User talk:C.Fred

Sorry!

I read (red) something onine that Betty White died and then I look more in the story and then they said that she is okay and home. I'm so sorry! I thought she dead because that article said. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darre123 (talk • contribs) 23:47, 9 January 2016‎ (UTC)

Billie Allen

Can you give me a idea for this page I really think she should be on Wikipedia. She was a big actress. Thank you for your support!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darre123 (talk • contribs) 22:55, 13 January 2016‎ (UTC)

Comma

Are you actually reading what you are reverting? Please show me one instance in the history of journalism where there is a comma in the middle of "California man". Not only does it not need a comma, but it breaks up the entire description since in this case, the word "California" is being used as an adjective to the noun, "man". There are times when a comma is appropriate, but this is not one of them. JOJ ^Hutton 03:33, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

@Jojhutton: The sentence doesn't say he's a California man. It says he's a Quartz Hill man. It has to clarify which Quartz Hill, though. In that sense, California does not directly modify man; it modifies Quartz Hill, it's an appositive, and it takes a comma. —C.Fred (talk) 03:40, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

That's fine when "Quartz Hill is being used as a noun, but in this case it's being used as an adjective, and would not need a comma to break up the sentence. If you can find an example where there has ever been a comma used in this type of sentence, I'll recant my objection. JOJ ^Hutton 03:46, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

@Jojhutton: ABC—and if I read it right, the AP—used the structure twice in this article: http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/latest-nc-police-investigate-fatal-shooting-officer-37294500: "The Latest on the fatal shooting of a Raleigh, North Carolina, man by a police officer" and "A woman says she saw a Raleigh, North Carolina, police officer shoot a man six times." AP Style (newspaper style) tends to be sparing with commas, so if they use it, other style guides would likely use it too. —C.Fred (talk) 03:58, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Well it looks like they did. Makes absolutely no sense since commas are used as a pause in a sentence and there is no pause, or even a need for a pause in that case. Seems to be overkill on an epic scale. JOJ ^Hutton 04:17, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Blood of the Samurai

Hi, C.Fred. I was looking through the history of Blood of the Samurai, and it looks like you tagged it for CSD per A11, and then later came back and declined your own tag. I'm sure you were aware of this, but I thought I'd let you know just in case :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:17, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

@Oshwah: Ummm, the tag was me considering deleting as A11, but then I declined to go through with it? :) —C.Fred (talk) 14:57, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Ah, I figured so. Just wanted to message you just in case. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:58, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Identity fraud on Pantheon-Sorbonne University

Hello, I don't believe we met before. Earlier today you dealt with a page protection request for Pantheon-Sorbonne University. But ummm... look what I found out. Never experienced this before. A user with just 6 edits first reverted a chunk of text on that article. So far I don't mind too much. Half an hour later, he posts a protection request... using my name???? The templates he's manipulating in this request even seem to suggest he knows his way around Wikipedia, doesn't match the pattern of someone with just 6 requests. But anyway, I'm not too happy about this identity theft. As an admin, do you know what needs to be done here? I suppose some kind of disciplinary measures apply? --Midas02 (talk) 19:08, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

@Midas02: Once I realized what that user had done, I removed his request entirely. The way he was manipulating the templates suggested that he wasn't that familiar. He probably copied and pasted information; it looked more like he was trying to indicate who the "bad" editors were...but he had absolutely the wrong templates for it. I've warned the user, but since I feel it was an error rather than intentional forgery, I didn't sanction the user further.

I'm now keeping an eye on the article, so if there's any further disruption by this user, I'll see it. Also, if he submits another message/request like that, let me know. —C.Fred (talk) 19:30, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Ok, no problem. There is a bit of an edit war going on on those articles, that's why I got involved. The above mentioned user was one of the parties involved, that's why I'm a tad more sceptical about his naivety. In any case, the articles are now under scrutiny. I've asked some third parties to get involved as well so we can nip that edit war in the bud. --Midas02 (talk) 19:36, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Contest Deletion of Article

@C.fred: Contest deletion for wiki article:Ravens Grin Inn ; I posted it to resolve a red link found in another article [ https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimera_House ] but because it was a haunted attraction it was labeled as commercial advertising and hastily removed. This page was not created with the intention of advertising.

@MissMaraclea: The tone of the article was unsalvageably promotional. You're welcome to try again, but the article will need a complete rewrite. Also, make sure you cite independent reliable sources whenever possible. —C.Fred (talk) 02:10, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

@C.fred: I had submitted the page as it was to avoid loss of progress; The lack of citation was solely due to my lack of knowing how to actually do that. Ill look around at the help page to find out how to do that properly but until then, is what was posted permanently deleted??? Or is there a way that we could temporarily restore the page? MissMaraclea (talk) 02:24, 6 March 2016 (UTC) MissMaraclea

Center of Concern Article

Excuse me, but I did not create this entry in the first place. The person who did acted without authorization and made numerous factual errors with serious legal and financial implications for our organization, the Jesuits, the Catholic Church, and possibly others. The organization is not part of the Catholic Church, it is not under the administration of the Jesuits, and it does not have anyone with the title CEO. There are numerous other factual and editorial errors that are harmful to our organization. I am in no way trying to use Wikipedia to promote or advertise the organization. Rather, I am responding to some person who took it upon him- or herself to publish a series of inaccurate and harmful statements about the organization. I have indicated with each edit why I was moving the information. There has been no lack of clarity about this. Our preference would be to remove the article completely. I have tried without success to contact the original author. To insist that we explain why we want removal of inaccurate information the posting of which we did not request, initiate, or authorize in the first place is absurd. Please respect our wishes. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoyalawya (talk • contribs) 03:15, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

@Hoyalawya: If there are concerns with the article that are as grave as you say, you should be commenting at the article's talk page with reliable sources that give updated information. Then, an independent editor can make the changes.

And yes, I mean an independent editor. The way Wikipedia's policies are set up, it is better for articles to be edited by editors who have no connection to the subject and can better maintain a neutral point of view. The subjects of an article have no editorial control about the content of the article. As I mentioned above, they can request changes to be made to the article, but they need to cite reliable sources—just like any other editor should. —C.Fred (talk) 03:43, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Excuse me, Fred, but the Society of Jesus (Jesuits) is not the "parent organization" of Center, the team member whom the article lists as "CEO" will be furious as there is no such title and she would not want it for liability reasons, the organization has not published a printed quarterly newsletter called Center Focus for more than three years, and it has not had an agribusiness project for almost 10. These and many other elements of the content implicate the organization's tax-exempt status, its fundraising, and its grant and other contractual relationships. I should know, because I am the president and I am getting tired of this harassment. I don't want to create a puff piece or an advertisement. I want the article off Wikipedia. It is grossly unfair for us to be in the position of having to disprove a series of false statements. We did not ask for any of this. There is no need for an independent editor, or any editor. Please just delete the article. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoyalawya (talk • contribs) 03:58, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Panthéon-Sorbonne University

Hi, Can't we stop Xmirs vandalism on the Panthéon-Sorbonne page? He refuses to talk and his version of the article is clearly lacking of sources and contains clearly false statements. I tried to do my best to remedy at these two issues but he keep going back to the biaised version! --Launebee (talk) 12:37, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Warring

The pattern of edits which resulted in your revert here is repeated elsewhere on article articles edited by the same IP sock. I made a note at ANI several days ago, but it hasn't yet been picked up. If you had a minute, could you take a look? (RBI only works if the "B" part occurs). Guliolopez (talk) 14:34, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

March 06. 2016. Why are u deleting my articles and genuine contribution in Wikipedia. What is the point? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jarmalinen (talk • contribs) 19:13, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Responding at your talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 19:14, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	hi c fred your so awesome Mikeharrison221 (talk) 19:29, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Tahir Minalay

Hi C.Fred, I was about to report the editor to the vandalism noticeboard, but would prefer not to go around you as you're engaged with the article and the editor. Thanks for your assistance, 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 19:43, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, don't go there just yet. I'm going to continue to work with the editor. —C.Fred (talk) 19:45, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Very well. Cheers, 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 19:46, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, C.Fred, but given the lack of progress, I'm going to request a block. The salt suggestion below looks good, as well. Cheers, 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 20:22, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Ah, you're a step ahead. Thank you. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 20:23, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

I just deleted. I often consider that one-more-removal of a speedy tag as a concession that the article can't be improved. If they recreate, then a block would be the next step. —C.Fred (talk) 20:24, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Re-creation didn't take long. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 20:27, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Astronomy follies

I noticed that you are dealing with the same Cypriot-astronomer issue I wrangled with a bit last week thanks to a presumably entirely different and unrelated user named Benster443. FYI, I just opened an SPI and advocated (with conceded low non-admin weight) that the title be salted at this point. All the best... Julietdeltalima (talk) 19:46, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

@Julietdeltalima: Thanks for the heads-up that this isn't the first go-around with this article. I'm going to check the deleted history and see if I need to salt. I may not salt it right now, though, to see if it draws another sock in the future, to really establish a pattern. —C.Fred (talk) 19:48, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Military history FA/GA discussion

HI, just a quick note about a current discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history (WWII content: Otto Kittel, other GA/FA articles) that you may be interested in. K.e.coffman (talk)

deletion

Hello! I was assisting in editing a page for Dayne Waldal and me and Wowitsdaven noticed you deleted our page. Is there something we can do to fix the page?Sophiageorgiades (talk) 22:03, 6 March 2016 (UTC)sophiageorgiades

@Sophiageorgiades: Before Waldal can have an article, he needs to be a notable person. There was nothing in the article that indicated how he is significant or important, so that's why the article was deleted.

Also, for the article to stick around, you'll need to provide independent reliable sources that have covered Waldal. —C.Fred (talk) 23:17, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Thru (company)

I wanted to see if you could help with fixing an issue. This page had been submitted for review but was moved to an article page and there is a warning at the bottom: How would you fix this? The category is still under Pending AfC submissions. Thanks. Chrisdavidson1004 (talk) 21:06, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

@Chrisdavidson1004: I'll take a look at Thru (company) right now. —C.Fred (talk) 21:08, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. Chrisdavidson1004 (talk) 22:14, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Not again

He did it again. I can't violate 3 revert rule. [1]Abel Lawrence (talk) 03:18, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Strange user

This user [2] has a name same as the page he has edited. I am not sure what to do, so I have told you as you are an administrator. I have also told Materialscientist, but he does not appear to be active.Abel Lawrence (talk) 03:27, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for catching the vandal can you give me a barn star please

From What does the RIley say? (talk) 21:42, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

He called me a fool

First off all it is called christmas and second of all my auto correct From What does the RIley say? (talk) 21:56, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Let's keep this thread at your talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 22:02, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Okay What does the RIley say? (talk) 22:28, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	Thank you for teaming with me What does the RIley say? (talk) 23:01, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Rms125a@hotmail.com undoing my changes

Why is Rms125a@hotmail.com allowed to undo changes I am making , removing FACTS from a page, but when I undo HIS changes I am threatened with being blocked?

Mikkitobi (talk) 18:26, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

@Mikkitobi: Because you have clearly violated WP:3RR after being warned about it. I haven't seen whether Rms violated or not. —C.Fred (talk) 18:28, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

So what I am supposed to do when he keeps undoing my changes of FACT. He is immune? my FACTS get removed?

Mikkitobi (talk) 18:30, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

@Mikkitobi: You discuss the situation, on a talk page. You do not edit war. —C.Fred (talk) 18:31, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

I have already done so and he claims I am trying to get 15 minutes of fame. He is not willing to budge so what else am I supposed to do?

Why does HE get to make the changes he wants but I do NOT? PLEASE EXPLAIN.

He was happy when I added in some of the information and I thought we had finally made progress but he then tried to be clever and 'fix' the name of an organisation and he got it wrong. When I reverted his change and pointed out he had erred in the name he was clearly not happy and then reverted to removing my information again! He clearly does not like being told he has made a mistake.

I want an admin to review this case and make a ruling.

Mikkitobi (talk) 18:36, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

@Mikkitobi: Again, you discuss the matter at the article's talk page. You have not done so yet. I have invited Rms to open discussion there (see this message).

Since you initiated the changes, the burden is on you to substantiate the claims. Rms objected, so the article returns to the status quo: the page as it existed before your changes.

It sounds like a content dispute. This is best settled at the article's talk page. That way, other editors can see what is going on and chime in, so hopefully we can get a good consensus on how the page should appear. It might be your version, it might be Rms's, it might be somebody else's, or it might be a combination of that.

Finally...my first comment to you was in my capacity as an administrator who observed a 3RR violation and was prepared to block you over it. So, my ruling is that the parties should discuss the matter at the article's talk page. Either party is subject to further sanctions, including having their account blocked, if the edit warring resumes. —C.Fred (talk) 18:44, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

He HAS undone my edits at least 3 times in the past 24 hours. How do we warn HIM about violating WP:3RR?

Mikkitobi (talk) 18:42, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

@Mikkitobi: He's already been reminded. —C.Fred (talk) 18:47, 12 March 2016 (UTC)