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)

Vani Hari[edit]

Hi C.Fred. I just wanted to say thanks for the reminder on 3RR over at the Vani Hari article. I completely forgot I had a more minor edit I reverted earlier today before trying to work with the most recent editor. Kingofaces43 (talk) 06:47, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Draft:Evan Thomas Schwartz[edit]

You may be interested in this MfD. I can't think of a valid speedy criteria that it applies to, otherwise I would have used that. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:41, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Please stop scaring[edit]

Warning icon Am new here, so it may not be OK to make mistake on a site like Wikipedia. But I did it anyway. I am profoundly sorry for it. And I think, it was not fair of you, when you somewhat threatened me (look here). Come on, it wasn't cool. You could have told me in a much softer tone.
P.S. I did not disrupted the article. I was merely rearranging it. DTwipzB 17:13, 19 December 2014 (UTC) (talk)

@Dibyendutwipzbiswas: First, the message I left was a standard warning template. Since you'd been warned twice before for problematic edits, that particular message was in order.
Second, given the header at the top of your talk page, an appeal to tell you "in a much softer tone" doesn't carry much traction. —C.Fred (talk) 17:15, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
@C.Fred: Please, for the love of God, leave me alone. Got your message and please be content with this knowledge. I have my semester ahead, let me study. PLEASE. DTwipzB 17:26, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Umm, you're the one who left the message here. *shrug* —C.Fred (talk) 17:27, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
you're the one who started this.DTwipzB 17:30, 19 December 2014 (UTC) (talk)
In response to an inappropriate edit you made. —C.Fred (talk) 17:31, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
If that's what you think. Take a break and move on. DTwipzB 17:35, 19 December 2014 (UTC) (talk)


Hi C.Fred, TheAmazingRaceFan7474 doesn't seem interested in communicating on the issue of the bizarre running segment totals at the various Arthur articles. I went through each season and removed a bunch of these (along with other content) but the user is insistent upon restoring them. As somewhat of a compromise I added segment totals in parens in each of the season infoboxes (for example here). Doesn't appear to acknowledge consensus, hasn't discussed any aspect of these edits, etc. The content is not supported by MOS:TV and these edits aren't in line with WP:TVOVERVIEW. I'll open a perfunctory discussion at the LoE talk page, but otherwise, I am hoping you might intervene since I'm probably at my revert limit on that page, although these changes are disruptive. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:07, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Addendum: I have also noticed that in this unrelated edit they change an air date from May 16 2013 to May 20 2013. This contradicts this source, which indicates the episode of Motive in question aired in Canada on Thursday, May 16, 2013, which is consistent with the value in the S1 table. And here, the user removes {{death date and age}}, and changes the calculated death age from 55 to a false death age of 54. Has all the markings of subtle vandalism. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:31, 19 December 2014 (UTC)


Just an FYI, although I expect you're aware already, is another obvious sock of Andrewwikiedit. Two more IPs were blocked a few hours ago and Andrewwikiedit has been indef blocked, but the socks keep smelling, especially at Slednecks. --AussieLegend () 03:35, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

User talk:Josh3580#Hunger Games: Mockinjay Jay Part 1[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at User talk:Josh3580#Hunger Games: Mockinjay Jay Part 1. I used your name "in vain" in this discussion. Just wanted to let you know. Thanks for all of your work in RC patrolling! Thanks.  —Josh3580talk/hist 21:44, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Secondary Sources - Please help[edit]

@C.Fred: Hey there!

I'm currently writing an article on 2freehosting with a neutral, factual point of view (no promotional material involved). I noticed you put up a sources warning and I need some help on finding some secondary/tertiary sources, and maybe improving the article. Can you help me out? :) What is your opinion? I'm trying to get it approved.

Athertle (talk) 14:42, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi Fred,

Thankyou for sending your message. I am concerned regarding a contributor with an account Captain Stegge. The edits being done by this indiviual are piecemeal and one sided. The Stephen A. Corker page represents my GGGrandfather. I had added a picture to his site a while back. My efforts on this page have been to present historical facts that can be documented based on my 3 years of research and the book I am writing about Corker's letters. While some of the information posted by this Stegge person are factually correct...they serve the purpose of showing only one side of the story about my ancestor. This is being done to paint my ancestor in a bad light. I know this Stegge person is in the same town that a former professor is in who I had a conflict with. This former professor points out slave records and insinuates I might have a black ancestor due to the ownership of a mulatto slave.

Recently the US House of Representative Historian corrected information listed about my ancestor. He served in the US house in the 41st Congress. The information was one sided as this Stegge person has done. At the very least the opposing position should be stated in my ancestor's wikipedia site.

Let me know how to proceed. Thankyou.

CorkerCSA (talk) 15:27, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

@CorkerCSA: There a couple of issues in play here. Let's start with the fact that you're editing an ancestor's article. That means you have a conflict of interest, so you need to be very careful and make sure your edits are backed up with reliable sources that have already been published in other works. It's a slippery slope bringing in material from your own book, since that could be seen as using original research. Further, Corker's own letters are of limited value as a source because they're a primary source.
Regarding the material in the article, yes, it should be balanced, but the verifiability policy does give preference to secondary sources over primary. Yes, that could mean 1870s media bias is in play. If that's the case, you'll want to discuss the matter at the article's talk page (Talk:Stephen A. Corker) and work toward consensus on how to address the situation.
Finally, be very careful in allegations you make about another editor's off-Wiki actions or identity. Wikipedia policies take a very hard line against revealing personal details about another editor. If the editor has self-revealed on Wikipedia, it's okay to use that information. (E.g., I state in my user page that I'm from Georgia, so that's open knowledge. However, it would be outing for another user to make a statement about my street address, since that's personal information.) So, it's a slippery slope to link CaptainStegge to a particular community unless he's made a statement somewhere on Wikipedia about being from there.
(There's a lot of information here, and I'm going to mirror this message on your talk page so you have a record there—and so the other editors you've been communicating with are aware of this message.) —C.Fred (talk) 18:19, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

The Center Line: Fourth Quarter 2014[edit]

The Center Line header.svg
Volume 7, Issue 4 • Fourth Quarter 2014 • About the Newsletter
State and national updates
ArchivesNewsroomFull IssueShortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Imzadi1979 (talk · contribs) 10:38, 24 December 2014 (UTC)