User talk:C.Fred

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

FC Bears[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 14:10, 23 August 2014‎ (UTC)

Sean Michael Smith[edit]

Hi C.Fred! Sorry if this is the wrong place to contact you in regards to the picture on Sean Michael Smith. This is my first time talking via this method. At Hearing Damage Studios, we took the picture of Sean for use online and in press. We simply meant in the description that the picture was formatted and chosen with wikipedia in mind. Sorry for confusion. The picture is free for all usage. Thanks for the patience and help. I'm sure you have to deal with a lot of people like myself getting into the swing of all this lingo. I will also keep in mind the other suggestions you've sent me the next time I make an edit. Thank you! If you have any comments or instructions for me, feel free to let me know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LifeAquatic42 (talkcontribs) 22:43, 18 November 2014‎ (UTC)

Thank you for clearing that up. And, since you've declared you have a conflict of interest with Sean Michael Smith, I'll be leaving a notification at your talk page so others are aware of it. —C.Fred (talk) 02:43, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for helping me understand about the photo and the page itself. I'll refrain from making any major additions if it is a conflict of interest. I would like to ask your opinion/assistance on a simply cosmetic aspect of the page. The Sean Michael Smith page currently has a "This article has an unclear citation style" stamp attributed to it. I read the citation, footnoting, and eternal linking pages to further understand the process, but I'm struggling to see in the fine print what I can do to clean up the references. Would it be possible to ask for an example page that you find shows a quality representation of a references section? I put a lot of work into the page (my first as well) and I'd like it to fit as well in the guidelines as possible. Until then, I will be looking around unrelated articles and doing some research/cleaning in my area of expertise. Thanks again by the way, you're making my experience a lot easier seeing how daunting all the codes and what have you can be. LifeAquatic42 (talk) 13:00, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

@LifeAquatic42: My bad on the tag. I had put it up there before I realized what was going on with the references. Once I got the list sorted, the footnotes fell into place, so the style is fine.
I had put the tag up there when it looked like there was just a list of references with no footnotes. —C.Fred (talk) 20:47, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Awesome! Thanks! I've been getting the hang of everything. Loving it. LifeAquatic42 (talk) 21:25, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi again! I've been working on some smaller projects and creating missing album pages for lesser known artists, so I've been getting a hang of the site. I was wondering if it would be at all possible for you to check out the Sean Michael Smith page to see if I've written a neutral enough stance? Second opinions always help. Thanks! LifeAquatic42 (talk) 21:09, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Adding on to the above new message, I just checked the page and someone else already proofed the page, but could you still take a look? Thanks! LifeAquatic42 (talk) 21:13, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Joshua Bonehill[edit]

Please stop correcting the page on Joshua Bonehill with false information. He is not a politician, he is not a member of a political party and has never stood for office anywhere.He is convicted of commiting slander and harrasment on the internet and this is oublic record. He is not an internet personlaity as you claim, he had one account which he previoulsy bought followers for. He went to Merryhay Academy special needs school and is on record as confirming this, you are vandalising the article not I.

You have yet again made the false claim that Joshua Bnehill is apolitician with no sources and no evidence whatsoever. This is not objective and is inaccurate, he has zero political record. He stated himself the school he went to yet you presume to remove it, you are not adding truth to this article but unsourced suppostition and fabricaitions and you are blocking others from writing the truth with sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:15, 19 November 2014‎ (UTC)

None of the sources that have been added to the article back up the claim that he is a "special needs schoolboy"; the cited source needs to tie all the loops together, both that he attended the school in question and that he was a special-needs student.
You may have a point about the politician label; however, "troll" is not an acceptable alternate. Really, you need to do things with regard to this article. First, discuss your concerns at the talk page to work toward consensus on how to present the material. Remember that changes have to be in accordance with Wikipedia policies, including the strict WP:BLP rules for information about living people. Second, please stay logged in while editing: I see the same edits being alternately made by this IP and by User:Myth~Buster~Yeovil (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). —C.Fred (talk) 22:19, 19 November 2014 (UTC) I have no account and resent the accusation. There are many people who would be unhappy with this inaccurate article lending credence to this habitual criminal as a politician.

I am Joshua Bonehill, I'd like to state that I never attended a 'merryhay academy', I attended taunton school in Somerset which is a public school as stated in the article. Furthermore I'd like to draw to attention that the people attempting to vandalise this article are the very people who have been my 'twitter rivals'. I suggest the article is made protected and watched over by sensible people to ensure that the truth is there for everybody to see. I can be contacted directly at [redacted] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jooner29 (talkcontribs) 02:28, 20 November 2014‎ (UTC)

Please remove the innacurat and unsourced information about Bonehill being a politician and internet personality. He has no record of ever being in a political party except as a youth hoping to win a nomination to run for a council seat which he never received and was then expelled. Since then he has held no political office and the only people that call him a politician are you and he.
In what way is he an internet personality? By that definitiion everyone is. Bonehill's a convicted criminal which is on record, he has continually lied to endanger peoples lives. If you want a description for him I suggest Joshua Bonehill is a convicted criminal from Yeovil, Somerset as everything else is without evidence or sources. I shall take this further and report the entire article if you do not allow the truth on the article.
Joshua Bonehill is typing above and is a known and convicted liar, he stated on his own national british resistance web page that he went to Merryhay Special needs school.
He had no twitter rivals and you typing that makes it appear that his victims were partially to blame for having information spread online that they were convicted paedophiles thus endagering their lives. You have no source for them being "twitter rivals" and as with the rest of the article it appears to be written from your own subjective point of view without sources or supporting info. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:06, 20 November 2014‎ (UTC)
I have only restored the article to the status quo situation. If you think he is not a politician, explain that at the article's talk page. If you think he should be described as something other than an internet personality, discuss that at Talk:Joshua Bonehill. It's tricky to call somebody a criminal in the lede of an article, so that may not be the best description. Likewise, if there are unsupported statements, point them out at the article's talk page for further consideration.
All such content matters need to be discussed at the article's talk page; I will not discuss the article's content further at my personal talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 19:40, 20 November 2014 (UTC)


[1] Block should probably copied to new account? --NeilN talk to me 12:52, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

@NeilN: Yes. I don't think it's abusive use of a second account, so I haven't called it a sockpuppet. What I have done is made clear that creating a new account is not a get-out-of-jail-free card, so the block carries forward to the new account. —C.Fred (talk) 19:34, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Disco-pop listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]


An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Disco-pop. Since you had some involvement with the Disco-pop redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:20, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

IRS Tax Forms[edit]

Thanks for the guidelines regarding links? Is it appropriate to link to directly to an IRS tax form itself? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrfray (talkcontribs) 19:45, 22 November 2014‎ (UTC)

@Jrfray: If an article were about an individual form, then it would be appropriate to link to the form in the article about that form. However, the separate forms are not notable, so there's no need. As far as the IRS tax forms article, it's probably more useful to link to the IRS front page than to the page for forms. —C.Fred (talk) 20:13, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Please remove the page back[edit]

to 8chan from ∞chan. It's obviously the common name and the way he did it only an administrator can do it. Tutelary (talk) 21:25, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

G6 absolutely applies[edit]

Deleting redirects or other pages blocking page moves. Administrators should be aware of the proper procedures where a redirect/page holding up a page move has a non-trivial page history. An administrator who deletes a page that is blocking a move should ensure that the move is completed after deleting it. WP:G6 This page is blocking the move back, and is in effect a copy and paste move. Delete the page, I'll create 8chan (disambiguation) and we move infinitesymbol chan back. Tutelary (talk) 21:31, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

@Tutelary: Hold tight for a second. I'm talking to Ranze about unwinding the move. The less you do right now, the less I have to undo later. —C.Fred (talk) 21:32, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
You don't need to talk to Ranze about it. It was a bold move and I contested it. He should go the route of requested move if he wants to move it. But I'll sit tight here then. Tutelary (talk) 21:33, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

8chan v infinitechan[edit]

I do object moving the page back, I created the page as a disambig and Tutelary removed the info about Robot 8-chan from the page without pursuing any consensus for that censorship.

The risk of an AfD is all the more reason that we should keep 8chan as a disambig and infinitechan (or ∞chan) as the article about

Disambiguation allows a brief summary as it is without going into detail or entering into debates about whether or not the site is worthy of a full article.

By hijacking the disambig article and making it about the site, if the site article gets nominated for deletion then the initial form as a disambig would get deleted along with it. Ranze (talk) 21:42, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

We can just move the disambiguation page to 8chan (disambiguation) The website 8chan is a notable and primary topic and search term for the term, '8chan'. Additionally, there's been more than enough coverage for 8chan. You moving the 8chan material to ∞chan and then contesting a move back is outside of the normal page moval per WP:BRD and could be considered disruptive. Tutelary (talk) 21:47, 22 November 2014 (UTC)