User talk:GB fan

User page Talk Links Sandbox Dashboard

This user is the owner of one other Wikipedia account in a manner permitted by policy and it is registered with the arbitration committee.

Please note: If your message is related to a disputed edit, the best thing to do is open a discussion on the talkpage of the article instead of leaving a message here. This way we may involve as many editors as possible instead of confining the discussion here. Wikipedia is a community effort. Let's use this community component. Thank you.

Protecting the page on his edit

User Canoe claims Judge Judy and Randy Douthit were never sued. Care to explain to me why these articles read "Judge Judy sued" if this is untrue and the entirety of them have to do with Judge Judy and Randy Douthit. [1] [2]. Making it say the lawsuit against the show's production company is irrelevant because the Judge Judy show itself was sued as result of Randy Douthit and Sheindlin herself was sued as a result of Randy Douthit giving her misinformation on a domestic dispute at least according to him.

Furthermore, Canoe is misrepresenting the information and now the edit is WRONG. In addition, he's removed the most controversial portions out of the racism lawsuit section which were Randy Douthit's alleged remarks about blacks: "We're not doing any more black shows," and "I don't want to hear black people arguing."

I don't know if Canoe is white and it possibly rubbed him the wrong way to have information regarding the possible racism of a white person or what, but whatever the case is, he has misrepresented the material in the article. Whatever the case is, the original matter at hand in the debate we were all having was scaling down the material and whether or not it should be added. That's when I scaled it down and Canoe then started changing material that wasn't in the sources and then saying Judy and Randy never got sued. Clearly she was sued as according to ABC News, Huffington Post, Washington Post, New York Post, etc., and all the sources that say in headline "Judge Judy is sued." As it seems you two are only interested in belligerence, I'll be taken the matter to another wikipedia administrator to have them look over the sources in question and your biased actions in reinstating an erroneous edit on behalf of what is likely a user that you have a connections with. Good day! AmericanDad86 (talk) 00:54, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I have no connections with Canoe or Judge Judy or anything else associated with this article. I welcome other admins looking at my actions. Bring it up any place you would like and we will see the outcome. In my opinion you should be blocked for a long period for your edit warring, 12 reverts today is way over the top. GB fan 00:58, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

You should be stripped of your editing protection tools and blocked for abusing them. You yourself have formally admitted on administrative noticeboards that you have in fact worked with Canoe in the past. How'd I know this?! How'd I know this?! You didn't even half to tell me. It was clear based upon your blatantly ignoring his reverts and misconduct, which in turn will be reported. I full well plan on reporting that abuse to other admins.AmericanDad86 (talk) 01:44, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I have seen lots of editors around. That does not mean I play favorites. When we are talking about a living person we err on the side of caution so in my protection I did. If I was wrong other admins will tell me and I will revert my changes. It is better to be over protective rather than under protective when we come to protecting the reputation of living people. GB fan 01:50, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I did not admit that I have worked with Canoe in the past, I admitted to seeing him around. GB fan 01:52, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

I just wanted to thank you for putting things into perspective on the requests for confirmed page. Valuable advice like that only comes around every so often. I hope to see you around on Wikipedia in the future! Thanks so much, if you have any further criticism or suggestions for me, please do tell (it's like tea, I can't get enough of the stuff!) ChaseAm (talk) 23:08, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Sandra Gidley page

Dear GB fan I am struggling finding my way around Wikipedia as it is not my area of expertise so please excuse me and I am not sure how to find my way back here! My concern relates to the Wikipedia entry about me which has recently been heavily edited by somebody called donkeyride69.

The article has been very selective with facts in order to portray me in a negative light. For example, my expenses were actually deemed to be fine and I had no questions to answer. The complaint about office expenses was a mischievous complaint by a member of my political opponent's team and, when investigated was proved not to have foundation. It is true that for a couple of years my expenses were the highest in Hampshire but they were all investigated and deemed appropriate expenditure (I can go into reasons for them being high if you require more information but it is not really pertinent). In addition the statement that I moved to a more expensive flat is incorrect - and libellous - as public records will show.

It is perhaps a coincidence that I will be standing for election in the forthcoming English County Council Elections and I can only conclude that this mischievous edit is related. It is also noteworthy that my political opponent at the last General Election was Caroline Nokes and her entry has been edited, by the same person, to try and portray her in a more favourable light. I might also add that my opponent in the forthcoming COunty Council elections is the father of Caroline Nokes (a certain Roy Perry).

The input by donkeyride69 is clearly heavily biased and all I am asking is that recent edits to my page by this person are removed due to libellous content, lack of objectivity and balance and that the page is restored to its previous content. Happy to discuss further and provide more details if necessary but as the bias is so obvious and some of the content is libellous I hope you will be able to expedite a rapid reversion of the revision.

Thanks you very much Sandra Gidley 90.221.166.183 (talk) 22:04, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I am not familiar at all with English politics but the edit made to Sandra Gidley do appear to give undue weight to negative and as such I have removed them. I will watch the article but like I said I do not know much about things that happen in England. You might raise the issue at the Biographies of Living Persons Noticeboard, WP:BLPN. The editors that monitor that board are very knowledgeable about BLP concerns and I am sure some of them are familiar with English politics. GB fan 22:36, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Richard_France/sandbox

Hi! You correctly deleted Richard France/sandbox as a test page. If you look at Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2013 March 30#Referencing help needed, you'll see that Technical 13 (talk · contribs) was helping Filmian (talk · contribs) with the formatting of a draft article, trying to recover article text and footnotes that had been keyed in Wordperfect. Since Technical 13 has been blocked, he's not going to get round to reposting that page. Could you email me a copy of the deleted page, so that I can try to see where he got to? Or, if Technical 13 managed to post the article text and its footnotes in some form, it could be userfied to User:Filmian/Sandbox. -- John of Reading (talk) 20:17, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I have emailed you the article. Technical 13 only made two edits to the sandbox, edit summaries as follows:

1. Written with WordPerfect X6, "Published as" HTML, converted with Help:WordToWiki#Quick
2. Little bit better, but a lot of small text

Hope it helps, if you want it userfied let me know. GB fan 00:23, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! I have updated Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Richard France with an edit summary credit for Technical 13's involvement. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:21, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Global Advertisers Wikipedia Page

It was deleted when I has updated it before. Can you please let me know what was the problem? So I can work on it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VishakhaSaigal (talk • contribs) 05:16, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia has developed guidelines to determine when it should have an article about a subject. The general notability guideline discusses how to determine if a subject is notable. The basic concept is that a subject must have been noticed by reliable sources. Your article (that you have created 4 times now) says that the company is a outdoor advertising company. It doesn't say why it is any different than any other outdoor advertising company. Are there any other sources that discuss the company? GB fan 12:23, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Could I snatch some criticism or suggestions from you?

Hello GB fan, sorry to bother you. I know that you made some a very constructive criticism for me a few days ago, so I was wondering if it's possible you could scan over my contributions and make some suggestions as to what I'm doing wrong/criticism in general? Even just one quick comment would be great, if you've the time. If not, I completely understand, we all are a bit short of time sporadically. Thanks so much ChaseAm (talk) 17:04, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I do not have much time right now, but I will look over your edits in a day or so. GB fan 22:01, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Y Sounds excellent, take as much time as you need! ChaseAm (talk) 22:53, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Rim of the World High School Wikipedia Page

Hello!

I am the New Social Media Consultant for Rim of the World High School, and I would like to know why you are attempting to delete sections of OUR page, which we are in the middle of adding information to. If you have a legitimate reason, then please let me know, thank you for Holding down the fort for us in the beginning, but we are finally ready now, and would like to be able to work on this page by ourselves. Rim High is capable of making our own edits, and not having individuals who we do not recognize making edits for us. Let me know how we can resolve this issue...

-Thank You — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewholmes24 (talk • contribs) 02:34, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

The first point I need to make is that the page is not yours, no one owns any Wikipedia article. Wikipedia is a collabrative effort to create an encyclopedia. The next point is that you create a very bad impression when you leave an edit summary that I "maliciously deleted" the information. There was nothing malicious about my removal. I explained in my edit summary exactly why I removed that information. The page that we are editing is called "Rim of the World High School" and the section we are talking about is "Chronological History of the Rim of the World U.S.D." This information MAY belong in the article, Rim of the World Unified School District, but it does not belong in the high school's article. The information should not just be a list of events, it should be written in paragraphs that explain the information. I have removed it again. You appear to be trying to make the page a website instead of an article. Also I have reverted your edits that changed the header levelsand image sizes. Our manual of style specifies that base level headers in articles are second level "==" and that pictures unless necessary are thumb sized. I will link this section back to the article's talk page, Talk:Rim of the World High School, and any further discussion should happen there. Last point for now, you should also read about conflict of interest, Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide. GB fan 11:08, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Dantae Johnson

Hi, I noticed you declined the speedy delete request for the article Dantae Johnson. Could you point out what his claim to significance is so that I don't make the same mistake in the future? Thanks! Rgambord (talk) 13:50, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I take this, "Dantae has also has written a debut song for The X Factor finalists 2011" as a claim to significance. Is there enough to survive a deletion discussion, it doesn't look like it. GB fan 14:21, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Please don't ignore policy

I invite you to self-revert this edit [3] for the reason I have outlined on the talk page. Your actions are not in accordance with policy and shortcutting that process smacks of IDONTLIKEIT. 3142 (talk) 13:39, 9 April 2013 (UTC)