Revision as of 13:46, 29 March 2016 editGB fan (talk | contribs)Oversighters, Administrators103,393 edits →Editor who said he would maintain distance, comes AGAIN!: re← Previous edit | Revision as of 13:48, 29 March 2016 edit undoMaranoFan (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers30,238 edits →Editor who said he would maintain distance, comes AGAIN!Next edit → | ||
Line 97: | Line 97: | ||
:::::Why would I be blocked because I don't like people gossiping about me? Chill. The edit has been restored.--] (]) 13:37, 29 March 2016 (UTC) | :::::Why would I be blocked because I don't like people gossiping about me? Chill. The edit has been restored.--] (]) 13:37, 29 March 2016 (UTC) | ||
::::::{{u|MaranoFan}}, if you don't want people gossiping about you and you believe it constitutes harassment, take it to ANI (as you have). Do not remove posts from others talk pages if the only reason is that they are gossiping about you. The block would be for the disruptive editing you would be doing by removing posts. If you don't remove them there is no need for a block, it is all up to you. -- ] ] 13:46, 29 March 2016 (UTC) | ::::::{{u|MaranoFan}}, if you don't want people gossiping about you and you believe it constitutes harassment, take it to ANI (as you have). Do not remove posts from others talk pages if the only reason is that they are gossiping about you. The block would be for the disruptive editing you would be doing by removing posts. If you don't remove them there is no need for a block, it is all up to you. -- ] ] 13:46, 29 March 2016 (UTC) | ||
::And since you are an admin, can you please join the discussion at ANI?--] (]) 13:48, 29 March 2016 (UTC) |
Revision as of 13:48, 29 March 2016
User page Talk Links Sandbox Dashboard
This user is the owner of one other Misplaced Pages account in a manner permitted by policy and it is registered with the arbitration committee. |
Archives | ||||||||||||||||
Index
|
||||||||||||||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 21 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
|
Balkan cuisine
Hi there. I've come across the deletion of the "Balkan cuisine" article as a result of the various redlinks that are left. I was wondering if you thought it would be better simply to remove the redlinks, or alternatively to recreate the page as a disambiguation page linking to the culinary articles for the various Balkan countries. Polly Tunnel (talk) 11:37, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
- I just deleted an expired Prod, I do not know the background on the article or the inclination to do the research right now. You might try talking to the editor that proposed the article for deletion, Damianmx. -- GB fan 13:27, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
A cup of coffee for you!
observe the message and answer me in time wiki tamil 100 11:17, 14 March 2016 (UTC) |
- To begin with WP:G7 only applies if the original and only significant contributor requests the deletion. Since you had never edited the article before you could not have been the original and only significant contributor to the article. Therefore WP:G7 does not apply. Next, you have created work by creating a new article with a different spelling about the same community. The proper way to change the name of an article is to move it to the new name, not create a new article and delete the old one. It isn't really evident from the one source that is on both articles what the correct spelling is. It is spelled as Kottucherri, Kottucherri Commune, Kottucherry Commune and Kottucherry in the one source. Thew article I declined the speedy delete on is not spelled either way, Kottucheri, the spelling on the article you created is the same as the source Kottucherry. What I have done is to history merge the two articles together at your new name. If it needs to be changed to something else we can fix that later. -- GB fan
Socking
Socking on the Libby Schaaf article by new account User:Izzane10. Elaenia (talk) 16:37, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- It doesn't surprise me that the socking occurred. Someone else, blocked them and the article is now protected. -- GB fan 18:15, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
User:Miskonius
Done -- GB fan 10:21, 22 March 2016 (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.
I just removed the speedy deletion tag from User:Miskonius. Apparently my edit conflicted with your deletion.
It is my view that an attempted COI disclosure, even if not perfect in form, cannot reasonably be construed as blatantly promotional. Please restore this page. DES 22:20, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
- Strongly disagree, a COI or paid-editing disclosure needs to have the words "conflict of interest" or "paid" in it- that userpage just said he worked for a company, and spammed a link to the company, and their address. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:28, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
- It was, nonetheless, a reasonable attempt at declaring his COI, Joseph2302. It would have been easy to explain to Miskonius exactly how to declare a paid COI. If you really felt that the link was "spam" in that connection (I think it is a reasonable way to identify the employer in question) you could have asked him to remove it. WP:CSD#G11 "applies to pages that are exclusively promotional and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic." Removal of one link and one address, even if judged essential, does not constitute a "fundamental rewrite". And even if it did, why not try asking first? The user had been responsive to the gjuidance he had received so far, to the best of my understanding. This sort of thing is exactly what WP:BITE is about. I am prepared to take the deletion to WP:DRV if i must -- I won't wheel-war by simply undeleting.
- GB fan, I trust that this makes my view clear, but feel free to ping me or post on my talk page if you have any questions about my view on this matter, or to let me know your reaction, please. DES 00:07, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
- DES If I may add, I found disclosing the company's site important since the company does not have a Misplaced Pages page and it is not linked within the article. Phone number was put for the case if someone wants to validate me because this also could be the case of false impersonation. Saying that I work for this or that company does not make me valid per se and it does not make it true. Such claims need to be proven or at least there should be provided sufficient info in case someone wants to validate me.
What if, f.e. I was a hired by a competitor company to trash KillDisk and Lsoft on Misplaced Pages and I havent provided a single reference that could be checked? Miskonius (talk) 00:20, 22 March 2016 (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.Block evasion 2001:4C50:19F:9C00:*
Hi GB fan, re your recent block of ip 2001:4C50:19F:9C00:C170:43B9:A09D:76D1 as block evasion of ip 2001:4C50:19F:9C00:1D8:EEEE:CA1E:EB63 (blocked by Kinu), I had a look at the contribs of 2001:4C50:19F:9C00.*. Looking at their edits, edit summaries and style, it looks like they're all one and the same person. For instance:
- 2001:4C50:19F:9C00:FD22:9DD6:8084:28E0, 22 Mar 2016
- 2001:4C50:19F:9C00:14C7:5439:D452:2E1C 18, 20 Mar
- 2001:4C50:19F:9C00:29C4:B8A4:FE0C:991A 18 Mar 2016
- 2001:4C50:19F:9C00:9199:E297:E0BC:F1D 15, 16, 17 Mar 2016
- 2001:4C50:19F:9C00:11BD:D1CC:C8C8:EE65 14 Mar 2016
- 2001:4C50:19F:9C00:711A:B5D1:E0FB:40C2 13 Mar 2016
- 2001:4C50:19F:9C00:2CF8:FB3:E1B0:79FA 12 Mar 2016
I guess that technically the one on top of the list is in block evasion? - DVdm (talk) 22:57, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
- It probably was block evasion but it appears they have moved on. -- GB fan 23:47, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
- Not really moved on far away: :-) - DVdm (talk) 12:08, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- When I said "it appears they have moved on" I was specifically talking about 2001:4C50:19F:9C00:FD22:9DD6:8084:28E0 moving onto a new IP address and there being no need top block the IP because of that. -- GB fan 12:17, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- Ah, indeed. It looks like they're going on a rampage again. Bizarre. - DVdm (talk) 12:28, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- I don't know if a range block is viable to stop them and I am not knowledgeable of range blocks so I don't do them. You might want to see if anyone listed here is available to look at this. -- GB fan 12:33, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- Ok, we'll see how it evolves. Meanwhile it seems that they "ignore blocks" anyway. I was tempted to undo their edits, but decided not to rush it. By now I notice that others already took care of that—thanks, JamesBWatson. Up to the next move—perhaps they should appeal to Angela Merkel . Cheers & thx. - DVdm (talk) 12:49, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- I saw that post also as I was cleaning up some of their edits. It is very obvious from their edits that they could care less about the policies here. I am sure we will see them again. -- GB fan 12:54, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- Ok, we'll see how it evolves. Meanwhile it seems that they "ignore blocks" anyway. I was tempted to undo their edits, but decided not to rush it. By now I notice that others already took care of that—thanks, JamesBWatson. Up to the next move—perhaps they should appeal to Angela Merkel . Cheers & thx. - DVdm (talk) 12:49, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- I don't know if a range block is viable to stop them and I am not knowledgeable of range blocks so I don't do them. You might want to see if anyone listed here is available to look at this. -- GB fan 12:33, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- Ah, indeed. It looks like they're going on a rampage again. Bizarre. - DVdm (talk) 12:28, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- When I said "it appears they have moved on" I was specifically talking about 2001:4C50:19F:9C00:FD22:9DD6:8084:28E0 moving onto a new IP address and there being no need top block the IP because of that. -- GB fan 12:17, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- Not really moved on far away: :-) - DVdm (talk) 12:08, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Unarchiving closed SPI cases
Hi GB Fan, you recently unarchived a couple of SPI cases I had archived () stating that they hadn't been closed. But in both cases, the case status had been set to closed. You can see this by looking at the markup {{SPI case status|close}}. Salvidrim! has since re-archived both, but I'm just wondering if there's some other action that you expected to be done prior to archiving that I'm missing here? TDL (talk) 15:02, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- I apologize. I don't know what I was looking at when I did that, they were closed. -- GB fan 16:13, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- OK great, just didn't want to miss something. TDL (talk) 03:09, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
CSI
You reverted my edits to CSI because of the piping, but there were other changes I had made (moving Coke Studio India into television, adding CSI: The Experience and CSI effect, removing the Retail section with only one entry which went into Other uses, linking the China Securities Index, moving some out-of-alphabetical order listings) and you reverted them also. I removed my piping from the links and re-edited the page. 99.155.194.19 (talk) 20:41, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- yes I did. I wasn't going to go through and try to fix all of your mistakes. -- GB fan 20:49, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Your recent edits
Hello GB fan - I note your recent edits at Powers Catholic High School. Thank you for your work there. I wonder if you might be willing to leave a talk page message for Dark0mm112 (either on their user talk or on the talk page of the article). This user, who appears to have re-added similarly removed materials in the past, has limited activity and probably does not have a good grounding on why you are making the changes you are making. Your edit summaries are pretty clear, of course, which should be helpful. Thanks again for your edits on this article. Risker (talk) 22:51, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- I have been away for a day or so. Will look at the article again and try to give them some guidance. -- GB fan 10:50, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Editor who said he would maintain distance, comes AGAIN!
Calling your attention to this.--MaranoFan (talk) 13:02, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
- MaranoFan, Before I go any further, I will draw your attention to this. I would suggest you go immediately and revert that removal. There is no reason for you to remove the post. -- GB fan 13:13, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
- No, there is. I don't want people gossiping about me.--MaranoFan (talk) 13:14, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
- That is not a valid reason to remove comments from another users talk page. If you don't revert, I will. -- GB fan 13:17, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
- MaranoFan, I see it has already been reverted by another user. If you remove a post like that again you will be blocked. -- GB fan 13:18, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
- You aren't an administrator, don't try to give me a threat.--MaranoFan (talk) 13:31, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
- MaranoFan, I am an administrator, not a threat, a promise. -- GB fan 13:36, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
- Why would I be blocked because I don't like people gossiping about me? Chill. The edit has been restored.--MaranoFan (talk) 13:37, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
- MaranoFan, if you don't want people gossiping about you and you believe it constitutes harassment, take it to ANI (as you have). Do not remove posts from others talk pages if the only reason is that they are gossiping about you. The block would be for the disruptive editing you would be doing by removing posts. If you don't remove them there is no need for a block, it is all up to you. -- GB fan 13:46, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
- Why would I be blocked because I don't like people gossiping about me? Chill. The edit has been restored.--MaranoFan (talk) 13:37, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
- MaranoFan, I am an administrator, not a threat, a promise. -- GB fan 13:36, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
- And since you are an admin, can you please join the discussion at ANI?--MaranoFan (talk) 13:48, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
- No, there is. I don't want people gossiping about me.--MaranoFan (talk) 13:14, 29 March 2016 (UTC)