User talk:C.Fred

List of iCarly episodes

Regarding this edit, the episode is sourced to a fan site, http://miranda-cosgrove.us/?p=771, so it's not a reliable source. --AussieLegend (talk) 13:59, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

If you could highlight that in your edit summary if you remove the episode entirely, or explain that on the talk page, I would appreciate it—and it will make it a lot easier to remove it as unverified if (when?) it gets readded. —C.Fred (talk) 14:01, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I noted that when I first removed it in this edit. I also notified the editor on his talk page,[1], after I had warned him about inaccurate edit summaries,[2] and before I asked him to discuss his edits on the article's talk page, which I did at the same time I was warning him about edit-warring.[3] That didn't stop him restoring it, and I doubt it will again. He's been quite troublesome and has already been blocked for it. --AussieLegend (talk) 14:12, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Mea culpa. It had scrolled down the edit history far enough that I missed it. —C.Fred (talk) 14:13, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, he's been a busy boy. Refuses to discuss, just reverts. --AussieLegend (talk) 14:15, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I can't tell if it's just one or more than one, based on today's edit history. —C.Fred (talk) 14:17, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

He's made 7 reverts in less than 24 hours. --AussieLegend (talk) 15:15, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Brodie mcallister

Hello! I tagged the article as G4 as it was recently deleted A7, the editor then recreated the page. If the article is salvagable, great... but I just wanted to explain my G4. Thanks! --Tgeairn (talk) 01:32, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

CSD G4 only applies if the article was deleted by discussion: WP:Articles for deletion (AfD) or, if it's a very old article, VfD. It does not apply in cases of speedy deletion or proposed deletion. —C.Fred (talk) 01:37, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

AH! I should have known that, and now I do. Thank you, it all makes sense now. Happy Editing! --Tgeairn (talk) 01:39, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Ontario Nature

Hi,

I'm trying to update the content for Ontario Nature in Wikipedia. I'm new to Wikipedia, but work for Ontario Nature and would like to make the content current and accurate. I'm going to include references, so you can check accuracy.

Please let me know if there's anything else I should be doing to make this work.

Thanks,

John — Preceding unsigned comment added by Onjohn (talk • contribs) 21:44, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Am disturbed that Wiki pages have been taken over...

I am concerned that the very good standing that Wiki gets by default almost, certainly did by me until I clued up, is open to abuse of the subtle, evil kind. I have studied cancer and various alternative therapies. All relevant Wiki entries to all that I have studied seem to be written and controlled by very biased and deceptive authors. I am saddened that this is possible with such an amazing resource as Wiki provides. I suspect the NCI, the FDA, big pharma and such organizations as are financially benefiting from there own cancer treatments. This is serious corruption and is leading to the unnecesary death of hundreds of thousands of cancer sufferers. Wikipedia should not be used, abused this way and should take its own measures not to be used or abuse for such financial gains of unscrupulous organisations, even if it means limited info on the subject. At least minimal info that is informative only and not biased or judgemental should be allowed. The bots can't distinguish the subtle lies and deciet and influence by omission or comission in such language as has been used in these biased and misleading articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.200.176.72 (talk) 21:52, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

That's why the articles are built based on reliable sources and are vetted by experienced and, for the most part, independent editors. —C.Fred (talk) 22:03, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

To the original poster: There seems to be a lot of confused thinking in the original post. The National Cancer Institute and Food & Drug Administration are arms of the federal government. They are funded by American taxpayers, and do not market or sell pharmaceuticals. It therefore seems unclear how they "financially benefit from their own cancer treatments". Pharmaceutical companies certainly benefit directly from the sales of drugs they produce, and this creates a conflict of interest which is well-recognized but, unfortunately, often poorly managed.

That said, there's an interesting double standard at work here. The marketers of "alternative" cancer cures are free to sell whatever nostrum they dream up without any sort of oversight or regulation, whereas the pharmaceutical industry has to formally study the safety and efficacy of its products before they can make a dime. Do you think the marketers of the Gerson Therapy (for example) are immune to financial considerations or corruption? Would it interest you to hear of documented instances in which marketers of alternative "cures" have come to Wikipedia to put a positive (if not downright dishonest) spin on their products?

It's always amazed me that people capable of such drug-industry paranoia are incapable of applying the same critical approach to the alternative-medicine industry. MastCell ^Talk 22:40, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Muggins Mountain

I changed the Muggins Mountain Wilderness article because both wilderness.net and the BLM website have it listed without the "s". Please review and allow my edits.thirdofjuly 2/25/12Thirdofjuly (talk) 20:15, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Did I miss one? I agree that it is Muggins Mountain Wilderness, but as I noted at your talk page, the mountain range is still the Muggins Mountains. —C.Fred (talk) 20:35, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Looks good. Thank you. thirdofjuly 2/25/12Thirdofjuly (talk) 20:41, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I find it weird

That you do not allow Ariana Grande's entry to include her full name Ariana Joan Grande-Butera (http://twitter.com/#!/ArianaGrande/media/slideshow?url=http%3A%2F%2Ftwitpic.com%2F8fcs90) but you allow the entry Elizabeth Gillies to have her full name Elizabeth Egan Gillies when there is no link to refer Gillies' middle name at all.69.137.229.200 (talk) 17:55, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Other stuff exists. And besides, there has been a link all along for Gillies' middle name: it was just in the infobox, not the main text. —C.Fred (talk) 19:53, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Eugene Plotkin AfD

You may want to re-evaluate your rationale; two editors cut the article down to a stub in order to influence a consensus towards deletion via gaming, when the article was actually more well sourced originally. Nate • (chatter) 00:39, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. I've struck my prior comment and am re-evaluating. —C.Fred (talk) 01:14, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Answer to copyright question

I have answered a question of yours on my talk page: [[4]] Mveric (talk) 04:28, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

TrancerCZ

User:TrancerCZ is still readding his comments to Talk:Acid throwing, and has ignored both your comment on alk:Violence against women and both our warnings on his talk page. This guy looks like he's intent on using wikipedia as a forum, any thoughts--Cailil ^talk 22:54, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

User name

Hello C.Fred. Thank you for your welcome. I am gradually getting the gist of things. One thing that I have discovered, however, is that my user name is inappropriate in being 'bold'and apparently near to my real name. Should I abandon my existing user name and begin with another more appropriate one?</nowiki>JSLUCAS75 (talk) 07:22, 29 February 2012 (UTC)</nowiki>

World UFO Day Links

Two links of the same site indeed could look suspicious to you, I fully understand where you're coming from. However, this is the official site dedicated to World UFO day, and it simply holds the best and most complete information. This article is a stub and the Wikipedia page could really be much better if someone would look into this site I guess. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DraekDesigner (talk • contribs) 03:42, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

The website is already linked; we don't usually link to subpages of an already-linked site, and I don't see a reason for an exception here. —C.Fred (talk) 03:47, 3 March 2012 (UTC)