|Welcome to my talk page!
- @Bears1996: Have you put in a username change request yet? It doesn't look like you have; I don't see anything at Wikipedia:Changing username/Simple. —C.Fred (talk) 12:32, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
- ...Ah, because I see what happened: you've just started using a new account. —C.Fred (talk) 12:35, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
IP User Vandalism
I noticed that several months ago you protected the sea gate police department page because of persistent vandalism and sock puppetry. I have noticed recently that someone has been doing the same thing on the Law enforcement in New York City with relation to the Sea Gate Police Department. I'm not sure if you are and admin but I know you have experience with this sock puppetry and was wondering if you could help. SantiLak (talk) 06:43, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
- @SantiLak: Yep, it looks like the same editor is back: I see the similarities in the edits. I've got the page you mentioned on my watchlist, so if I see the edits continue, I'll semi-protect the page again. —C.Fred (talk) 14:32, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
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)
When we remove tag from FC Bears
- @Trobinson66: No. For conversations about Wikipedia articles, I prefer to have them on Wikipedia talk pages. There are only limited situations when I carry out conversations via email.
- Second, that email address confirms that you have a conflict of interest with the article. The removal of the tag is contingent on independent editors with no connection to the club reviewing the text and determining it's neutral. —C.Fred (talk) 15:01, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
When we can expect that Independent editors,day, week etc.. I think nobody care about our article except us? I ask you that because we feel very ashamed , when people see that tag. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trobinson66 (talk • contribs) 15:34, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
- @Trobinson66: There's at least one other editor looking at things. I don't think we've got a severe enough problem that we need to open a report to the conflict of interest noticeboard, though. —C.Fred (talk) 16:12, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
I've listed a source of a arrest for etizolam that had 4 counts of possession it is a unauthorized drug in the U.S and is subject to 4 counts as stated in my source
What more do I need ?
And also recreational use if you do your research it's being used recreational for years now and there has been talk all over forums, blogs and pics online What kind of source do I need for that ?
- @Jschemgeneration: Actually, your text had indicate that possession is legal in the US. I've changed that. It's not a Schedule IV drug, as those drugs are recognized as having medical uses in the US. Per the cited source: "He had in his possession Etizolam, a benzodiazepine that police said is not authorized for use in the United States, according to the report."
- As for recreational use, blogs, forums and pics are not reliable sources. If there's newspaper coverage of the recreational use of the drug, then it can be mentioned in the article. —C.Fred (talk) 20:21, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
So in your opinion what should the legal status section say ? I think that arrest should be mentioned because there are ppl purchasing this thinking there is no penalty if it is caught in they possession
I think the public should know what they are getting there self into If it's ok to add this info let me know and you also have my permission to add it yourself — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jschemgeneration (talk • contribs) 11:23, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
- Good question. The issue is, what do reliable sources say? The current information is not cited and should be. The arrest for possession is cited but challenged. I've asked at Talk:Etizolam to get input from other editors on how we should proceed. —C.Fred (talk) 18:12, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Nomination of Joshua Vescovi for deletion
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joshua Vescovi until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Jrcla2 (talk) 20:18, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
A kitten for you!
I appreciate your input in regards to Etizolam. Your monitoring of said article would be very much appreciated if you could find the time to do so.
Can you please explain why you tell me to find other references for the subjects date of birth, but when I add another ref, you report me to an admin and the ref is deleted? (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajz1978 (talk • contribs) 20:43, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
- @Ajz1978: I said you should probably not add the date, but before you try to start discussion on adding it, you need to present multiple, reliable sources at the talk page. I also advised Mdann52 of your edits because he's the OTRS volunteer that handled the ticket for Lipscomb's article, so he'd be familiar with the email and other not-generally-accessible information that was reviewed when he reviewed the ticket's request. —C.Fred (talk) 20:51, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Can you please advise if it can be inserted into the article that she was a child actor and appeared in 'The house of Eliott' and 'witchcraft'? References: http://www.talktalk.co.uk/tv-guide/content/jr8zy/the-house-of-eliott and http://m.imdb.com/title/tt0196214/fullcredits/cast?ref_=m_ttfc_3 (UTC)
- @Ajz1978: IMDB is not a WP:RS and an appearance of unknown significance in one episode doesn't exactly make her a "child actor". Was her performance reviewed? --NeilN talk to me 23:48, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
I think some actors would describe themselves as such with lesser TV appearances. If you don't like the term 'child actor' could it be stated that in her early life she appeared in episodes of TV series? (UTC)
I have another ref for the witchcraft series if the IMDB is not allowed http://www.eofftv.com/w/wit/witchcraft_1992_main.htm (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajz1978 (talk • contribs)
- Eofftv.com doesn't appear to be much more reliable. —C.Fred (talk) 02:41, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
How about http://www.artistdirect.com/nad/store/movies/title/0,,2338629,00.html (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk)
- Again, I would oppose such an addition to the article unless you can find an actual review of her performance. --NeilN talk to me 08:45, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Why would you oppose the addition? Is it a violation of the OTRS? Why is this article so special that nothing can be added to it? The same objections are not raised in other articles. (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajz1978 (talk • contribs)
- Nothing to do with OTRS. I would say the same thing about any subject whose appearance in a TV series/movie is only denoted by an entry in a database. If you disagree, suggest you take it up on the article's talk page. --NeilN talk to me 13:47, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
- One of the tricky things with databases is making sure that it's the same person and not just a person with the same name. Databases don't always give that assurance. A review should hopefully give enough context about the person that we can link it together. —C.Fred (talk) 15:21, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Nomination of Phil Savage (baseball) for deletion
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phil Savage (baseball) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Jrcla2 (talk) 14:00, 29 August 2014 (UTC)