of WP:RFA2011 is not to make it either easier or harder to become an admin - those criteria are set by those who !vote at each RfA. By providing a unique venue for developing ideas for change independent of the general discussion at WT:RFA, the project has two clearly defined goals:
Improving the environment that surrounds RfA in order to encourage mature, experienced editors of the right calibre to come forward, pass the interview, and dedicate some of their time to admin tasks.
Discouraging, in the nicest way possible of course, those whose RfA will be obvious NOTNOW or SNOW, and to guide them towards the advice pages.
The fastest way is through improvement to the current system. Workspace is however also available within the project pages to suggest and discuss ideas that are not strictly within the remit of this project. Users are invited to make use of these pages where they will offer maximum exposure to the broader community, rather than individual projects in user space.
We already know what's wrong with RfA - let's not clutter the project with perennial chat. RFA2011 is now ready to propose some of the elements of reform, and all the task force needs to do now is to pre-draft those proposals in the project's workspace, agree on the wording, and then offer them for central discussion where the entire Wikipedia community will be more than welcome to express their opinions in order to build consensus.
New tool Check your RfA !voting history! Since the editors' RfA !vote counter at X!-Tools has been down for a long while, we now have a new RfA Vote Counter to replace it. A significant improvement on the former tool, it provides a a complete breakdown of an editor's RfA votes, together with an analysis of the participant's voting pattern.
Are you ready to help? Although the main engine of RFA2011 is its task force, constructive comments from any editors are always welcome on the project's various talk pages. The main reasons why WT:RfA was never successful in getting anything done are that threads on different aspects of RfA are all mixed together, and are then archived where nobody remembers them and where they are hard to find - the same is true of ad hoc threads on the founder's talk page.
Thanks for stopping that "speedy delete" for Madcap Mabel since I wrote the little article and made no indication that I wanted it removed myself, as was indicated by whomever left that notice. Upsmiler (talk) 13:53, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
You are welcome, but I think you missed read the speedy delete tag. The speedy delete tag did not say you wanted it deleted. It said the article was about a real person and there was no indication of significance. I removed the speedy delete tag because of a technical reason, the article is about a film and that is not eligible for speedy deletion. GBfan14:43, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
I see. I didn't know films weren't eligible for speedy deletion although they obviously shouldn't be. A few weeks ago someone tagged Cary Grant's and Myrna Loy's first movie together, Wings in the Dark, but we resolved that one. Congratulations on becoming an Administrator, by the way, we certainly need sensible people to curb the vandals. And it's sad that someone thought Madcap Mabel was the article about Mabel Normand, not to mention that she has no significance. Upsmiler (talk) 12:48, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
and i also forget to tell you to put the released date when the album comes out and also where they are recording their new album at and also the label is called victory records. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Victoryfan (talk • contribs) 23:51, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Just go and watch close your eyes music videos on youtube and tell me what you think of them. Or just look up close your eyes (band) on wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Victoryfan (talk • contribs) 00:24, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
I still do not know why you are asking me to do this. If you want it done, why don't you do it yourself? GBfan00:31, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Well maybe you should raise this on the article's talk page and see if there is someone there that is interested in adding this information. GBfan00:52, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Put The Plot In You (band) from rise records on wikipedia please. And don't give me any of that stuff you say like i don't know who they are or their album. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Victoryfan (talk • contribs) 01:02, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
No, I do not know that band either. If you want someone to do this go to the talk page of the article you want modified and put your request on that page. I am done with this conversation and will not answer anymore requests. GBfan01:37, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
TW
Hi buddy, thanks for your help on the Twinkle talk page. Just a question, I had already created User:Jared Preston/vector.js with Twinkle options. Do I still need to create User:Jared Preston/twinkleoptions.js for it to work, or can I just plonk it into the /vector.js file? I'm not so great at understanding technical details, so your patience is very much appreciated! It would be great to combine the two, because I remember when I started using TW how annoying it was with the automatic watchlisting of reverted pages. Jared Preston (talk) 22:50, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Wow, because I had always used the gadget over my preferences, I never realised how many settings there are. I copied and pasted as required, and removed the text from the /vector.js file, and now it's good to go. Thanks very much for your help! Jared Preston (talk) 23:16, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Okay, now I understand why. Sorry about any inconvenience I gave you. I wish I could be a better member of Wikipedia.
Tell me what should I do and what should I avoid.
Thanks for the explanation.
Benedict Sarino — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benedict Sarino (talk • contribs) 12:32, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
It is not a problem. There are many people who come here and don't know what Wikipedia is. You will do fine here. The most important thing to remember is bold, revert, discuss. What this means is you can make a Bold edit, as you did at Empires & Allies. Then that information was Reverted. The best next step is to Discuss the reasons why you added the information and why the other editor reverted the edit. What you did is to continue to revert the information rather than discussing the information. Then when you didn't get your way you moved the article to an improper name. A good place to start on learning about Wikipedia is to read Wikipedia:Five pillars. That is the basis for all the rules on Wikipedia. If you follow these guidelines you will do just fine here and you won't have to worry about being blocked. If you have any questions feel free to ask them here. GBfan13:30, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
I guess you are talking about this, Wikipedia:WikiKnight. I do not believe that is a real group here on Wikipedia. The first box at the top of the page says, " it is considered humorous – please do not take it seriously." You can ask on the talk page if you like, Wikipedia talk:WikiKnight. GBfan14:05, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
While I do understand why you would say to confirm the link with the main account, there is a funny thing. I actually was trying to, but I kept having trouble with how my phone handles symbols. Thanks anyways. I apparently found out that I had to use [http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Special:Log?page=User:GarfieldRoX5697 verify] instead of [[Special:Log/User:GarfieldRoX5697]].
Also, I was planning to just remove the whole subst'd template, and resubst it after I had made my "proof reply".
Another thing that is ironic is that the account actually has 9 edits currently out of the 10 needed to get autoconfirmed status. If I can figure out mIRC's syntax for sockets, I could probably use it for using IRC commands to do wiki tasks. (perhaps you could say it is a manually controlled bot) Just some things that might be interesting to you. LikeLakers2 (talk | Sign my guestbook!) 01:19, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Pleas undelete "Sensory Interventions for Preterm Infants"
You deleted my article: "Sensory Interventions for Preterm Infants" because it did not contain any substantive information. I was in the very beginning process of writing it and I did not get a chance to upload the rest of the information before it was deleted. The content is formatted and ready to be uploaded. Please undelete the page so that I can create it. Thank you. Lalezars (talk) 20:36, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
You might want to look at this one again and read the note I had placed on the talk page. It doesn't terribly matter whether or not the IP is telling the truth that he was the original author. Considering that every IP that has worked on the article geolocates to the same location, and in three years nobody else has seemed to take the slightest interest in the article, I'm willing to AGF that the IP is the author. Combined with the obvious conflict of interest, notability issues, etc, you can take your pick... G7 or A7. Either way it's saving anyone else from having to deal with an AfD that will be a unanimous delete. Trusilver00:01, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
for answering that difficult question on the Help Desk just now. -- John of Reading (talk) 12:00, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
You're welcome! An editor since 10.28.2010. 19:01, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Enjoy. Deleted correctlyIf I see it correctly. I was going to say good luck, but unless you do something incredibly stupid in the next 2 days your going to pass the RFA. 
