This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Re: Issues with editing Wikipedia need to be addressed on-Wiki
Ill be reporting you too. There is no such policy. Library777 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Library777 (talk • contribs) 21:11, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
There most certainly is a WP:No legal threats policy, which I warned you on your talk page about violating. —C.Fred (talk) 21:18, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Help for moving the page
Hello C.Fred! How are you?
I requested a move 7 days ago to switch "Northwest Agriculture and Forestry University" to "Northwest A&F University". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Northwest_Agriculture_and_Forestry_University. And Thanks for your support to this move! But currently I have a question that how shall I finish the move after the 7 days discussion? Because I just see my propose comes into the Backlog, and nothing happens. I am new in the Wikipedia so I have no idea how to do it next. Could you help me with that? Thanks!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benlovesmegan (talk • contribs) 02:35, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
@Benlovesmegan: This move needed to be closed by an administrator due to technical reasons (the target page already existed). I've moved it. —C.Fred (talk) 02:43, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for editing the article of Northwest A&F University. Endurancelei (talk) 05:19, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Metro Detroit
Hi there, can you take quick look at Metro Detroit, and tell me what you thinks going on there? They have me confused, but I don't think there was any vandalism or widespread deletions, maybe a bit thou, but mostly good faith in my opinion. Is there anything I can do there to contribute without making an enemy? They mean well, I think, but there maybe some pre-existing problems that could push a new editor like me away. Any advice you could offer would be great. Thanks C. Fred. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IMFromMichigan (talk • contribs) 01:06, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
@IMFromMichigan: I'm not quite sure what I'm looking for there. —C.Fred (talk) 01:17, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Leslye Obiora
Fred,
I am editing the page for Leslye Obiora because I am her research assistant and she told me to do so. I was removing the information because it was incorrect. Can you please no change anything else I decide to do. Is there any way i can get the "fix inline citations" message to be removed from the top? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sophiamdoak (talk • contribs) 17:15, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
All editors are subject to Wikipedia guidelines including WP:Verifiability and WP:Reliable sources, especially those who have a conflict of interest with the subject—which you just admitted to. Any editor is free to change your edits, especially if you do not provide sources for material you add to the article.
I've removed the template about the need for footnotes. However, I've added a maintenance template because the article has no introductory section. —C.Fred (talk) 17:23, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
N94228
He or she apparently thinks that he or she is a WP:DIVA and that the threat to leave Wikipedia will cause the article to be left standing. My own guess is that the author is notable, and that the OP should ask for assistance in finding reliable sources rather than making idle threats to leave Wikipedia and idle accusations of vandalism. My own guess also is that the OP will eventually be blocked, and no one else will care, and the article should not be speedy-deleted, but that an AFD challenge to find a reliable source is in order and is likely to get the article fixed. Bye bye N94228. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:46, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Justiceforvenus
Hey, C. Fred I noticed you saw the situation going on at Artpop. As you probably know I am way too smart to go over 3RR with this user, and I do not want a possible shooting myself in the foot situation, so would you mind making the WP:ANEW report? Obviously the user is not understanding that a song does not have to be released to radio to be a single, no matter how many times I point out its single release to Amazon, and the definition of promotional single. This situation went way to far, but I was more concerned about the users obvious lack of using WP:NPOV phrases and the WP:OR involved in their statements on the page. I gave them a EW warning, but as you saw they kept going. STATicmessage me! 02:29, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
@STATicVapor: Is there existing discussion on the talk page to support that consensus is not to list the song? —C.Fred (talk) 02:31, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
There was discussion at Talk: Do What U Want that decided that of course upon its October 21, 2013 release as a single to Amazon.com, it became a single. That is why in the infobox of Artpop the date for single's release is October 21, 2013. It is also mentioned many times that it was released as a single to Amazon on the single's article. STATicmessage me! 02:39, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
1999 delhi hit and run case
Let me know, why this article has "Sanjeev Nanda" and its comming on top on "Sanjeev Nanda" google search. Please remove it or if you make some changes on it because this article disappoint someone and its not wikipedia's strategies. And let me know, why Salman khan hit and run case not come on wiki pedia.
And can we upload sanjeev nanda's proper biography on wikipedia and we can put hit and run case in it. Pleas if you you can do it, revert me back ASAP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khalidgaur (talk • contribs) 08:02, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
@Khalidgaur: I don't know how Google engineers its searches. I do know that reliable sources mentioned Nanda as being involved in the crash, so that's why his name is mentioned in the article. I don't know the specifics with the Khan case.
As for getting an article on Nanda proper, consensus was that Nanda was notable for one event only, the hit-and-run case. That's probably part of why Google generates the search results you mention: Sanjeev Nanda redirects to the article on the hit-and-run. Discussion at Talk:1999 Delhi hit-and-run case has indicated that the prevailing view is that Nanda is not notable for anything other than that one event; being known only for one event isn't enough to have an article. To split an article off on Nanda, you'd want to start discussion at the talk page about a split. Do not be surprised if there's no change in opinion and the split is opposed. —C.Fred (talk) 18:23, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
@C.Fred: I can understand but can you please remove redirect from Sanjeev Nanda to 1999 delhi hit and run case. So we can upload a biographical article of "Sanjeev Nanda" and mention all related thing to this man. Can you help us. Please reply me ASAP : — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khalidgaur (talk • contribs) 13:17, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
@Khalidgaur: No, I will not, and you may not. As I stated above, Nanda is not notable enough to warrant an article about him. His notability has only been demonstrated for the event. Again, you'll need to explain what has changed about Nanda to make him now more notable, and you'll want to start the discussion at Talk:1999 Delhi hit-and-run case to see if there's support for a move or split. —C.Fred (talk) 19:18, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
A cookie for you!
Wow, very quick onto this, you deleted it before I had a chance to tag it! Matty.007 19:46, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Robert Reich
Hi C.Fred. Thanks for your message, and for your willingness to help this Wikipedia newbie. My usage has been limited to making minor changes to Professor Reich's page, as I am his assistant, hence my lack of knowledge with regard to all of the intricacies of posting, editing, etc. With regard to the change that I've been making to Professor Reich's spouse, my reliable source is Professor Reich, himself. Is that something that I should note when I make that change? Is my username inappropriate, given that any changes that I will make to Professor Reich's page will only be at Professor Reich's request? Thank you very much for any assistance you can provide.
Robertbreich (talk) 20:51, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
See reply at your talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 21:20, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
I've been blocked!
Hi C.Fred. I've only just posted the necessary autoblock-lift request on my talk page, I know … Your name's there as the block admin – the issue of blocking or being blocked is a whole new ballgame to me. Can you explain, is it easy to sort out? I can't think of anything I've done to warrant a block, apart from writing the occasional overlong article (ho ho). Best, JG66 (talk) 17:20, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
I've never seen an autoblock on 127.0.0.1. That's a new one by me. —C.Fred (talk) 17:59, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Hey, thanks for that. Like you, I was confused after following the 127.0.0.1 link; also that I was able to leave the above message. Another thing is, I'm at home – no shared network such as in a university. Odd … but it's working now! Thanks again, JG66 (talk) 18:13, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Yeah - not sure what's going on here, Mr Fred, but it's happened to me thrice now, autoblock, with the localhost address, and with you implicated as the blocking admin in the message. Very odd, and annoying, because obviously my edit can't be saved. Then it "goes away" and everything is fine. Surely not your fault, but the wiki software keeps "blaming" your block of timesh*** I'm at home, on a dedicated fixed IP which nobody else could access. Something screwy, methinks...Begoontalk 18:37, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I'd like to note that there was clearly enough context (as opposed to content, of which there was none) to identify the subject of the article which you deleted (yes, big surprise, the subject was Vera Dick). Since she is mentioned in Legends_and_myths_regarding_RMS_Titanic#Titanic.27s_band, I had simply redirected the page there (redirects are cheap) before you deleted it. It's a moot point now (the page is gone), but in the future please double check your rationales. Thanks for all your hard work, Theopolisme(talk) 18:40, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
@Theopolisme: By that logic, there is no deletion possible under CSD A1, because the name could always be looked up to identify the context. Technically, you're right, it was an A3 (empty page/repetition of title only) and not an A1. —C.Fred (talk) 18:43, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, as I said, moot point, but with all the hoo-hah going on about rationales and such I suppose I've been more nit-picky than usual lately. Theopolisme(talk) 18:49, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Hello, and thank you for your recent contributions. I appreciate the effort you made for our project, but unfortunately I had to undo some of your edit(s) because I believe the article was better before you made that change. Feel free to contact me directly if you have any questions. Thank you! Ben0kto (talk) 19:25, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Total Drama Episodes
Alright. Would this link count as a reference? https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=10104280995891731&set=vb.86875138148&type=2&theater The official Total Drama Facebook page, which shows the trailer for the next episode and clearly labels the 9th episode of season 5, Zeek and Ye Shall Find, as the 100th episode. Thus, by this count, the recaps and specials aren't counted. Or do we need a more legitimate source? 169.231.56.250 (talk) 03:31, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
The problem is this: is it the real-world episode #100, or is it in-universe episode #100? Based on the trailer, it sure looks like the latter. The ideal source would be production documentation and the episode/production numbering there. —C.Fred (talk) 03:46, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
Deleted cyber-stalking victim page
Hi C.Fred
This deleted page Noel A. Bednaz may be related to very recent vandalism at Dennis P. McCann. The Bednaz page was created only an hour or so after McCann's page was semi-protected @ 04:16 today. Regards, 220ofBorg 06:32, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Yes, it's definitely related. If an admin wants to contact me by email, I'll be more than glad to give you the proof. Dennispmccann (talk) 22:28, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Ikano
Hi C.Fred: You speedy deleted Ikano, but you missed the fact we already have IKANO. I've just expanded that with the material at the corresponding Swedish page, which makes it clearer that it's the same topic. Could I suggest undeleting it and making it a redirect? Half the other languages, including the Swedish, have the article at the not all-caps version, and although the search box takes one to the all-caps, a link won't. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:18, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
@Yngvadottir: I've gone one step further: I've moved it to the non-all-caps title. I don't see a reason for the all caps, nor is that used anywhere in the article. —C.Fred (talk) 21:36, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
OK, thanks! That works for me, though the editor who made the deleted article may be puzzled :-) I thought of doing that but thought he should get some credit (when you can read the Swedish, his version doesn't look so bad - not nearly as bad as his Ikano Retail Centres, where I cannot figure some of it out for the life of me). The Norwegian article is still at all-caps; I believe the reason is the company's trademark styling: [1]. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:51, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Barnstar of Diligence
Your work on English Wikipedia is very inspirational and i'm sorry for wasting your time but please dont remove my current page as it is apart of a school i.t project Liamsport (talk) 00:51, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
Re: Conflict of Interest
C.Fred, thanks for your comment on the Craig Lancaster page, re: conflict of interest. For clarification, I am in no way professionally affiliated with the subject of the article, or in person. I am a fan and I emailed him at his website requesting a picture. He supplied me with one. Mkfrench (talk) 01:22, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Just wanted know is sometimes i change some things in a certain wiki just to make the the list more accurate but i have gotten messages that if i continue to make these changes i can be blocked i just wanted to know what to do — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikifan16 (talk • contribs) 07:33, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Well, you probably want to start by reading the guidelines on use and abuse of multiple accounts, since it looks like this is a new account. If your old account has been blocked, you need to start by appealing the block against that account; if you're using this new account to evade another block, this account will be blocked as well.
Beyond that, then you need to look at guidelines like WP:Reliable sources. Without knowing what you're changing, my guess is that you're adding information that is unsourced, speculative, or otherwise cannot be verified. —C.Fred (talk) 13:38, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
@PranavKSanghadia: No, that would be original research, which is not allowed. Personal experience and first-hand accounts are not allowed as sources. —C.Fred (talk) 19:11, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
accidental revert
I accidentally reverted you at ANI. I undid it. My fault. JodyBtalk 21:57, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
Rhona Simpson
You made a mistake deleting what I wrote, it's all true and people need to know the truth. It's in their right. It's a neutral opinion — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xxxxyyyyzzzz (talk • contribs) 18:30, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Deleting "Lanatheism"
I request that the Lanatheism page be restored, because this is not made up and it is a new religion. You can't say that we don't have the same right to spread our religion as others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lanadelreysus (talk • contribs) 00:08, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
@Lanadelreysus:Lanatheism is a new religion, which means it's an organization and must meet WP:ORG. There were no reliable sources, so the article was subject to deletion under WP:CSD#A7.
Further, you have no "right to spread" your religion on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a soapbox; you may not use it to promote a cause or organization. —C.Fred (talk) 00:17, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
However, you can INFORM people on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lanadelreysus (talk • contribs) 00:22, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
@Lanadelreysus: Yes, but not about anything. Subjects must be notable to have articles. Not only is this new religion not notable, but it falls into a category that allows the article to be immediately deleted.
If it's to have an article, you'll need to show that it's been written about in reliable sources that are independent of the religion. You can't use the group's website or press releases as a source for that purpose. —C.Fred (talk) 00:26, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Changed Username
Hi C.Fred. I have changed my username now from The Extreme Sport Challenges Association to Kieran3004— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kieran3004 (talk • contribs) 12:11, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
woto12
hi cfred sorry bout what happen before my friend had my password and was completely destroying things. again sorry for what happened!!! i hope nothing to bad happen to anything! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Woto12 (talk • contribs) 07:08, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
See reply to this at your talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 13:48, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
hi there C fred Thank you for your note
ok my work on may Elizabeth Lawson was deleted and there bye any permission of use with it where previous or not
ok please put yourself in my shoes and a lot would love to you will see on the news at a later date. apart from my Grandmother is on
Wikipedia and what is written is not liked as it does not tell the whole truth which has been a mystery for years making her look like she likes the men to put it nicely when in truth its due to pregnancy
so I would like you to do the editing and I supply the means as emails the best way
as you like things in a set way as for family accounts they will not be in written form as Mary Lawson son was kept a secret
my farther has died I have his death cert and birth cert
as for legal action I was provoked and first contacted Catuswriter first to find he removed more works on my father
as well so contacted you solicitors would have been the last result if you did not wish to contact me and would have been throw
catuswriter and yourselves first so no its not a threat only in use when not given a choice.
so sorry it was not a threat but a request should I Have no choice
so my email is [redacted] and will need a contact email please
will give the true story of Mary Elizabeth Lawson and hope you can add family accounts in some way
from mark — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pendragon007 (talk • contribs) 18:47, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
@Pendragon007: First, the license you grant with your text is irrevocable. Whether the text is used, edited, removed from the article (as was the case here), or deleted, the genie is out of the bottle: you cannot change your mind and take back the license.
Second, any information on Lawson must be backed up by reliable sources. I am not in the habit of communicating via email about article issues. You could email me copies of material (look for the "email this user" link to the left), but I will not reply via email; any replies will be via your or my user talk page. It may be that some of your material will need to be sent to Wikipedia's volunteer response team; they do operate via email when there is sensitive information in play. (One time they get involved is when somebody who is the subject of an article sees a discrepancy with the article; VRT will ask for positive identification via email.) Again, first-hand accounts and family stories are not reliable sources; I wouldn't expect to get any different ruling from VRT than you'd get from CactusWriter, myself, or any other administrator.
Third, CactusWriter's deletion of Baden Colin Beaumont was in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines. Criterion for speedy deletion A7 says that any biographical article may be deleted with minimal warning if it is about a person for whom no significance or importance is asserted. I reviewed the deleted text of the article; I didn't see anything that Beaumont did that meets the definition of notability. (Notability is not inherited: a person is not notable just because his/her parents are.)
Finally, it is not Wikipedia's purpose to right great wrongs. Arguably, it is unfortunate that the biographies of your grandmother leave gaps in her history. We try to write articles as neutrally as possible, but in the end, we have to go with what can be verified. That does mean some people's family stories are left muddy when they haven't been written about. —C.Fred (talk) 19:12, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
ok as for the license please take a look contract law I received texted notice that the work done was removed
ie bye your own hand as so to speak so and you are seen as to represent wiki. agreement (license) on the work I have done terminated on Mary Lawson. there bye cannot be used as in an amendment to the previous agreement license.
also need to see proof of as in Ref to
Lawson was as known for her off stage romances as she was for her onstage performances
It is uncertain when the affair between Lawson and Beaumont began
can you please provide ref to for these statements
also I was building Baden Colin Beaumont's article and was not finished what he has achieved is not for release till 2014
Regarding the license, I think "you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL" is sufficiently clear for how you licensed the text. The license allows for derivative work, including but not limited to editing, removal, and restoration in the future.
Regarding the statement about off-stage romances, there are multiple citations throughout the following paragraph to support that statement. As for the uncertainty of the beginning date, that's a function of the lack of a known date, other than the 30 Nov 1937 advertisement for "dissolution" of Beaumont's prior marriage, which is cited to the Times (London) of that date.
Finally, if what Baden Beaumont "has achieved is not for release till 2014," then it will be 2014 at the earliest that he can have an article. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball; we don't write articles in anticipation of future notability. —C.Fred (talk) 21:51, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
ok as for license if you make an amendment to ie a statement to removal it stands so no mater what was agreed before does not
so sorry you don't have permission of use . an easy way to stop this from happening again would be to send a message to other to say
sorry your work done on article ???? ??????? has been set aside for review and would like to talk to you on your work thank you
note don't commit to removal as you will be changing your original agreement license on that subject
please send news paper article related to ref please to my email address
if you are right I will give an apology if worded like that if not ask that it be reworded
in a more respectful manor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pendragon007 (talk • contribs) 22:32, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
deleted page while editing
the page I am creating currently is my band and is in no way a violation of any of the terms of use set down by Wikipedia, it is all privately owned work and no citiations were put up before you deleted the whole work. please reevaluate your decision of deleting our page.
thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ever since the fire (talk • contribs) 06:02, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Which part of WP:A7 does it meet, then? — Jeff G. ツ(talk) 06:04, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
about that
I'm starting a story and it's going to include of what i just wrote and more — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xrapz123 (talk • contribs) 05:45, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Wikipedia is not the place to write fictional stories, no matter how entertaining they are. This is an encyclopedia, and you are welcome to contribute edits that improve the encyclopedia. --Jprg1966(talk) 05:48, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Semi
If you Semi-Protect that article. I can edit because i am autoconfirmed user — Preceding unsigned comment added by Indian Fellow (talk • contribs) 15:33, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
Request for User Page Protection
Hello Sir
Please Protect My USER PAGE User:Indian Fellow—Preceding undated comment added 16:00, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
@Indian Fellow: Why does it need protected? I don't see where anybody but you has edited it. —C.Fred (talk) 17:34, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
Oh, it is the 33-year-old comic who did the porn! However, the Wikipedia article is about the 32-year-old actress. —C.Fred (talk) 22:59, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
Sharon Catherine Blanks
I am Sharon Catherine blanks! I have not been Sharon Brown for over 10 years and I wish to change that on Wikipedia. I am having a lot of trouble and I don't like the fact that when people look up Sharon Catherine blanks the name Sharon Brown comes up. I don't see Wikipedia listing any of my friends who are actresses by their maiden names. Sharon Catherine blanks is both my legal name as well as my professional name. I should be able to change things on Wikipedia that I know to be false and correct those things. Please advise. Thank you very much. Sharon Catherine blanksSharon Catherine Blanks (talk) 13:38, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
(talk page stalker)In the meantime: once you were stopped from edit warring, Sharon, I was able to establish a version of the article which clarifies your nomenclatural situation. For further explanation, see your own talk page; but it boils down to, you are best known by your old name, not your new. It's why we have the article Judy Garland, not Frances Gumm. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:22, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
To view sections of my talk page that discuss the blocking of vandals, go to my anti-vandalism section. --Adeptzare3 (talk) 04:00, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Please block vandals. --Adeptzare3 (talk) 00:56, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
For C.Fred
Happy Birthday C.Fred, hope you have a good one. James. 142.166.195.90 (talk) 04:54, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Can you please explain why I am incorrect to say that it is a Sandusky Child Sex Abuse Scandal, when he (an ex-employee of Penn State when the crimes occurred) is the only person that has been convicted in a court of law of a crime. No one else from Penn State University, I repeat no one, has been convicted of a crime has so far, as of this date. Is it not our principles that say you are innocent until proven guilty? Has an employee of Penn State committed any crime? Three PSU empolyees are charged, but until they are found guilty is it fair to call it a "Penn State child Sex Abuse Scandal?" How can one call it a Penn State Sex Abuse Scandal and besmirch a whole university based on the actions of "one ex-employee?" Stjohn2001 (talk) 20:56, 2 December 2013 (UTC)Stjohn2001Stjohn2001 (talk) 20:56, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
I wrote you a reply, would you be so kind as to respond to my question. Thank you.
Reply at your talk page. Please reply there; I've watched your talk page and will see that you've commented (or use the {{Mention}} template to make sure I see the comment). —C.Fred (talk) 21:09, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Penn State 2009 Football".
Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBotoperator / talk 21:31, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
The Freeh Report is not a official document from any Court of Law in any legal jurisdiction in the United States. You cannot convict someone of a crime based on a "Purchased Investigation." Please show me where any Court of Law has accepted the Freeh report as fact. Also, you need to get your facts straight, former PSU President was not indicted by a Federal Grand Jury, it was an indictment by the State of Pennsylvania. And since when has the media become the "know all be all" with regards to determining the truth of the matter. Just because the "Media" says it so, doesn't mean it is so. Thank God we have have a legal system in this country, and it is the legal system that determines fact from fiction.
Stjohn2001 (talk) 21:39, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
CAD
I am surprised that article makes it seem like that is the usual short form. Most times when written in news articles it is CAD. Our article even mentions that is the code for a Canadian dollar. Anyways not that big a deal, it just looks very wrong when reading it since I am used to reading it the other way. -DJSasso (talk) 12:56, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
The IP
I've got him under control. ThatRusskiiGuy (talk) 15:01, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Changes to my biography
Hi C. Fred,
I created an account in order to delete my old page and replace it with new and updated information. Although it seemed to take everything including my photo, Wiki is still showing the old information. I had included links back to my website and can easily add more content with links back to my many articles and books. Why aren't my changes showing up?
@Beverly Eakman: See your talk page, where I noted that I reverted your changes because they deleted links, references, persondata, categories, and other necessary items. —C.Fred (talk) 18:29, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Now that User talk:Nonartinfo is blocked, would you continue fixing the mess in the article? I just didn't want our edits conflicting.Josh3580talk/hist 21:13, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
@Josh3580: If you want to be bold and make the edits yourself, go for it. Otherwise, please suggest what you think needs done at the talk page. I do have concerns about the unsourced material in the early life section, but I don't want to jump into that straightaway without getting the pulse of other editors (who may know that the first paragraph is really backed up by the ref for the second, for instance). —C.Fred (talk) 21:16, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm with you on the consensus idea. We should obviously be vigilant about WP:BLP, but @User:Nonartinfo was not interested in discussing things.Josh3580talk/hist 22:30, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Agreed. I was trying to work with him, but his concerns were less about WP:BLP than in trying to paint a rosy picture of Serota, despite WP:NPOV. —C.Fred (talk) 22:42, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Entities using Arabian Gulf in their names
I was just to express a historical forgery. Based on strong historical evidence. I hope you understand this subject. If someone has forged the name of your country, you see it as a variety of perspectives?
If someone take a Persian or US scientist to introduce Arabic, is it the variety of perspectives? we Should see be based on historical evidence, rational reasoning ... thank you.
@Ttr313: There are many parts of the world where a geographic feature has disputed names. That doesn't mean a summary of the dispute has to go into every article that uses the name. Further, to claim that Arabian Gulf is a "bogus" name, as you did here, is advocating a particular point of view. AGRFU chose that name for itself, and that's the name we'll refer to it as, unless the name controversy is directly relevant to the history of that organization. —C.Fred (talk) 14:26, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
@ C.Fred I dont use "bogus" in my new subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ttr313 (talk • contribs) 15:59, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
@ Hello Fred, In Arab language "Gulf Cup of Nations 2009" means کاس خلیج دول 2009. gulf= الخلیج / cup= کاس / nations = دول
based on we must use خلیج or کاس خلیج in table title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ttr313 (talk • contribs) 06:48, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
@ so, correct your wrong edition, why you remove about name subject in "Gulf Cup of Nations 2009"?
Unsolicited advice
Calton: Nothing that I see from this IP's conduct justifies that first message you left here.
And nothing in your unwillingness or inability to do some basic background checking before acting the scold justifies paying any attention to the scolding. --Calton | Talk 05:15, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Let me give you some help. Look at the logs for my Talk page: notice anything? --Calton | Talk 05:28, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
@Calton: Yes, I do. I see you've been blocked in the past for, broadly construed, incivility. That means you shouldn't be surprised that telling an IP user to "Get bent, you illiterate jackass" would attract at least as much attention into your conduct as to his.
If you'd skipped that and just made a report along these lines, either directly to an admin or to WP:ANI or a similar noticeboard, then it would be a whole lot easier to see that you're an innocent party getting trolled, and we'd be focusing on who the underlying troll is and how long to block that IP.
Yes, I agree that the IP is trolling you. The problem is, you fell into the trap and did exactly what they wanted you to. Next time it happens, just smile, nod, quietly reportly them, and grin smugly when they're blocked while you're free to keep contributing to Wikipedia. —C.Fred (talk) 13:55, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
She is a great writer , I am in the middle of reading one of her articles on human rights in Afghanistan . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Perterjohnson (talk • contribs) 16:24, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
User making false accusations
C. Fred,
The user "Fat&Happy" has been falsely accusing me of making disruptive edits to John F. Kennedy and Robert F. Kennedy. All I did was trim bits of the infoboxes slightly, yet Fat&Happy insists it is "disruptive". I repeatedly have tried to tell how it is not at all disruptive but in fact part of more recent coding, but he absolutely refuses to believe me. Can you please help?
Wikipedia currently renders HTML5 where <br> and <br /> are both valid. Normally HTML Tidy will convert a variety of versions of the break tag to <br /> including <br>, </br>, <br/> and <br.>. This conversion does not work in a number of MediaWiki interface pages and can cause invalid HTML and problems rendering the page. Other wikis may not have HTML Tidy enabled, thus exported pages using an incorrect break tags will result in invalid HTML.
So, it looks like <br /> is the preferred tag. This is corroborated by the behaviour of the syntax highlighter gadget: any text after <br> is treated like it was within HTML tags and is highlighted in pink.
Finally, server space is not so critical that we can't afford two extra bytes here and there. (Lots of extra whitespace gets added to infoboxes to make them easier for editors to read.)
Net result, while it isn't wrong to use <br>, it's better to use <br />. I don't see a compelling reason to delete the slashes from the tags. In an of itself, it's not disruptive to remove the slashes, but when an editor says that your changes to the tags are causing issues with the syntax highlighting tool and you keep changing the tags, now it starts to look like you're changing the tags to intentionally cause that editor distress—and that is disruptive. —C.Fred (talk) 05:21, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
It definitely wasn't done to distress others, I'll say that now. Since the slashes aren't needed, it looks cleaner to not have them and is more concise. The syntax highlighter in this case is outdated and/or misleading. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 13:09, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks!
Thanks for your edit to the Mike Yeager article. Being an IP can be exasperating because most editors treat you like a vandal. It's no wonder retention of WP editors is so low. And all the templated welcomes will do no good if new editors are treated badly. IMHO, of course. 70.134.229.223 (talk) 15:46, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
@70.134.229.223: Actually I kind of screwed up there, BTW. And I really meant it when I give out welcome messages, of which I have given out a couple hundred so far. As I am a relatively new editor with only one year and 30,000 edits experience, I might mess up in some ways. And if you want an account, you can create one. There are actually additional benefits with creation of an account. Epicgenius (talk) 16:47, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Before I actually opine on the talk page of this article about the use of Reed's book (I have not yet done that), I wanted to get your take on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Michael Reed 1975. Nine days have passed without anyone looking at it, and I'm wondering if there is any traction to these concerns. Maklelan, Johnnym55, and This Guy 52 all came out of nowhere at the same time to support Reed. On the surface it appears to be sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry, although maybe it is coincidence. What do you think? Should I keep the SPI open and should we keep the content out until the SPI is resolved? Thanks, Bahooka (talk) 23:11, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
XXL
Hey C.Fred, thanks for taking care of the XXL page when the vandal came through. It looks like User: Rydeclassic and User: RydeDefjam are the same person. Along with User: RYDEARTISTS and User: Rydenewarista along with User:71.185.53.242 looking like either sockpuppets or meatpuppets. Notice the similarity in articles, time period and edit summaries. I think they all can be blocked on that ground, or as vandalism only accounts.STATicmessage me! 18:21, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Revdeleting 67.220.154.178's edits
Hey C.Fred, I noticed that you blocked the IP address 67.220.154.178, which I edit from. Is it possible that you can also revdelete their contributions on [redacted]? Or do I have to contact an oversighter in order to do that? Their edits on these pages may possibly contain personal information. Epicgenius (talk) 18:28, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
@Epicgenius: The usual rule of thumb is, if you think it needs oversight, put in a request for oversight to have it suppressed. That minimizes the number of times it shows up in the general database. —C.Fred (talk) 18:38, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Okay, how do I contact them? Epicgenius (talk) 18:39, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. Epicgenius (talk) 18:42, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
I AM WORKING ON SME THING LIKE THAT — Preceding unsigned comment added by Minemey67love (talk • contribs) 21:17, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
I thought by "meetinghouses" on "The Church Of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints" they needed a picture of a *local* ward building because I'm more at my ward building than I am my stake center. That's where I got confused. When I deleted the picture of the stake center I was going to put a ward building in. Shouldn't it be clarified that it's a stake center?50.88.218.76 (talk) 00:25, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
See the talk page conversation you tried to delete: it's asserted that state centers are meetinghouses. —C.Fred (talk) 00:28, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Mixup on my part. Thanks for correcting me. 50.88.218.76 (talk) 00:31, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Full list of cryptocurrencies
Id love for all the information in the one i created to be in the other one. The people maintaining the other one are saying that that list isnt a list of crypto currencies but just a list of the major ones. So what am I supposed to do if i cant make a full list because that list is already created but the list that is already created ISNT the full list. Its really depleting my level of trust in the accuracy of wikipedia. So what should I do?
@NataliWinehouse: We don't need redundant lists for the same topic. I'd suggest discussing the matter at Talk:List of cryptocurrencies about what needs done to include the additional currencies. —C.Fred (talk) 03:17, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Its not redundant if they are entirely different list. So pretty much wiki is based off of what others think is appropriate regardless of what is. They are ignoring the wants of the talk and only supporting the ones they support.
@NataliWinehouse: What makes the two lists different? I don't see why we need two lists. —C.Fred (talk) 03:21, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
One list shows only the "major cryptocurrencies" the other one shows the entire list of cryptocurrencies. Id love to combine them, but everytime I do, someone changes it back stating their own person reason for only listing their favorites. So what is the proper avenue to take?
From 20-13-Rila.
Really sorry about that, just got called for dinner and didn't know what to do. I was stuck with grammer on some boring page, so I just went off and found Jacen to be under alerts, and I like Star Wars so I tried to do something about it. I'l go away if you don't like it.
P.S. I'm watching your page as requested.
C. Fred, I second Anemone's concerns. Thanks, and happy holidays, JNW (talk) 18:06, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
I've indeffed Pink Map and Stormfool. I'm fairly satisfied they are the same person, but, in any event, both of them were sufficiently disruptive to merit a block anyway. The bud accounts are obviously all related, but they haven't done much, and I don't feel up to sorting it out at the moment. An SPI might be helpful with a CU for sleepers.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:26, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
"Let me help you by blanking pages" is also now blocked. I included the Bud accounts because Budlight123 was welcomed by one of the others, and logs show that Budlight123 created the other two Bud accounts. I think I'll block those. –anemoneprojectors– 18:28, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. Although it's a bit incestuous, I've endorsed the CU.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:03, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Vgleer socks
Hi C.Fred. Thank you for blocking the sock. I would just ask if you don't mind, since the troll's MO is to use multiple attacking usernames the best thing would be not to create the talkpage by adding any message. Is it possible you could delete it anyway? Thank you very much and Merry Christmas. Δρ.Κ.λόγοςπράξις 03:53, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, I debated whether to leave the message or not. It's gone now. —C.Fred (talk) 03:55, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
Thank you very much. Take care. Δρ.Κ.λόγοςπράξις 03:59, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
Odd that if you fell for it that I should somehow not be allowed to do the same thing. Oh well thanks for your vigilance and I apologize for making your Xmas more difficult. Thanks for your vigilance in tracking down what is going on. MarnetteD | Talk 05:43, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi again. Well now the little rascal has created an attack sock MaranetteD (talk·contribs) and is spamming numerous pages. Any help you can give will be appreciated. MarnetteD | Talk 06:11, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
I am sure that you saw that SarahStierch got the impersonator sock. I appreciate you getting the IP!! MarnetteD | Talk 06:26, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
Stormfool returns is probably User:Evlekis because of User:Stormfool. In fact they all are. Exactly the same editing habits. –anemoneprojectors– 10:02, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
hi
user:C.Fred how can the speedy deletion be undone which was done by you i am talking about the page Mizta Decoder — Preceding unsigned comment added by Albinzproduction (talk • contribs) 16:06, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
You'd have to show he's a notable musician. The article would also need written neutrally, and your username suggests that's not the case. —C.Fred (talk) 21:26, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
FAU Owls logo
Please explain your deletion of the FAU logo. Every single Division FBS team with individual season pages has their logos on it; logos are not "season specific." Please refrain from deleting and engaging in vandalism.FAUowl (talk) 05:32, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
@FAUowl: See Wikipedia:WikiProject College football/Images. "Many common images (such as team logos, the NCAA logo, the NAIA logo, conference logos, bowl game logos, television logos, etc.) are copyrighted logos and should be avoided whenever possible." WP:NFCC can justify the image one time, in the article for the school's athletic program, but it cannot justify it for each season the school competed. —C.Fred (talk) 05:40, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
@FAUowl: It's not copyrighted/the copyright has lapsed. —C.Fred (talk) 05:45, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Need some discussion on the List of dramatic television series with LGBT characters
No, it's obvious that he is vandalizing.
Orphan Black is a Canadian series. It's a TV series that airs on Space, and airs on BBC America in the USA.
Why is he removing these informations? Orphan Black isn't exclusively a BBC America TV show. Just look at the article of the TV series and you will see that he is vandalizing.
And I stopped to revert his edits because of the war edit. But he is wrong and I'm waiting for a administrator to do something. LPSérgioLPmsg 22:09, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
@LP Sérgio LP: It is not obvious that he is editing in bad faith. I can see the point in his edit. That's why I said you both need to discuss the matter on the talk page—and get other editors involved, so that a consensus can be reached on both this show and at least one other show that airs on multiple networks simultaneously. —C.Fred (talk) 22:10, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes, it is obvious that he is vandalizing. He is removing the information that says the series is from the Space. LPSérgioLPmsg 22:13, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
@LP Sérgio LP: No, it is not obvious. It is not clear that he is editing in bad faith or that he's intentionally disrupting the encyclopedia. That's why—and speaking as an administrator—I warned both of you for edit warring. —C.Fred (talk) 22:17, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
It is obvious that he is wrong to remove that information (and that information was completely right). But ok, I will not fix it again. Thanks. LPSérgioLPmsg 22:22, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
User:Sportsismylife87
Hi I just noticed that you blocked Sportsismylife87, thought I should give you a heads up about another user who I think is ether the same person or works with Sportsismylife87.--Dcheagle • talk • contribs 04:30, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
thanks
thanks for leaving the message on my talk. please help me in deleting the article [[slavic vedism]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agragora (talk • contribs) 15:34, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Bias in editing biographies
Hi C. Fred, Thanks for your cautionary message. My approach is journalistic (trained journalist); objective and neutral. Gioia's site was out of date and had some misleading information. I cleaned and updated it. I agree with all of the biography tips you included. Yes, I am a new editor, and learning. Not even sure how to respond to your message, or the best way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Katierat (talk • contribs) 00:53, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
A cheeseburger for you!
Thanks for reverting this revision I made to Michael Jackson. Maybe my browser got corrupt? I didn't even touch down on that part, I just tried to add the reference to the lead. Chrome did have some trouble because it is too big an article. I went to undo it immediately, and found you've already done so. I'm a big fan of anyone who helps- I also like to help- and that's why here's a cheeseburger for you, a treat from my part for the new year. Cheers. Ethically(Yours) 06:37, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
User Page
How do you get those dropboxs (the boxs you click on and they drop down with information in them) and boxs (eg the one saying this user speaks english) on to you page as I would like them for my page. Stormy Nights (talk) 17:32, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Donald Nally Wikipedia page
Hello,
I edited Donald Nally's Wikipedia page to remove information that I argued was not germane to his biography.
The first deletion was regarding his creation of a choir at Northwestern University called BCE. While it is factually accurate, calling it a 26-voice premier ensemble is a biased and unnecessary statement on an event that amounts to a mere reshuffling of curriculum. A more apt edit would have been "At Northwestern, Nally conducts the University Chorale and Bienen Contemporary/Early Vocal Ensemble, a chamber choir dedicated to performing choral works of the Renaissance, Baroque, and 21st Century."
The second deletion was in regard to an incident that occurred and included accusations of racism. The paragraph reads like a gossip section and is not important to highlight in the biography of a choral conductor.
Germane may not have been the best word to use, rather the edits were to improve the writing of the page and to maintain only noteworthy events in the career of Donald Nally. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30A:2CE8:C4C0:1C1B:ACF:DF88:3AFE (talk) 15:58, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Deletion and Rubesch Page
Hi C.Fred,
Thank you for your feedback. How should I then post up Rubesch Thananjeyan's profile so as to fit with the neutral guideline?
I would like to re-create Rubesch's page - is the below sufficient to meet the guidelines?
Rubesch Thananjeyan is the CEO of the RJ&CO Solutions Group. The RJ&CO Solutions Group was founded in 2005 consisting of the companies Midnight IT, Web Global, G2U Creative, The Eventz Group and Awesome Deals and is currently based in Melbourne, Australia.
Rubesch has over 12 years of experience within the Australian IT industry. He has worked as a senior consultant for ACP Magazines and Nine Entertainment. He also holds a double degree from Monash University in Engineering and Commerce, specialising in Electrical Engineering, Computer Systems, Econometrics and Marketing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by R101j (talk • contribs) 04:19, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
@R101j: No, it's not. Being CEO of a company does not inherently make him a notable person. The article would be deleted under criterion for speedy deletion A7 for failing to assert the signficance or importance of the subject. —C.Fred (talk) 04:53, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
copyvio
That's the secret ingredient for that full G11 flavor. Dlohcierekim 16:04, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Artpop
Thanks, I'm aware of the last revert. Waiting to see if the other party reverts or chooses to discuss. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 21:07, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
"The other party", two editors reverted IndianBio. After I warned them for 3RR they responded with a personal attack. Just saying this is not her first time coming close to, or violating WP:3RR on the page and responding to warnings with a personal attack. STATicmessage me! 21:10, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Crafts Council edits
Thanks for your quick response. thanks also for highlighting the problems associated with COI and neutral points of view in relation to wikipedia's editorial policy. However, we are a charitable organisation and would like to explore ways in which we can further illustrate our work and output using this wikipedia entry. Any further advice, including any specific points relating to the previous listed copy, would be greatly appreciated. Guypporter (talk) 16:11, 6 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guypporter (talk • contribs)
One Nation
You have just deleted two hours of editing I made to correct your One Nation page.
I was the One Nation webmaster and gave links supporting what I said.
Your One Nation page is horribly flawed.
So be it.
PS I don't wish to be associated with such wrong information so please remove all references to me from your page on One Nation
Cheers
SCOTT BALSON
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.96.54.86 (talk) 23:36, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
The problem is, works written by Balson are used as sources in the article. Under the verifiability policy, we need to keep the references to Balson's works in the article (unless other sources are found that also support the statements). —C.Fred (talk) 23:48, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
That is why I added links to Bruce Whiteside's webpage - I did not expect the piece I added to be left as it was but the thrust of the argument that the party was based on a fraud and eventually resulted in its implosion to be edited into the article. Without this factual background your article is half-told and nonsense.
As it stands your article it is very lacking in the full story - you reference my book "Inside One Nation" and refer to a link from my web page to the two Davids... if you read either you would see that (independent of what I wrote). (This is how I found this page - googling my name).
I have no further interest in assisting Wikipedia as I have been warned that it is a joke based on the philosophy of the administrator. No one bothers to see if the information freely supplied is credible.
You have simply showed to me that this is indeed the case.
When did an American who's interests are football suddenly become the expert on Australian politics?
Please remove any references to my name from this One Nation article...
ie reference to my book Inside One Nation and
your first reference linked to my website
Cheers
Scott Balson — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.96.54.86 (talk) 00:02, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Since you were the last admin to delete the page, I am requesting that you add the content of the (last) deleted article to my sandbox. Thanks. --MrScorch6200 (tc) 05:23, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. --MrScorch6200 (tc) 05:47, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
User name concerns
Thanks for the information Fred. I'm still getting used to navigating Wikipedia's myriad of rules - specifically those that do not encourage the people who are most knowledgeable on a subject to edit pages on that subject. I will not be editing the ASSIST (organization) page any longer.
ASSISTscholars (talk) 19:10, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Talkback
Hello, C.Fred. You have new messages at Bagumba's talk page. Message added 21:52, 14 January 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Thanks for redirecting the page. As I were noticing that user from the day when he created his/her account. He created many pages with the same name and content and I tagged many for speedy deletion in violation of recreation of pages Nechlison (talk) 05:43, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I'm new to wikipedia, but I'd like to ask you how to tell that I got the copyright for what I'm publishing under this page.
It doesn't violate any, so how do I do that ? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redtigerita (talk • contribs) 22:53, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
@Redtigerita: To demonstrate that you have the copyright, the easiest way would be to change the page at the source website to state that the text is licensed under Creative Commons and GFDL. Alternatively, the rightsholder of the text could email Wikipedia to verify that the text has been donated and placed into the public domain; WP:OTRS has more contact information.
Be advised that if you're the rightsholder, you have a conflict of interest with the subject. —C.Fred (talk) 23:07, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
@C.Fred I'm not the rightsholder, I just got a permission to do so. Can I also send an e-mail somewhere for proving that I got the rights? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redtigerita (talk • contribs) 23:28, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
@Redtigerita: Probably not. I believe the Volunteer Response Team members like the message to come directly from the rightsholder to make sure that 1) they did legitimately give the rights away and 2) they know the extent of the license, which is irrevocable. —C.Fred (talk) 23:50, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Karin Gleason requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. K6ka (talk | contrib) 18:28, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
@K6ka: The redirect I created is not eligible for CSD A7. It's there temporarily; I'm waiting for the original page creator to respond. If they do (or don't after about 30 minutes), I'll delete it CSD G6. —C.Fred (talk) 18:30, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, when I requested speedy deletion I didn't know you already redirected the page. K6ka (talk | contrib) 18:32, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
@K6ka: No problem. I probably did the move a split-second before you tagged with Twinkle. —C.Fred (talk) 18:34, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Finch's Beer Co.
Hi,
Our page was deleted. I don't understand why, we are a reputable microbrewery in Chicago and would like to have a page that share information about the origin of our product. It's not an add, just info. Also I noticed there was an issue because our username is not the same as our article title.
Can you restore our page please? For more info, please see: finchbeer.com\
@Finchbeer: Going through your message point by point:
As was explained to you, the article was deleted because it failed to show that the brewery is a significant or important business. The only reference, based on the author's name, was written by somebody affiliated with the company. Articles should present secondary sources to show the subject is notable; the Finch's Beer Co. article did not.
The tone of the article read like it was ad copy from the company rather than a neutral encyclopedia article. That, coupled with your conflict of interest with the subject, does mean that the article was blatant advertising. However, the article was not deleted because of the advertising; it was deleted for failing to show the significance or importance of the company.
The issue is because, exact or not, the username makes clear that you're editing on behalf of the company. The username policy prohibits promotional usernames and usernames that are the name of a company. Accordingly, you should probably put in a request to change your username. It also prohibits group accounts; only one person may use an account.
If you'd like, I'll restore the article to your user draft space (look for User:Finchbeer/Finch Beer Co.Draft:Finch's Beer Co.) so you can work on the article and bring in secondary sources. However, I'll check the text before I do, and if it was copied substantially from the Finch Beer website and there is no suitable license notice on the website, then the text will not be restored per Wikipedia rules on copyright violations.
Any other questions, feel free to ask. —C.Fred (talk) 18:35, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
@Finchbeer: There was a copyvio; I've struck the descriptions of the beers. I've also put it in Draft: space instead of user space. —C.Fred (talk) 18:43, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Link Removed
Hi, C. Fred,
^Thank you for your message, quoted as follows...
'Hello, I'm C.Fred. I wanted to let you know that I removed one or more external links you added to the page Death, because they seemed to be inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page, or take a look at our guidelines about links. Thank you. —C.Fred (talk) 01:05, 20 January 2014 (UTC'
My adding a site link to the 'Death' page was a deliberate act on my part, and I would like to ask you to consider the following.
My new web site, 'Dead Interesting' in an educational resource. It's a pay site, which I made entirely clear, but only a nominal sum is required for a full 24 hours' access. Think of it as I do, as a sideshow.
The reason I've paywalled the site is that I've made a considerable outlay already, on hosting, development and content. For example, I travelled to Edinburgh having been given special permission to photograph the skeleton of 19th Century murderer William Burke. This was a matter of a 230-mile round trip, and an overnight stay.
Visitors to my site take away nothing tangible. Instead, they acquire knowledge. Only one link goes to a commercial page, the one for a thriller novel written by a good friend. To visit this link is by no means compulsory.
I would like to 'kickstart' my site on the web, and invite you to take a look around its content, free of charge before you decide whether on its appropriateness for inclusion. Should the site prove immensely popular, I'd naturally be quite willing to discuss future moves.
Please go to www.dedint.co.uk/lobby.html?letmein This link will take you to the point where paying visitors enter the site. you may browse the content for up to 24 hours.
Thank you for your attention, I look forward to your opinion.
@Dedint: This reinforces why I removed the links: the inclusion of the link is less to provide a resource to readers than to drive traffic and, ultimately, paid subscriptions to your site. —C.Fred (talk) 00:43, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
WHY DID YOU REMOVE MY EDIT???!!!
Dear Fred,
Why the heck did u remove my edit? I made an edit on Harry Potter Deathly Hallows Part 2 and according to the history, u removed it for no reason whatsoever. That edit was contributing, and u removed it. I will put it back in, and do not remove it this time! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.12.246.12 (talk) 03:32, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Sorry for the omission; I've left a warning on your page about adding unsourced material to articles to go along with the edit summary when I reverted. —C.Fred (talk) 03:34, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Also, even with a source, this isn't the appropriate article. The movie adaptation of Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them is not a spin-off of this specific episode, but is instead a spin-off of the overall Harry Potter (film series). The mention of it already exists in that article. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:47, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Of Mice & Men genres
DUDE!! What the hell is with all these incorrect information on Of Mice & Men (band) article!! There is no way they are post-hardcore or nu metal, Austin Carlile said on multiple interviews. Bryanstars, Crescendotv, etc...ok I'll sort of give you the nu metal part after reading the Alternative Press interview, but that's not the point! I'm sticking the the specific genre that there known for, and that's metalcore. They have been metalcore from the start and they said the will stick with metalcore.....with more rock elements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sleepingwithfire (talk • contribs) 05:56, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
There are sources cited for the other genres. If you disagree with the classification, I suggest discussing the matter at Talk:Of Mice & Men (band). —C.Fred (talk) 05:58, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
So don't change the genre unless you know the specific type of genre. For exanple, Sleeping With Sirens are a post-hardcore band, Blink-182 are pop punk and so on and so on. Thank you for reading this, and I know you will follow this in the future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sleepingwithfire (talk • contribs) 06:00, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
There are sources cited for the genre. If you're going to change, you need to explain the flaw with the sources. —C.Fred (talk) 06:02, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Edit to Invicta
You reverted the bogus claims by invicta watch group, all of whom are self generated by the company themselves yet you edit out actual facts. I am not sure how a watch forum which has forced Invicta to back off claims more than once and has exposed many instances of fraud or misrepresentation by the company can not be considered to be reliable. In the instance of the sandstone dial, the report is there by the gemologist for all to see. The report is accurate to a fault. http://watchlords.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=53&t=7632 You report as fact based on a tv interview that Invicta donated watches to soliders yet that blurb contains a falsehood that 45 watches were worth $78,000 when in fact proof was provided proofing the watches were selling for $188 at that time. Even if you used an over inflated MSRP, the watches would have been worth only $20k.
History changes with time..... He forgot the part where his grandmother "invented the Russian Diver".
A few excerpts...............
RP: And your price point is what?
EL: At around $110 and $115. I've seen them on Ashford for $99 on special. We have them on network TV for $189.
RP: Has the TV been very good for you?
EL: Yes, it's been very good. Good advertising and keeping the price up. We don't control our dealers as to how much they can discount. But, if we see anybody selling at an inflated price point, we will stop them.
RP: Do you publish a suggested retail price?
EL: We let the market find its own price point.
RP: Doesn't your catalog have prices listed?
EL: Yes, we have retail prices printed and we use them. Most of our dealers use them as a base for discount. We're a discounted line. They will sell them at 30%, 40% or 50% off everyday.
RP: How would you describe a typical retail store that carries your line?
EL: They are owner operated and have three locations. They usually carry ten different watch brands and we'll be their brand that they can at least make some money on. Better profit and better volume. When you're at our price range, there's a lot more buyers out there than for the more expensive watches, so you'll sell more volume. We are not competing with high end watches. Look, we can show you quality time pieces that we sell in Latin America. You wouldn't believe the prices that we sell them at. I'll show you now. It's a different brand of watches that we produce that we sell for $5 or $6.
RP: Where are you headquartered?
EL: In South Florida. But I travel often to Japan, and we also have offices in Hong Kong where we have some production for the low end. There's a lot of traveling. Two weeks out of the month, I'm out of the house.
RP: When you say you are quality, master watch makers, do you mean your company buys movement kits and you assemble them yourself? Or do you buy a finished products?
EL: We buy finished movements, but we actually make the components.
RP: Where is all this being done?
EL: Everything is made in Japan, the cases and the automatic movements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Granny lalo (talk • contribs) 03:45, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
No comments on Granny's edits but I've reverted to a version prior to the edit done about ten days ago which turned the article into an advert. --NeilNtalk to me 03:58, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Deletion of Alexander Raye Pimentel
C. Fred
Hi you deleted my article because of the imdb link. I wasn't aware that you could not use imdb. Now that I know this I would like to recreate the article with out the imdb links. Can you help me out? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monaeface25 (talk • contribs) 05:10, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
(talk page stalker)Crap like, Pimentel is regarded as a young upcoming filmmaker with much potential and He continues to work with an undisputed motivation and passion, challenging the audience's intellect, and showing the raw reality of this vestigial world we live in has no place in an encyclopedia. See WP:UPANDCOMING and WP:NPOV. --Orange Mike | Talk 05:16, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
@Monaeface25: You can create the article again...from scratch. It wasn't the link to IMDB that was problematic; it was the wholesale copying of the text from IMDB. That's a copyright violation and is not allowed. —C.Fred (talk) 05:22, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Okay I understand now thank you very much!Monaeface25 (talk) 05:26, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
ComiCONN
Hi I made my first ever page on Wiki. The Connecticut ComiCONN PAGE
Questions:
As I'm the creator/contributor how do I avoid that issue that says I'm the major contributor?
What do I cite? Can I link to the articles I listed on the bottom? What do I cite the locations? Dates?
Finally how do I place a copyright on the art I uploaded. You made a comment that what I placed is free to be used by anyone — Preceding unsigned comment added by ComiCONNMitch (talk • contribs) 01:36, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Reply at your talk page. There's enough stuff going on that it's probably best to keep this thread there. —C.Fred (talk) 02:57, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Jatt Dizzle
Hey... you denied my request for undeleting "JattDizzle" page. Can I please know why??? And can you please try to get that page back on? Thank you.~~C.Fred — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hetva23 (talk • contribs) 04:02, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
@Hetva23: Well, part of the problem was it was a bad request: you had the wrong page title and were using a new account, so it was not obvious what page you were requesting undeletion of. Also, creating a new account to request undeletion looks a little fishy, like you're trying to hide your past edit history. I'll take another look now that the title issue is sorted out, but don't hold your breath. —C.Fred (talk) 04:07, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Hetva23 (talk) 04:14, 30 January 2014 (UTC)C.Fred actually I'm new to this account and Jatt Dizzle is not my page. Its my friends page but I'm trying to surprise him by getting the page back. So I hope we can get the page back. Fingers crossed
Yet you knew about the page and made your first edit a WP:REFUND request about it? Riiiiiight. —C.Fred (talk) 04:22, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
C.Fred Yes that's true. Hetva23 (talk) 04:26, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
And I didn't even know about this process till Now. I was just looking around the page and it said if you wanted the page back I can request it and talk ant it, that's why I created the account. Hetva23 (talk) 04:44, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
So are you able to put the page back on?? I means undelete it. Hetva23 (talk) 05:41, 30 January 2014 (UTC)hetva23 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hetva23 (talk • contribs) 05:38, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Requesting undeletion for War Room Inc
Hello There,
I am fairly new to wikipedia and I lost my first account of Charles Mayhem, I had to recreate one, my apologies for that.
I wrote you as I have been told from Wikipedia that the name War Room Inc is blocked and that an email is needed to be sent to the person who blocked the name.
The reason I'm seeking for further help is I would like to write an article/description on War Room Inc. I had the opportunity to see their work showcased at an event I attended and they are a growing Video Marketing agency in Vancouver, BC. When I went to search more about them, I found no information on Wikipedia describing them and I feel it is important. Not only do they have outstanding work, they are on the leading edge of Video Marketing and I think it should be shared.
I appreciate that you probably receive a ton of emails like this, so thank you for your time to read mine. I would like to ask how I can submit an article on them with out being blocked once again.
Thank you for your time and I look forward to your reply.
Hi C.Fred. Bernard Conlan, my Grandad, sadly died on 12 December 2013 and I was trying to update his page. I have tried again and also now added a reference to the announcement that was published in the Manchester Evening News. I have further information that I could add to the article, but the source of that information was my Grandad himself. If I was to provide a further update, please can you suggest how I might verify the new content please? Thanks. Paul Aston. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulaston7046 (talk • contribs) 23:04, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
@Paulaston7046: You will not be able to add the new information, per the policies on verifiability and no original research. The key is verifiability: if there's now way for other editors to check out the information, then it can't be used. —C.Fred (talk) 23:08, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks C.Fred. I will ensure that anything further I post has a suitable verification. Regards. Paul Aston. Paulaston7046 (talk) 23:17, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Honestly, I'm giving *serious* thought to just using Special:Contributions/Turbo0686 as a checklist of things which should be considered for reversion.Naraht (talk) 16:01, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
@Naraht: The only saving grace for that account right now is the articles on films. If it were just edits to the gangs and AKRho, I'd have blocked the account already as a sockpuppet. —C.Fred (talk) 17:23, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, and since there have been at least 3-4 similar accounts that have changes Alpha Kappa Rho itself, I'd say sockpuppeting is definitely a concern.Naraht (talk) 17:54, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
I agree, and if I see any sort of similar editing, I'll drop a note to both of you. I'm keeping a number of the relevant articles in my watchlist.Naraht (talk) 18:16, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
And a couple more accounts, too. The latest one, Pand0y6860o, has been doing some typical blustering after I blocked them. I think with this latest account they have gone over to the revert on sight line, but that's just my opinion. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 07:45, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Sofloantonio
I am trying to post my page on Sofloantonio. He's a YouTuber that owns two large channels. I am part of the company OmniaMedia. You can find us at OmniaMedia.co. He is one of our YouTube partners and we wanted to help him have his Wikipedia page so that in the future we can make more for our large partners. Is there a way you can help? Would you like the source too? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Omniamedia (talk • contribs) 06:03, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
@Omniamedia: I strongly suggest you read the WP:Conflict of interest guidelines. It doesn't forbid you from writing about your clients and partners, but it does place some burdens on you, like making sure everything is sourced to a reliable secondary sources. Further, your comment about wanting to do this for more partners in the future suggests that your motive may be to promote your clients/partners, and Wikipedia may not be used for blatant advertising. —C.Fred (talk) 20:45, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Remember this? Based on edits on this article (and deletions on the talk page) and Daniel "Monkey Man" Roberts it looks like the shenanigans and meat puppetting have resumed. --NeilNtalk to me 03:08, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
IMDb
I noticed you restored the IMDb link to the Lady Gaga page and stated it was seen as a "useful resource". How is this the case if not considered reliable, though? I often see it on Wikipedia articles. The link is said to be acceptable for use of external link but not as a source..... this puzzles me..... Could you please explain it?? XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 18:44, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
@XXSNUGGUMSXX, see WP:ELMAYBE: "Sites that fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources." We do not require "external links" to have completely accurate information or be treated as a reliable source. For example, we link to "official sites" of subjects but these have very limited use as a reliable source. --NeilNtalk to me 03:15, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for clearing out which tag
It was a page made a bunch of times (well not that much) and I was not sure which to put, so yes thank you.
You considered many of the lines I added as POV but how can you suggest this when I can easily suggest the same to many lines /points that are present on the other side of the "debate"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nnnnnnmmmmmmoooooopppppp (talk • contribs) 01:34, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Is Jerry Sandusky incarcerated in Greene State Prison?
If you need a source for Greene State Prison as the location of Jerry Sandusky's incarceration, click on the followintg link:
@Anthony22: The burden of proof is on the editor adding the material to back up the claim. As much contentious material has gone into the Penn State child sex abuse scandal article, I do take the heavy-handed approach there; other articles, I might have placed a {{Citation needed}} tag on it and gone looking for a source. —C.Fred (talk) 20:09, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
RE: Epsilon Chapter of Beta Theta Pi
Hi C.Fred,
Thank you for the comment on very few fraternity chapters having their own wiki page. As you can see by the list of alumni I have added so far, the chapter has quite an illustrious history that we just wanted to organize.
Please let me know if you think that this is relevant.
@Wmbradfordthomas: No, the list of alumni is not sufficient to support an article. Notability is not inherited; the chapter is not notable just because certain notable people were members. The chapter would have had to gain national-scope coverage in reliable sources to be notable. It would also have to be lasting coverage and not just related to a single incident. (I'm thinking of an incident at the University of North Carolina were a fraternity house burned. The chapter itself would still not be notable, although the fire could be.)
I can only think of one article on Wikipedia about a single chapter of a fraternity. The only reason it has an article is that it was a separate fraternity that merged in to a current national, and its history before the merger was significant enough to warrant an article. —C.Fred (talk) 01:30, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Hello, C.Fred. You have new messages at Antiochus the Great's talk page. Message added 21:28, 10 February 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
C.Fred, this article should not have been deleted and needs to be reinstated ~~Feb'14~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomahawk333 (talk • contribs) 13:07, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
@Tomahawk333: The article met the criteria for CSD A9. There is no article about Choko TV; articles about albums and other sound recordings by non-notable musicians are subject to speedy deletion. —C.Fred (talk) 17:32, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
C.Fred, the information in the article can be updated to meet requirements, it is just a matter of reinstating the article so that i can do so. 'Outpsyjah' is a project by tom vallance (aka choko tv) and can be referenced to as such. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomahawk333 (talk • contribs) 13:53, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
@Tomahawk333: It will still fail CSD A9, because Tom Vallance/Choko TV is not a notable musician. (The article on Tom Vallance is about a football player who died in 1935.) Therefore, by definition, any and all of his works can be speedy deleted. —C.Fred (talk) 18:11, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
No, it won't. Choko tv is an art project of Tom Vallance (the Australian artist), who has been performing and exhibiting music/art for the last 5 years (at least) and is referenced to exist in multiple locations online. I will provide these where necessary, Fred. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomahawk333 (talk • contribs) 05:12, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
I have made a request that you undelete the article and ask that you do this immediately as further information is available and necessary to the integrity of the project itself — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomahawk333 (talk • contribs) 18:20, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
'outpsyjah' is the artist in question, anyway, Tom Vallance is merely the face of that project. it is highly unreasonable to dismiss sources due to fact, and the fact alone, that they are online... considering this is an 'online' encyclopedia, you'd have to assume that the internet plays some part in its validity... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomahawk333 (talk • contribs) 08:10, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Drowning
I suppose Echo will let you know, but just wanted to say I reverted your revert of the IP here. I started to revert the IP last night, but I think we need to go with infobox "death cause" more or less meaning "cause of death," and the medical examiner ruled on that. Rivertorch (talk) 15:10, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Offensive language. We don't have to go that way to make our point, there is already a post in neutral point of view noticeboard and someone will find a solution to this, We have to wait patiently...Rivaner (talk) 13:53, 14 February 2014 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.114.45.183 (talk) 12:06, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Justin Bieber RfC: second survey
Hi C.Fred, thank you for your contribution to the RfC on Justin Bieber's behaviour and legal issues. Some users have posted that the RfC is currently a mess, and that we need to be very explicit in what we agree to include and what we don't. As such, I have created a second survey, which cuts the content into points. Could you take the time to post your opinion on each point, whether you think it should be included or not, or summarized, or changed. It will be a bit tedious but we need your detailed input to move forward. Thanks again. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 05:51, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
You have a message in my talk page. Please, tell me What is the template to let you know I left you a message?. Thanks Connie (A.K) (talk) 05:25, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Hey Fred I feel so bad for saying what I said and I was going to say this on my talk page but then I thought why would you go back to my talk page any way I hope you forgive me please tell me you do because you won't believe how bad I felt after two days and well I am not hear to talk about that because if I was then this would be much longer but let me stop this I know you probable don't want to talk to me after what I said but please repliy on my talk page the public one please... just kidding you can talk on any page you want I don't care as long as you repliy please Lison to me I feel reaily bad about that now what I came to talk about was that I was thinking about my fail privet page yesterday and well I thought it would be a good idea to change it to another talk page but this one only for ather's that need to talk to me ASAP then if you don't like that idea I can go to the wikipedian tea think and learn how to delete pages and delete it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kewicutie (talk • contribs) 16:19, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Please remove the speedy deletion tag from the "Sergei Sergienko" article
The Edway Group is a well known Labor Hire company in Australia. I recently had to do an economics report on hiring, workforce and competency for school and I came across them repeatedly as well as the CEO,Sergei Sergienko . All of it was research for a paper in my business class. I was surprised there was no Wikipedia page for them so I felt compelled to create one. It is not for promotion because I have no ties to him or the company. I was just stating facts about what I found and I made sure to provide references. I would appreciate it if you would remove the tag from the article or help to edit it in a way conducive to staying on the site. My finding showed that Sergei Sergienko is one of the most revered young entrepreneurs in Australia. Thank you in advance and I appreciate your hard work in curating the site. Onefourall (talk) 23:03, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi C.Fred, would you please have a look at User talk:Texasgov14? I'm inclined to unblock based on the discussion we've had, your opinion? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:14, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
I've asked for a second opinion on the discussion we've had on WP:AN since you're not available at the moment. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:34, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
I've unblocked based on the second opinion on AN. Regards, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:08, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Just wanted to say it would have been nice if you gave me a last warning. Texasgov14 (talk) 14:27, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Guitar Resonator was re-created this past September as Guitar resonator (sustainer). For future reference, if a page has already been deleted should I bring it to the attention of the mod who deleted it before creating a deletion discussion?--Atlantictire (talk) 17:32, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
@Atlantictire: You may want to bring it to some administrator's attention; they can check to see if the new page is similar enough to the old one that it can be speedy deletion under criterion G4, or if a new AfD is required. —C.Fred (talk) 20:06, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
...and it is a duplicate, so no AfD was needed; it qualified for speedy deletion, and I have deleted it. —C.Fred (talk) 20:12, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Paradan
is it possble to have the page "Paradan" Resurrected from the WikiBin Plz , i was the one who clcked the speedy deletion by accident for that i'm sorry.... #Hi #TerriblyBad
@Paradanmusic
@Youtube
http;//www.FaceBook.Com/Paradan.Music
http;//www.Twtter.com/ParadanMusic — Preceding unsigned comment added by ParadanDemiGod (talk • contribs) 22:25, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
@ParadanDemiGod: Would you like me to restore it to your user space? It will need extensive work before it can make it as an article. —C.Fred (talk) 22:38, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
yes the other page that i created a couple of days ago is the same as the one i created today, i was the one that click on delete on the other page because i didnt understand how to edit properly so i did some research then went back to the page and it was saying it's going to get deleted, so what im saying is it's alright to delete the other page user: oryem photography and use the one i created today which should be oryem photography which is structure properly. --Khamiso (talk) 00:56, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Sheri Fink
I have a well documented history on Wikipedia. I have covered these articles and other articles fairly. The information AccuracyObsessed erased was documented and cited. I made certain the information was accurate. The only articles AccuracyObsessed has contributed to is Memorial Medical Center and Hurricane Katrina and Sheri Fink. I asked AccuracyObsessed to please not erase the information that is documented from reliable sources and properly cited. AccuracyObsessed erased the information. How can AccuracyObsessed be prevented from erasing information from sources that is cited and current? Schwartzenberg (talk) 03:32, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Schwartzenberg made simultaneous changes to Dr. Anna Pou case and Sheri Fink articles, adding inaccurate, poorly cited, and possibly libelous information. Schwartzenberg appears to be engaging in a personal attack. There is a note from several months ago on Schwartzenberg talk page suggesting that user may be a paid public relations professional. AccuracyObsessed (talk) 04:10, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
@AccuracyObsessed: With all due respect, the person whose edits show an agenda toward a single topic is you. The only articles you've edited have been Sheri Fink and Memorial Medical Center and Hurricane Katrina. Schwartzenberg seems to edit a wider range of topics. As for the note you mentioned, I don't see anything that suggests he's a paid public relations professional, although I do find the purchase of the image to be a bit unusual.
That said, what is best for the articles is to get a wide range of opinions, so nobody pushes an agenda. That's why WP:Consensus is a guideline. That's why major changes at an article should be discussed at the article's talk page, so a wide range of editors see the discussion, rather than at individual users' talk pages. —C.Fred (talk) 15:42, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi there Thankyou for the correction, I am in process of correcting dob on other sites. Then will re-correct on this siteAjones84 (talk) 09:31, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Security Industry Specialists
Fred, the page on Security Industry Specialists was significant. This is a company that is notorious for their poor treatment of employees.
Did you delete it because you are in favor of treating employees badly? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Solarlive (talk • contribs) 16:45, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
@Solarlive: No, I deleted the article because it failed to demonstrate the significance or importance of the company. For the company to have an article, it would need to have gotten significant, sustained coverage in secondary sources—and the coverage would need to be of the company, not just the incident. —C.Fred (talk) 17:45, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
@Fred.... But it *did* provide substantial coverage in 2nd sources. You think *NPR* is not substantial? What is wrong with you? I provided links which you clearly ignored. Look again... and admit that you made a mistake please. Otherwise I'll have to assume you engaged in vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Solarlive (talk • contribs) 00:05, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
@Solarlive: SIS wasn't mentioned in the NPR story until, per the transcript, paragraph 16 out of 20. (FYI, you did not provide a link; I had to Google search to find the story.) The way the article flows, it's more about how Google treats its contract workers than how SIS treats its employees (though the article is unclear on whether the prohibition against takeaway food is a Google policy for all contract workers or an SIS policy). In any case, the coverage of SIS is not substantial; the story is about Cardenas and his work at Google, with SIS playing only a secondary part in the story.
I stand by my initial assessment: in the absence of coverage outside the context of the Google contract, SIS is not notable. If you still disagree, feel free to file a request at WP:Deletion review. —C.Fred (talk) 02:43, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
@Fred: I assure you there is more to the SIS story than just what happened at Google, but I created a minimal page to start with is, I don't know if I have time to flesh out the page. Maybe other people could help. I think you killed the page before it had a chance to develop. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Solarlive (talk • contribs) 03:43, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Replying to your message on my talk page
The reason I removed some content on the page "Oz Chiri" was because the links provided were broken (404 error). I'm a follower of him and I don't want the page to be removed. All the content and information listed on the page is correct and reliable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kj198 (talk • contribs) 00:39, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Added Footnotes and primary sources as requested. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kj198 (talk • contribs) 01:58, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
The secondary sources were added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kj198 (talk • contribs) 02:35, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
@Kj198: The article is not any better, because it's still only based on primary sources. It needs secondary sources. —C.Fred (talk) 02:06, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Re Neil deGrasse Tyson vandalism cleanup
Please refrain from copy and pasting automated responses into User's talk pages while undoing their edits and claiming them unconstructive. Thanks! Winnerex (talk) 03:41, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
@Winnerex: Unless you provide a reliable source for your assertion that he's a comedian, then it's an unconstructive edit. At the best case, it's unsupported personal opinion; at the worst, it's outright vandalism. —C.Fred (talk) 03:45, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
If your argument is "unless you provide a reliable source that the grass is green then you're a vandal," I think that goes without saying who is truly the vandal here. Please refrain from undoing edits without you yourself having good reason. Winnerex (talk) 03:56, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
KCDT
Hello C.FRED why did you delete my page KCDT Wallets.I think it meet the criteria but you deleted it.KCDT Wallets is a small buisness ran by me a 10 year old and my cousin whos 14.We are based out of San Francisco California.My page was written from a neutral point of view and only described that they are high quality wallets and stated the pricing.It also said that if you would like to buy a wallet visit our website at [redacted] .I thought it was fine but if you disagree please tell me.You might be right but maybe i can find another way for KCDT to be on Wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Llamison32 (talk • contribs) 03:26, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
@Llamison32: I don't see any evidence that this account created any such page. —C.Fred (talk) 03:33, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
I found the page. It was not written from a neutral point of view; it read like a catalog. It had minimal coverage of the company and a lot of description of the products. There were no independent reviews cited—there were no secondary sources cited at all. I stand by the deletion under criterion G11, spam, for speedy deletion. Even if it weren't spam, the article could've been deleted under criterion A7, failure to assert the significance of the company.
Further, if it was your page, then you've used two accounts, this one and Lukeyduke32(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log). You haven't done anything improper with the multiple accounts yet, but Wikipedia does have restrictions on how you can use multiple accounts. —C.Fred (talk) 03:37, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Talkback on March 2014
Hello, C.Fred. You have new messages at Talk:Pratyangira Maala mantra. Message added 20:06, 2 March 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
I'm watching that talk page, so no further talkbacks are necessary. I'll see the new comments on my watchlist. —C.Fred (talk) 23:18, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi
Could you please tell me how my page Christopher Nixon is inappropriate, or evaluate more on the first reason of it being insignificant. By stating this it is like saying the person in question is not of value in your eyes, or you do not see the significance of their life. Could you please evaluate on this some more, and include the ways that I could possibly improve on it, because I do not plan to give up on my page until you are satisfied with it. :) --Ashlon-Returns (talk) 03:49, 3 March 2014 (UTC)Ashlon-Returns
I've already answered this question on your talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 03:50, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi mate. By way of background on the above, you might like to have a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Josh Wood. The original article (and associated articles) related to a non-notable director and his production company and projects. It was (despite sock-puppetry and edit-warring) deleted and then replaced with an article about the more-notable hairdresser of the same name. I contributed to the AFD and the draft of the new article. I suspect, though I cannot be sure, that this morning's effort was an attempt to delete the article about this Josh Wood in favour of the self-promoting subject of the original. The "note" on your talk page suggests the same. Stalwart111 04:31, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
@Stalwart111: The edits from this morning were just to blank Josh Wood. The content about the hairdresser was deleted with no replacement text added. It's hard to know who Joshwood22 might have wanted to make the article about. —C.Fred (talk) 16:12, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
No, that's right - it's just a matter of stylistic similarities. He asked you, "How would i create my own page or article for myself?". I suppose there could be a third Josh Wood; a second who believes himself notable enough for an autobiography, but given the history that seemed less likely. Nothing needs doing, just a heads-up. Stalwart111 21:30, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Coates edit war, part two
Hi,
You intervened in an edit war (my fault) on the Ta-Nehisi Coates page 2 weeks ago. I'm trying to go through the right process to discuss this, and added a RfC which got deleted for being "disruptive." I'd appreciate it if you could take a look and see what you think of the whole thing in case I broke a rule (but I don't think I did). Useitorloseit (talk) 01:58, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
It was a personal joke between me and User:Mark Chung. but I agree i shouldn't have posted it live on Wikipedia. Sorry. --Gįs Contismalter (talk) 21:13, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
How do I go about creating Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emily Aviva Kapor? 50.74.152.2 (talk) 03:10, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Replied on your talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 03:14, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
PRSA Foundation
Hi C.FRED,
I don't work at PRSA Foundation. I am a volunteer, and I love the work that PRSA Foundation does in helping minorities get opportunities in PR and marketing communications fields. This is a crucial organization for the field of communication in the U.S., and I think they deserve a wider presence in the web to highlight the great efforts they do. This is the reason why I helped Himehdi12 with the PRSA Foundation article on Wikipedia.
Regarding the status of the PRSA Foundation and its relation with the Public Relation Society of America, I reached out to the Foundation and asked them to clarify whether they are part of PRSA, and below is the response that I received:
"The PRSA Foundation is an independent, 501c3 charitable organization, with historical, but no direct ties to PRSA. The allegations from Mr. O'Dwyer that we receive financial support from PRSA are false. He should not be a trusted source of information. His decades-long feud with PRSA is well documented. In fact, this is one of the many reasons why it is important for our foundation to remain separate from PRSA and critical for us to assert our independence. We have one full-time employee and an independent board which includes many leaders in the public relations profession -- CEOs of major firms and Chief Communications officers of leading companies."
Since they are completely separate from PRSA, I believe that their article on Wikipedia shouldn't be associated or merged with PRSA.
@Theedititor2014: Whether you're a volunteer, employee, or contractor, you still have a conflict of interest. The key is that you need to base your edits on independent, reliable sources—and those were sorely lacking in the old PRSA Foundation article.
If you have those sources about the Foundation, you could try to draft a new article in your user space. If you really don't want the foundation associated with the Association, even though they share a name and a historical connection, you could consider nominating the title via the WP:Redirects for discussion process to see if the community wants to delete it. —C.Fred (talk) 23:27, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
I meant by volunteer that I am volunteering for Wikipedia.
The WP:Redirects for discussion for the PRSA Foundation is closed. Could you give me more info about how I can go through the process? Or a direct link of where I can discuss the issue with the community?
WP:Redirects for discussion is the page for the discussion; I don't see where any discussion about PRSA Foundation has taken place there. There was an Articles for deletion discussion that led to the creation of the current redirect, but that's a separate process. —C.Fred (talk) 00:26, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Theedititor2014. I think I have to apologize for mine (and Fred's) assumption that you are affiliated with the PRSA Foundation in some way. This is an assumption we make of any promotional article written about a small organization. Unfortunately with so many editors writing articles about their client or employer and lying about it, we never know who to trust and this leads to some justifiable paranoia.
Regardless, we can only have articles about organizations that have been covered extensively by credible, independent sources with in-depth pieces. The sources you provided were only brief mentions, quotes, blurbs, press release reposts and the organization's website. We cannot evaluate the PRSA Foundation's significance in the real world and have no interest in promoting their cause, even if it is noble. We can only evaluate whether there is a significant body of source material available on them by sources we trust to be fair and accurate. Hope this helps. CorporateM (Talk) 04:54, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Why did you revert the Singahi Bhiraura Page
The original editors painstakingly created this page and cited sources from the India office. Later editors deleted large sections of a brilliant article and one said the sources were dubious.They though the India office records were kept in India and had not heard of them. These editors were clear not historians as anyone who has studied the period knows about these records. However you choose to thake their sides and when the original editors removed the vandalism you reverted the article.
Here is the full source from where the research was done on this article.
The India Office Records are the repository of the archives of the East India Company (1600-1858), the Board of Control or Board of Commissioners for the Affairs of India (1784-1858), the India Office (1858-1947), the Burma Office (1937-1948), and a number of related British agencies overseas.
The focus of the India Office Records is in the territories now included in India, Pakistan, Burma and Bangladesh and their administration before 1947. The Records also include source materials for neighbouring or connected areas at different times, covering not only South Asia, but also Southeast Asia, Central Asia, the Middle East, and parts of Africa. The official archives of the India Office Records are complemented by over 300 collections and over 3000 smaller deposits of private papers relating to the British experience in India.
The India Office Records are administered by The British Library as part of the Public Records of the United Kingdom, and are open for public consultation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.55.95.60 (talk) 12:12, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Singahi Bhiraura
Hi, I'm unsure whether you added Singahi Bhiraura to your watchlist when you semi-protected the thing. Salvio has now semi'd it for a longer period but the anons (now clearly a logged-out registered contributor, as I can explain by email) are not giving up, despite being reverted by multiple people. - Sitush (talk) 15:49, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
FTI Consulting
Hello,
I would like to request changing some of the copy on the FTI Consulting page on "Venezuela destabilization". I know this content was changed in the past, but I want to go around doing it in the correct way.
The following Huffington Post article shows that the existence and authenticity of the report mentioned on the page cannot be verified. [1]
Would we be able to remove this reference with this article? Please let me know.
Thank you so much for your help!
SAM 3/10 Samohabeer (talk) 17:57, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
@Samohabeer: Thank you for the link. I have removed the section from the article and explained why on the talk page. I figured it was better if I made the change, since I'm an established editor, whereas you're using a new account. —C.Fred (talk) 19:01, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
@CFred: Thank you so much for your assistance. SAM 3/10Samohabeer (talk) 19:42, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
St. Martinus University Faculty of Medicine
C. Fred, I made a number of changes to the ST. Martinus Page. Many of which were taken down. You cited that I didn't explain my edits, which is my fault and I shall add the explanations as necessary. But other things, like taking down references that didn't go to live pages, should not have been reversed. I will try to better explain my edits, but would appreciate it if you would not revert them all next time. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jay1783 (talk • contribs) 19:26, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
@Jay1783: Part of the problem is that you're one in a number of accounts making the same edits, which raises the question, based on the names of the other accounts, of whether the article is being whitewashed and turned into a non-neutral article. —C.Fred (talk) 19:45, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Additionally, if a reference goes to a dead link, you should leave the reference but flag the link with the {{dead link}} template at the end of the ref. —C.Fred (talk) 19:47, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks...
It's nice to be thanked for what I do. The reassurance that someone appreciates my efforts is welcome, and your recent thanks are no exception. However, I can't help wondering "If C.Fred thinks that was a good thing to do, then why didn't he/she do it him/herself?" (Forgive the clumsy "he/she". "Fred" suggests a male, but for all I know you are Christine Fredriksen). The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 18:14, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
@JamesBWatson: One big reason is that I felt too close to the situation, in terms of editing based on content, to where any block I issued might not be seen as independent. There are times when I file reports at AIV, RFPP, and the like, because I don't want to change hats from involved editor to admin. I also wanted to let a second set of eyes assess the situation. Finally, I had sent the message near the end of an online session, and I didn't "pick up where I left off" the next time I logged in, so I hadn't looped back to see if he'd replied.
(I think I've gotten misdirected emails for somebody with a name like that a few times. :) I'm male. The user page isn't direct about it, but it's implied when I mention that I'm a member of a fraternity.) —C.Fred (talk) 18:25, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I suppose you could be regarded as involved, I suppose. Fair enough.
Hmm. I looked at your user page, but evidently I didn't study it deeply enough, as I missed the mention of the fraternity. Actually, a number of things suggested that you were probably male, and putting them all together it was a pretty good bet that you were, perhaps being "a high-school football official" being one of the most striking, but I try hard not to presume that anyone is male because of typically male-type interests. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:23, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Help with Possible Reversion
Hi C.Fred,
I noticed that you recently reverted a user's edits on List of Nintendo GameCube games. This same user has also made major changes to List of PlayStation games. Over half of the content was removed, there are numerous reference errors, and no edit summary was given.
Should the page be reverted? I'm unable to "undo" it since the user has made additional changes in the meantime.
I've never made such a major edit so thought I'd check with (since you look like you know what you're doing).
@MarkTee: The biggest issue to me is that the user didn't explain the purpose of the edits. In the absence of logic explaining it, and since it clearly removed items from the list, that sort of gutting at least appears disruptive. I've reverted (by editing the version before the major deletion and saving that text as the new current version). —C.Fred (talk) 14:01, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your help. --MarkTee (talk) 20:20, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
lynne
what the hell, man? --YasminPerry (talk) 03:32, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
@YasminPerry: You mean the talk page you created for a non-existent article that was really just an unsourced attack against the subject? I deleted it; it could have met the G10 criterion for speedy deletion as well as G8. —C.Fred (talk) 03:35, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Cosmos (TV series). Since you had some involvement with the Cosmos (TV series) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Beerest 2Talk page 16:20, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Block Evading Sock Puppets
Some blocked user wrote all garbage in my talk page. At first I couldn't understand but reading the lines written in urdu usingEnglish alphabets(check the link-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Whistlingwoods#Mza_aya), it's clear the user is Xcrescent9 or Ibnebatutaji . The translation in English is this "I wrongly presented my statements to make sure my favorite movie gets good opening overseas................"rest is abuse in vulgar language which I don't want to translate. This person is writing in urdu so that International administrators don't understand what he is saying. --Whistlingwoods (talk) 04:03, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
CRITICAL RECEPTION section of Total Siyapaa cheating by ZORDANLIGHTER
Dear C fred, kindly un do decision in CRITICAL RECEPTION section of Total Siyapaa because it was based on FRAUD played by ZORDANLIGHTER , he misrepresented my edit summary for other protected edit request relating to Controversy section for critical reception protected edit request . He used that summary to show the WP consensus by me but that is not the case. He must also be blocked for playing CHEAT.Xcrescent9 (talk) 14:38, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
@Xcrescent9: If you're saying he misinterpreted your edit summary, I'd hardly elevate that to the level of fraud. The best thing to do in that case is to appeal to the party who closed the edit request; if that doesn't work, start a new edit request explaining your position on the old one and the reasons why, per Wikipedia standards, the text should be changed. Focus on your own perspective and on the article itself; I strongly discourage you from making accusations against another editor there.
That said, if you're alleging that the other user edited your comments on the talk page, that's another matter entirely. I know I reverted an edit where he deleted some of your remarks. If you're alleging that he changed your words, please point to the specific edit (the "diff") where he did so, so we can evaluate the change. —C.Fred (talk) 15:11, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
یہ گلت الزام لگا رہا ہے. اسکی باتوں میں کوئی دھیان نہ دے تو ہے . اسکے پاس کوئی ریفرنس ہے ہی نہیں. جبکی زوردان کے پاس بہت ریفرنسز ہیں --Whistlingwoods (talk) 16:10, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
@Whistlingwoods: Not clear who you're saying is being accused there. Even if English is not your native language, you'll need to use English to communicate on the English Wikipedia. —C.Fred (talk) 18:42, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Regardless of Xcrescent9 accusations that how wrongly consensus was achieved by misrepresentation, I will suggest a middle way. Whistlingwoods on behalf of ZORDANLIGHTER (since he is blocked ) will favour current critical reception section full cherry picking of negative reviews but that was with out consensus and ignores all positive reviews. On other hand Xcrescent9 after block removal will try to put all four positive reviews. Keeping in view all the reviews from both sides,It is a clear case of Mixed average reviews i.e. a combination of good and bad reviews. This fact is also supported by http://www.indicine.com/bollywood/total-siyapaa/reviews/ which says that movie got average reviews from critics with average score of 37. In pakistan too (from where the hero of the movie belongs) it got mixed reviews from movie critics on the premier please see http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/entertainment/13-Mar-2014/total-siyapaa-opens-to-mixed-reviews-moviegoers-treated-to-taj-cinema-s-revival . Forth evidence of mixed reviews is IMBD rating of 6 out of 10 including nine critics see http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2727028/. I think in order to wind up quickly this prolonged discussion. I request a new edit to critical reception section. Since we already know one pool stances of ZORDANLIGHTER , Whistlingwoods and Xcrescent9 no further discussion from them is invited on this proposed edit (see below).
Total Siyapaa received mixed reviews by domestic and overseas critics. Kirron Kher's performance and Ali Zafar comic timings were seen as one of the strong points of the movie. [1][2][3][4] However Critics were critical on the lack of a solid plot,[5][6].
^Cite error: The named reference HindustanTimes was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
please take a quick decision to wind up this prolonged discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Archtexlic (talk • contribs) 04:09, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
I again request. please take a quick decision to wind up this prolonged discussion. Archtexlic (talk) 17:06, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
@Archtexlic: My "quick decision" is no action: this needs to be dealt with at the article's talk page, not my personal talk page. Further, you've already conceded that there are opposing viewpoints, and the only way to resolve this is through discussion to establish consensus at Talk:Total Siyapaa. —C.Fred (talk) 18:08, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Autism Research Institute
The second and third paragraphs at the top of the page conflict directly with information further down in the article.
Specifically about chelation and vaccinations - ARI's stated positions - with working links - are verified farther down in the article (citations 14 & 15).
There is not a link cited that goes to a page/ref/etc where ARI states it "subscribes to the belief autism is caused by vaccines." LINK 5 goes to homepage at autism.com.
There is no link that shows that "ARI holds chelation as a treatment." This is a statement not backed up by any links to ARI shown here.
The conference was known by more than one name - DAN! and later and Autism Research Institute Conference.
"Pseudoscientific" is in reference to the above and should be reevaluated
Earlier today I noticed your good edit at the "Figure skating at the 2014 Winter Olympics" and noticed that someone had reverted it. Your version looked like the more accurate one and perhaps you could glance at this. FelixRosch (talk) 16:03, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Kim Yuna article
Hi C.Fred, I've seen you work on a few of the 2014 Olympics figure skating articles, so I wanted to ask you a question. On the Kim Yuna article there has been a disagreement on whether there needs to be a dozen paragraphs on the controversy/debate/issue of the scores. My opinion is that there is a link to the where it is discussed, but to keep this article about Kim Yuna, not a controversy. I have made a note on that on articles talk page, though no one responded. However, four editors in the last eight hours have added back the dozen paragraphs. The editors are: Appleface1 (talk), Flyingbirdy (talk), 173.79.142.176 (talk), and 24.70.33.161 (talk). I've left a message on each of their talk pages, but as of right now I've heard no responses from any of them. I've left 24.70.33.161's edits because I don't want to do a fourth revert. However I'm not sure what to do. If no one is responding on talk messages, how do you reach a resolution? Thanks, Kirin13 (talk) 21:05, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
@Adeptzare3: A block is not in order. It's an IP address that isn't frequently used, so any block now will likely not affect the person who made those edits. —C.Fred (talk) 01:56, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks for nuking the Parreno articles. I was scratching my head on what CSD tag to use. --NeilNtalk to me 03:56, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi, C.Fred,
SEE [May God save hopeless] section and [Complaint on Defamation] section in my talk page.
THIS IS AN APPEAL AS WELL AS WARNING.
I CLEARLY STATE THAT
1. "I REQUEST YOUR APOLOGY FOR DEFAMATION."
2. "I REQUEST THAT YOU REMOVE MY REFERENCE IN 137.122.64.58'S PAGE."
IF YOU DON'T TAKE PROPER ACTION, IT AMOUNTS TO THE SELF-VIOLATION OF WIKIPEDIA'S [TERMS OF SERVICE] [text removed by Heritoctavus]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heritoctavus (talk • contribs) 09:39, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Said legal threat has been withdrawn, so that matter is now closed. —C.Fred (talk) 19:53, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Reliable Sources
I apologise if I have done anything wrong, but I don't understand your recent reversion of my edit on the reliable sources page. I was merely adding my contribution to the discussion, explaining why www.dorjeshugdenhistory.org is a reliable source. Truthsayer62 (talk) 11:13, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Truthsayer62, please click on this link to see the diff of your edit. In total, it removed some 17 thousand bytes representing lots of other people's comments on various other topics. I also looked through it to try and find what you added and literally couldn't spot it. I don't know what happened, but C.Fred had to revert your comment because of the widespread disruption to other discussions, even though you didn't intend for that to happen. Please remake your comment to the dorjehugdenhistory.org discussion. Ravensfire (talk) 13:56, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
@Truthsayer62: The best I can figure is that you edited an old version of the discussion, and that caused the deletion of a lot of intervening comments. The comment you added is to a thread that has been archived. There's literally no discussion to add it to the end of right now, which is why I didn't add it back. You could either start a new discussion at the noticeboard or discuss the matter at the article's talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 17:42, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Sorry for the problem, I clicked on a link that took me to an old version of the page and I didn't realise that the section I was commenting on had been deleted. Truthsayer62 (talk) 11:44, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Regarding Zahid Architects Wikipedia page
Hi Fred,
Last Month I tried to make a page in wikipedia for my company ZahidArchitects but it was deleted within a day, so kindly let me remake the page with good written content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zahidarchitects (talk • contribs) 12:21, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
See your talk page about the pitfalls of editing when you have a conflict of interest. —C.Fred (talk) 13:34, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Hello
C Fred, dont remove text in Ariana Grande discography, please. Billboard are loosing information about Grande discography. That's all. You can search in google, about the songs if you have doubts.Thanks. Connie (A.K) (talk) 22:24, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
C.Fred, this user still keeps making unexplained changes even after we both asked multiple times to use edit summaries. The user did not remove sourced info this time from Madonna's article, but still refuses to use edit summaries. Should this be taken to WP:ANI? XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 15:16, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
@XXSNUGGUMSXX: It's User:Filucz2004, and I've just given then a level 3 warning explaining that the removal and refusal to discuss is disruptive. Next step would be a final warning and then a block. I hope I don't need to block the user, but I'm prepared to if necessary to stop the disruption. —C.Fred (talk) 17:38, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
I also hope this doesn't keep up. Also, thanks for fixing my typo. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 18:01, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
User:Do not revert
Regarding this user whom you've reverted (and welcomed), seems like someone who aims to WP:OWN articles. In a way, it both does and doesn't seem like something that should be taken to WP:UFA. While WP:U doesn't seem to explicitly say anything about such usernames, I feel concerned about this user's intentions. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 17:29, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Chet Koneczny
Don't undo the edits made to Chet Koneczny's page. There are not many sources but everything posted is true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chakarogers (talk • contribs) 17:58, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
The edit you just made with the note "rm statement covered in the subsection on the affair" is not actually a statement covered in the subsection on the affair. It was at one time but it was deleted by another editor. Would you kindly consider reverting your edit, or placing the material you deleted into the subsection on the affair? Thank you! BlueSalix (talk) 18:53, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
NM, I took care of it. Please let me know if you object and I will happily revert my edit. BlueSalix (talk) 19:07, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
@BlueSalix: At the time of my edit, the statement about Kelly McAllister being aware of her husband Vance's affair was present in the section about the extramarital affair. It may have been hidden slightly, because it was mid-paragraph. —C.Fred (talk) 03:04, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
You go to North Carolina State University?
You go to North Carolina State University? I go to East Carolina University. What is the tag for that on my user page?--Cagememberaccount (talk) 19:31, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
@Cagememberaccount: I'm an NC State alumnus. I don't know if there's a userbox for ECU like there is for NCSU. —C.Fred (talk) 19:35, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks you! I will probably use it!--Cagememberaccount (talk) 19:52, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Fiona Button
C.fred
The dates and locations modified today were genuine. Please reinstate the changes we have been making. Also some of the other changes were to provide more detail about fionas acting career to date. We also want to put some images of fiona too.
Cgbutton — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cgbutton (talk • contribs) 20:32, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
@Cgbutton: Since you went through two different dates for her birthday, I felt it unlikely that either was genuine. If you're going to change the dates or locations, make sure you have reliable sources that have been published showing the dates.
Regarding images, did you take the images? As in, were you in the crowd at an event and snapped a picture? If the answer to that question is no, you should probably not upload any images of her. —C.Fred (talk) 21:17, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
From their LPUs cd, some of these names are on them and Pheonix220 finds the correct working title, I know that "Given Up" was 21 Stitches, I know what the working title are, I know this band very well, on how they evolve from 1996 to now, I'm looking everyday on the working title and official tracklist for their upcoming album The Hunting Party.
The Hybrid Theory demo names are right.2.1 Jibbz (talk) 00:36, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
@2.1 Jibbz: How do I know they are right? If you don't have the source cited, there's no way I can go look them up, and encyclopedia content must be verifiable. —C.Fred (talk) 00:37, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Look Up the "Studio Finals 5/7/00", "Xero" tape, not sure about Papercut, if it was called "Paranoid", Crawling was called "Under Attack", finds info on the others and you'll see that I'm right.2.1 Jibbz (talk) 00:41, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
@2.1 Jibbz: First few hits I see are YouTube videos. How do we know that these videos are authentic and reliable? —C.Fred (talk) 00:43, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
First of all, you can ask the band, they will give you those title, youtube name of songs are either true or fake, Like where it has one of their new song called "War", that bullshit!, it does not sound like Linkin Park, I'll just post Demo/Working title for all the songs for Hybrid Theory expect for "Papercut" and "Crawling", their title hasn't been official provided yet, I'll ask the band about them.
Here is the "Studio Finals 5/7/00" http://www.last.fm/music/Linkin+Park/Studio+Finals+5%2F7%2F00
"A Place For My Head" demo name can be found on the re-issued version of their 1999 EP, Hybrid Theory EP, which was re-released in 2001
"Forgotten" demo name can be found on the band 1997 demo tape, Xero called "Rhinestone" just listen to the similarities of the two songs2.1 Jibbz (talk) 00:54, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia is the #1 source on the internet, people wants the demo/working name/title of their favorite songs, they look everywhere but can't find any info (they take up time trying to find them), Wikipedia could answer their Prays on finding the correct demo title.2.1 Jibbz (talk) 01:08, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
When I first start to look for these demo names, I wasted about a week trying to find them, I was hoping Wikipedia had them but they didn't, Wikipedia was the first place I looked at, Nothing, I asked people, friends and family, they suggested me to ask you guys to post official demo names on the site. I'm just trying to do people a favorite, starting with Linkin Park, since I know the band very well. and all the things here about them, they're true.2.1 Jibbz (talk) 01:17, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
@2.1 Jibbz: Wikipedia is a tertiary source. Information posted here should be an accumulation of information found elsewhere. It doesn't necessarily have to have been found on the net, but it needs to be published. "Ask the band" is not a valid, verifiable source. Further, you shouldn't use your first-hand knowledge or experience as a source. You probably should take a look at the guideline WP:No original research policy before going further with these demo names/working titles. —C.Fred (talk) 01:47, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Ex opere operato
Please, do not delete many important corrections because of alleged little mistakes, which in addition are in fact virtues. I have been working upon this article hard for one full hour, and You removed everything in only one minute. Believe me, all my changes have been diligently checked and deeply considerated. I hope that in the future we will cooperate well. Greetings! :-) Propositum (talk) 07:41, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Alcoholism page vandalism by Wiki editor!
Hi Fred
Thanks for your welcome message.
I started here by entering some information about alcoholism research and had a lot of help from a Wiki editor. The entry is in relation to baclofen which is now a recommended treatment in France. I used only peer reviewed sources. The edit was removed several times without any signing of the removal. I discovered eventually who had done it and he insisted on putting one small reference only in the research area of the site. He also wrote to me in very abrupt and unfriendly terms when I tried to make him put something in the medicines section. Clearly he breached the Wiki rules, if it was him who removed them. I have spoken to the leading researcher in this field and he is surprised by this Wiki editors position because the French Wiki has this information on it. Wiki should be kept up to date with medical developments around the world and a key medical page affecting millions of people around the world should not be edited in this way by someone who is not a specialist in this treatment, in such a way that it is not up to date and ignores a development which he is not even familiar with. Any suggestions would be appreciated.Burdenedwithtruth (talk) 04:10, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
@Burdenedwithtruth: It looks like part of the problem with your edits at Alcoholism is that you copied material wholesale from another website. While we can and should use ideas and information published in reliable sources, we cannot take the text from those sources wholesale. While a direct quotation may be appropriate in some limited circumstances, it's not a good general practice. In the worst case, the use of substantial amounts of text can be a copyright violation. That looks to be why Jmh649 removed the text, and that was clearly stated in the edit summary explaining the removal. He probably could have explained the removal better, but the removal was absolutely in keeping with Wikipedia guidelines. —C.Fred (talk) 14:33, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
You are only getting part of the point. If you look at the history of the entry I made you will see that I had a long exchange with Coffeepusher and we came up with an entry under the medications section. That entry was removed at least twice without any note of who did it. I kept putting it back. Eventually Jmh649 admitted he was responsible and hunted for a source which he put under the Research section. He only did that after I got tired of waiting for him and cut and pasted my own entry but that was nothing to do with the earlier removals by him. I don't agree that the entry should go only in the Research section but Jmh649 simply would not entertain a discussion about it. My original entries were not cut and paste as you will see.
The real point is that he has taken this section out of the Medicines section when it is in the French Wiki page and is now an approved government treatment there. Why should an important public health issue be treated differently in different Wiki sites? Is the French decision to recommend Baclofen as a treatment inconsequential? Jmh649 is not a specialist and works in Vancouver. The French entries are made by alcoholism specialists who are doing the work on the drug in France at the University of Paris. How does one get this sort of situation dealt with in an appropriate way so that the whole of the English speakimg world isn't being told something by someone far removed from changes in alcoholism treatment simply because the development is in France?Burdenedwithtruth (talk) 19:15, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
@Burdenedwithtruth: Two people do not consensus make. Now, if the exchange took place on the article's talk page, you can say that nobody objected. I haven't tracked down the discussion to see where it took place.
If the entry was removed, there was a note of who removed it: it would have been in the edit history of the page.
Whether or not the material appears in the French Wikipedia is inconsequential; our rules for reliable sources do not necessarily agree with theirs. If the French government is now recommending Baclofen as treatment, you should be able to locate some reliable sources documenting that—preferably in English, though if it's only covered by French-language media, that doesn't render the sourcing invalid. The more sources the story appears in, the better, and the more reliable the sources, the better. What published sources are being cited in the French Wikipedia article? That would be the place to start with, to see if we can use those sources here. —C.Fred (talk) 00:04, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
@Burdenedwithtruth: If you put the links and translations on the article's talk page, then an other editor can help with the formatting as well as the inclusion of the material into the article. —C.Fred (talk) 15:04, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Awesome edit!
I just wanted to say thanks for this awesome edit. I apologize for adding an unnecessary detail awhile ago. Oh, and I have a question - may I ask your consent to remove my userboxes from my user page? EmilyREditor (talk) 01:14, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
@EmilyREditor: You're welcome! I've taken the liberty of removing the two templates from your user page; that way, it looks cleaner if there were ever to be a question about it later. —C.Fred (talk) 01:39, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for taking care of that. Very much appreciated. :) Does "rm" stand for "remove"? EmilyREditor (talk) 04:25, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Superboys
Superboys is back. It was created by the same user (under his new name) as the one you speedied. It's probablythe same article. I have it up for speedy promo, but I considered A7, which you used. Meters (talk) 03:59, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
I understand that from an encyclopedic perspective, the two names of the same subject should remain linked, however this is causing issues for our organisation as it is not being correctly represented in search engines. As the brand manager, I am exhausting all avenues to fix this problem, and I will believe that one issue is the redirect that yourself and several other admins won't let me remove. That's why I thought I could add a little bit of info to the O.G.O.C page and still link that reference in the O.G article.
If you are all going to insist on continuing to prevent me from progressing with this, are you able to advise me of other options?
It's very frustrating for our organisation which has undergone major fundamental changes and the O.G.O.C title which appears on Google Search for Oakleigh Grammar is damaging to our brand recognition efforts.
I'm not asking to conceal the truth about our school's history, I'm asking for some help to resolve the problem? My next step is to try and contatc Google which I've been advised is borderline impossible.
Regards,
Amy
@Ajcol13: The issue from Wikipedia's perspective is that the page is a useful redirect from the old name of the organization to the new name. You could nominate the redirect for deletion, but it's likely to be opposed during discussion.
From the standpoint of the search engines, the best thing is to leave the redirect in place. The search engines will get redirected to the new page and (eventually) learn the proper titling. The worst thing to do from the search engine angle might be to delete the page: now, there's nothing new to replace their content, so the engines will keep the old, cached content for a while.
Finally, having done the Google search to see what you're seeing, why have you not reported the problem to Google? There's a button next to the preview that I clicked to report the wrong title. They should be able to reindex that search result and fix the page title. Wikipedia has no immediate control on what Google or any other search engine does with what they find here. —C.Fred (talk) 15:28, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Ajcol13 (talk) 01:33, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
C. Fred, I have tried reporting it to Google in the way you mention above; several staff of our organisation are constantly clicking this button! It does nothing. We have been reporting it frequently for over two years now. Do you know the best way to actually get in touch with Google in a more direct way with a chance of actually hearing back from them?
@Ajcol13: Sorry, that's all I know how to do. I'm trying to think where you could ask on here about that; I might start with WP:Reference desk.
Also, usual practice is to have your signature at the end of your message. That makes it clearer who said what in a threaded discussion. —C.Fred (talk) 01:56, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Apologies
I thought for some reason, I was still looking at the old article. Didn't mean to nominate the draft for deletion. (I think I might've done it while you were moving it.) Still, apologies. Tutelary (talk) 23:27, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
@Tutelary: Your tag was before the move and very much in order. It was pretty much the catalyst to move the article to Draft:Autobotzz. —C.Fred (talk) 23:33, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Got'cha. Glad I didn't end up mistakenly tagging it after all. Thanks! Tutelary (talk) 23:34, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
verified
I supplied a link to the website that REFUTES the claim that it wasn't any other than his being unstable.
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/660195184/More-details-emerging-on-Trolley-Square-gunman-and-victims.html?pg=all
Hyperbole of ANY kind should not be allowed on Wikipedia, which is EXACTLY what that introduction paragraph does. There is NO reference to ANY of the claims made in that paragraph. I was in Salt Lake City and watched news reports closely. I SUPPLIED A REFERENCE FROM A RENOWNED NEW SOURCE, and they DID NOT.
Explain Why my Valid news source refuting the claims in the first paragraph are offensive and claiming it was extremism with NO sources is not. 2014 Odyrules (talk) 04:09, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
@Odyrules: The Deseret News article does not address any of the claims in the Schlussel article at all, so it does not support your claim that her story is false. (Omission of a statement does not imply the statement is false.) You may have a point that that Schlussel source does not belong in the lede; however, you need to discuss that at Talk:Trolley Square shooting and not within the article itself. —C.Fred (talk) 04:15, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
@Odyrules: After looking at the Schlussel source some more and the rest of the article, I struck the sentence from the introduction to the article. My full reasoning is at Talk:Trolley Square shooting, and I am now watching the article and its talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 04:23, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Willamina photos
Hi C. Fred I was trying to upload photos to the Willamina Oregon page . I am not having any luck it says my account is unconfirmed . Do you know if anyone might be willing to help me by me emailing images to someone who knows how . I would be very grateful and I'm sorry to ask Thanks C.Fred any help appreciated 😊
Thanks , Meredith Florine Kendall April, 26th 2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meredith Florine Kendall (talk • contribs) 20:45, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
@Meredith Florine Kendall: If the images are free images, you can upload them to Wikimedia Commons. If they aren't free images, you can put in a request at Wikipedia:Files for upload. Make sure you specify why the images are necessary, as they will have to meet the non-free content criteria to be usable on Wikipedia. —C.Fred (talk) 20:56, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Talkback
Hello, C.Fred. You have new messages at Piguy101's talk page. Message added 21:25, 26 April 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
I'm new to this, but having read the guidelines, I don't think I've done anything untoward. The page I created has been linked to the guy's website, and anything that goes on the page going forward will be referenced as it should be. Is there anything I can do to make sure the page isn't 'speedily deleted?' :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjaminrobinson4238 (talk • contribs) 00:49, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm going to source it, but I'm focusing on responding to the user on my talk page first. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:00, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
@Ktr101: Thank you for anticipating my next comment: I was going to remind you that sections like that require reliable sources. —C.Fred (talk) 01:02, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Already done! Feel free to chime in on my talk page to the user, as I don't think they want to see the information there to begin with because they think it hurts the image of the school. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:45, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello, and thank you for your recent contributions. I appreciate the effort you made for our project, but unfortunately I had to undo some of your edit(s) because I believe the article was better before you made that change. Feel free to contact me directly if you have any questions. Thank you! Ben0kto (talk) 19:25, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Done. Article has been restored to User:MrScorch6200/Harry Vandyke. —C.Fred (talk) 05:46, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
