Misplaced Pages

User talk:GB fan: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 11:53, 23 April 2017 editGB fan (talk | contribs)Oversighters, Administrators103,303 edits Please stop taking the mick: re← Previous edit Revision as of 16:33, 23 April 2017 edit undoIftekharahmed96 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users6,393 edits Apologies.Next edit →
Line 76: Line 76:
:: Thanks for the advice. ] a "frantic, furious ball of anger" 21:52, 19 April 2017 (UTC) :: Thanks for the advice. ] a "frantic, furious ball of anger" 21:52, 19 April 2017 (UTC)


== Please stop taking the mick == == Power Pro/Power Pro Pocket redirects ==


:I'm doing everything I can to go through with WP:RFD but you keep reverting my edits. Give me a step by step guide on how to do it properly so you don't revert my edits ] (]) 10:21, 23 April 2017 (UTC) :I'm doing everything I can to go through with WP:RFD but you keep reverting my edits. Give me a step by step guide on how to do it properly so you don't revert my edits ] (]) 10:21, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Line 86: Line 86:
::::Boy, I ain't giving up on this. All the pages that are linked to ] have been removed because they're completely unrelated. I'm bringing in someone else to help support my case cause clearly you have a ridiculous bias on keeping these pointless redirects. ] (]) 11:48, 23 April 2017 (UTC) ::::Boy, I ain't giving up on this. All the pages that are linked to ] have been removed because they're completely unrelated. I'm bringing in someone else to help support my case cause clearly you have a ridiculous bias on keeping these pointless redirects. ] (]) 11:48, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
:::::Do what you think you need to do. ] a "frantic, furious ball of anger" 11:53, 23 April 2017 (UTC) :::::Do what you think you need to do. ] a "frantic, furious ball of anger" 11:53, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Well, looks like you win, I've pulled everything I can. You played fair and square. Sorry if this dragged on longer than it needed to. ] (]) 16:33, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Revision as of 16:33, 23 April 2017

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
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3
Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6
Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9
Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12
Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15
Archive 16


This page has archives. Sections older than 21 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.
User talk
  • If I have left you a message: please answer on your talk page, as I am watching it.
  • If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, so please add it to your watchlist.
  • Please click here to leave me a new message.
Please note: If your message is related to a disputed edit, the best thing to do is open a discussion on the talkpage of the article instead of leaving a message here. This way we may involve as many editors as possible instead of confining the discussion here. Misplaced Pages is a community effort. Let's use this community component. Thank you.

Review of my editing

I don't know where to put this request, so I am going to start here. Misplaced Pages:Editor review is marked as historical, Misplaced Pages:Administrator review is basically dead and Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/User conduct is also marked historical. There does not seam to be any place to get a review of edits.

I have been accused of being a "frantic, furious ball of anger" that "can't get through a day without violating WP:BITE, WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:POINT, or any of the other policies and guidelines that you (I) constantly violate." This is "because you'll (I'll) never actually get blocked like you (I) badly deserve." I tried to engage to get more info about how I am doing these things. CityOfSilver does not want to engage at all with me, so I can not get any more info from him.

I would like other editors to look at my history and see if they can point out all these short comings. I am not perfect, no one is. I recently got into a little edit war about the joke AfDs, but I do not know how I violate any policies or guidelines on a daily basis. ~ GB fan 23:29, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

CityOfSilver has requested no one ping them in any response here. ~ GB fan 01:55, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Mireille Issa...

...trout-slapping myself. Thanks for the revert. Lectonar (talk) 10:52, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

It happens. That is why a second set of eyes is important. ~ GB fan a "frantic, furious ball of anger" 10:55, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Hey

Btw it's my first time editing and I'm welcomed by blocking I do have my resources you can look it up in google I can't put the link here it gets deleted — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lamis chelbi (talkcontribs) 13:49, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

I made a mistake, I apologize. If you have a reliable source add it. ~ GB fan a "frantic, furious ball of anger" 13:59, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Protoverse

I mistook the deletion of the CSD-tag for one by the author. Apologies. Kleuske (talk) 14:32, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Ok ~ GB fan a "frantic, furious ball of anger" 14:33, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Re make TravelTriangle Page

Hey,

Our page TravelTriangle, got deleted. I am looking forward to make another page. Can you pls guide me

Thank You

I only deleted it because it was created without any content. It was later deleted after an AFD. You could create a draft article, Draft:TravelTriangle, and then ask for it to be reviewed. You should not just create it in the article space. ~ GB fan a "frantic, furious ball of anger" 14:35, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Help - re "Genius (2017 film)" article.

@GB fan: FWIW - seems I created the "Genius (2017 film)" article very recently - on April 17, 2017 - after searching for a similar article - but, at the time, not finding one - seems there was a similar article after all - at => "Genius (U.S. TV series)" - my own "Genius (2017 film)" article is a much more complete article that is better referenced and more updated than the older "Genius (U.S. TV series)" article (nearly a stub in comparison at the moment?) - how exactly should this be resolved - should there be a merge of content - a sd template applied to one or the other - or some other procedure - I'm flexible with this, just not clear how best to proceed at the moment - an exact suggested procedure would be welcome - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 17:15, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

@Drbogdan:, If we were to speedy delete one of the articles the one eligible is Genius (2017 film) as WP:A10. That said. we shouldn't speedy delete it because it has more content it is probably best to keep it. The question though is what the title should be, (2017 film) does not look like the best disambiguation as it really isn't a film but a TV series, so (U.S. TV series) is probably a better disambiguator. If we leave it at (2017 film) then the easiest is to redirect (U.S. TV series) to (2017 film). If (U.S. TV series) is the better title then you can copy the text from (2017 film) to (U.S. TV series) and then redirect (2017 film) to (U.S. TV series). ~ GB fan a "frantic, furious ball of anger" 17:39, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
@GB fan: Thank you for your comments - my inclination at the moment is to keep my newly created "Genius (2017 film)" article - based on similarly named TV documentary film articles - like "Cancer (film)", "Making North America (film)", "The Mystery of Matter (film)", "The Roosevelts (film)", "Walt Disney (film)" - or even less titled TV documentary films - like "Dawn of Humanity","Prehistoric Autopsy","Search for the Super Battery" - and redirect the older "Genius (U.S. TV series)" title to the newly created "Genius (2017 film)" article - if ok, I could try to do this - please let me know if this procedure is ok - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 18:06, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
@Drbogdan:, I have no problem either way. When you leave a message on someone's talk page you don't need to leave the reply template. They get a notification just from the act of leaving the message. The only time it makes sense to leave the reply template is when you are replying to someone on a page that is not their talk page. ~ GB fan a "frantic, furious ball of anger" 18:11, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

 Done - Thank you *very much* for your help with this - it's *greatly* appreciated - all should now be ok - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 18:36, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

flagicons

Why do not belong? There are many list pages with flagicons! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.25.225.166 (talk) 17:44, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Here is the Manual of Style that relates to flagicons, MOS:FLAG. It says "Flag icons may be relevant in some subject areas, where the subject actually represents that country, government, or nationality – such as military units, government officials, or national sports teams." It does go on to say "In lists or tables, flag icons may be relevant when such representation of different subjects is pertinent to the purpose of the list or table itself." The location is not really pertinent and the words are enough to understand what country we are talking about. ~ GB fan a "frantic, furious ball of anger" 17:50, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Help

Hi, you should know that I have in the past nominated some draft articles for speedy nomination, but you reverted them since they were all the wrong type of deletion. You put a link on my talk page a couple of times on where to go and put the right type of deletion on. I've looked at them a couple of times but I have failed to find the one I'm looking for. I am looking for a deletion for a "draft" article, specifically the one that has a blank submission or has a couple of words. Can you tell me the template to use for these? Thanks 👊🏻 Plum3600 (talk) 18:12, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Plum3600, The best thing to do is to leave them alone and not worry about them. They hurt nothing, take up no additional space and hurt nothing. If you think you need to do something about them then: wait for the Draft to be unedited for at least 6 months and then nominate it using {{Db-g13}}. Please read the instructions on how to use it. There is an additional parameter that needs to be on the template. ~ GB fan a "frantic, furious ball of anger" 18:31, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
GB fan Thank you for making that clear.Plum3600 (talk) 18:34, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Really?

You called me "a frantic, flaming ball of anger." I am telling my mother. She will find you. She is justice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graeme296 (talkcontribs) 15:44, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

She sure is. But no, that is in reference to this—and since I've taken the time to respond then—let me advise you against having that reminder of said confrontation as part of your sig, GB. Also, why now? I think both of you need to just give each other a wide berth. Thanks. El_C 16:02, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice. ~ GB fan a "frantic, furious ball of anger" 21:52, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Power Pro/Power Pro Pocket redirects

I'm doing everything I can to go through with WP:RFD but you keep reverting my edits. Give me a step by step guide on how to do it properly so you don't revert my edits Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 10:21, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Iftekharahmed96, I am going to try again to let you know, they won't be deleted. You are wasting your and others time. You can see why we delete redirects at WP:RFD#DELETE. None of the 10 reasons there apply to these redirects.
At WP:RFD#KEEP you can read through the 7 reasons redirects are kept. Reason 4 applies to these redirects. You claim there are no external links that point to these titles but there is no way for you to know that with certainty. The articles existed for years at the old titles before you moved them. You have no idea if anyone linked to the articles under the old titles. You also claim there are no internal links but Jikkyō Powerful Pro Yakyū series links to quite a few pages.
I can also argue that number 5 applies. Obviously from the time they were made until you decided to move them all the editors who edited the article did not have a problem with the title, so they must have found them useful.
If you are still set on nominating them for deletion the directions are at WP:RFD. All you need to do is scroll down the section titled "How to list a redirect for discussion". Or you can click this link and it will take you to the three steps you need to do to list these for deletion again. If you do nominate them, I will !vote 'Keep for the reasons I outlined here. ~ GB fan a "frantic, furious ball of anger" 11:02, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
p.s. I will undo your edits yet again as what you did again is wrong. ~ GB fan a "frantic, furious ball of anger" 11:02, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Boy, I ain't giving up on this. All the pages that are linked to Jikkyō Powerful Pro Yakyū series have been removed because they're completely unrelated. I'm bringing in someone else to help support my case cause clearly you have a ridiculous bias on keeping these pointless redirects. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 11:48, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Do what you think you need to do. ~ GB fan a "frantic, furious ball of anger" 11:53, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, looks like you win, I've pulled everything I can. You played fair and square. Sorry if this dragged on longer than it needed to. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 16:33, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Category: