|Welcome to my talk page!
Independent editors do not care about this article I work hard on this artice and please if you can not ask ;Independent editors; to reviewed this article please leave me to work — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trobinson66 (talk • contribs) 14:10, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
- Investigation page is here Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Logeion. Safiel (talk) 05:56, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Do not make accusations without providing evidence. Doing so is a personal attack and will likely be summarily removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 05:49, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
- "If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck." If an account looks and acts like a blocked user, it probably is a blocked user, and most administrators (myself included) will deal with it as such. —C.Fred (talk) 14:42, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
'Do not make accusations without providing evidence'
Evidence: the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
For this. Since she's the current TFA, I really hope KP doesn't end up being vandalized too much. As top contributor to the article, my goal was to have it be as perfect as possible for today, her 30th birthday. Do you mind helping keep a watch? Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:49, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
- @SNUGGUMS: No problem. Her article in on my watchlist, so I see edits made to it. So, as much as I'm online today, I'll be keeping an eye on it. And, congratulations on getting it to be TFA! —C.Fred (talk) 14:18, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
EClerx Wikipedia Page
Hi, i was just wondering around Wikipedia when I stumbled upon the EClerx page, which seemed to me written like an advertisement, so I looked into its history and guess what I found IP 18.104.22.168 is associated with eClerx Services Limited, India. I don't know if it somehow breaking a rule or not, please take a look at it 22.214.171.124 (talk) 06:56, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
- @TheWikiVoter: The article does not make any assertion of the significance of the subject that would meet WP:BIO. —C.Fred (talk) 18:37, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
On the Elton Mayo article iss246 & psyc12 are vandalizing the article by removing up to 10 reliable sources, all stating Elton Mayo was a Psychologist. Iss246 cannot and has not produced one, single, reliable source clearly stating that he was not a psychologist. Elton Mayo is an Australian icon. Could you please follow up on this, for the integrity of Wikipedia and for readers?
It would be like some Aussie vandalizing the George Washington article and saying he was not the first President of the United States (1789–1797), the Commander-in-Chief of the Continental Army during the American Revolutionary War, and one of the Founding Fathers of the United States. And provide not one single, reliable source clearly stating George Washington was not the first President! Thanks for your integrity ahead of time.Truthbringer1 (talk) 03:53, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
- @Truthbringer: I've been monitoring the discussion in all the places you have it spread out right now, as well as the sockpuppet investigation. —C.Fred (talk) 04:07, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
I see you have protected Frankie Grande, so thank you for doing that. Unfortunately, those apparent SPA's seem to have done quite a lot of "creative editing" to the article which have resulted in quite a few WP:BLP violations. Would it be acceptable to return the page to last stable version before all of these edits took place? I believe that would be this version here. Can such a thing be done all at once or does each edit have to be undone one by one? Thanks in advance. -Marchjuly (talk) 04:34, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
- @Marchjuly: I didn't roll back far enough, but Lithistman backed it up all the way to the last clean version from 23 October. —C.Fred (talk) 04:36, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
- Yes I saw that. Thanks again for double-checking. Would it have been acceptable to go back to that last clean version in one fell swoop, even though some of the individual edits had already been reverted by others? Just want to know for future reference. - Marchjuly (talk) 04:41, 27 October 2014 (UTC)