User talk:C.Fred

April 17, 2011

Hello C.Fred, Crushedtiggy (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Talk: FINNOV

Hi, could you please explain the reason why you cancelled the information that I uploaded previously? As mentioned before I work for the FINNOV research group and I am authorised to upload the content, what do we need to overcome this problem? User Talk:AlexTaffetani —Preceding undated comment added 15:17, 21 April 2011 (UTC).

Well, there's this message I left at your talk page:

Please let me know what next steps you plan to take. If you plan on having someone from FINNOV send an email to Wikipedia, make sure that is noted at Talk:Finnov.

When you didn't reply, I deleted the article again, with this note in the deletion:

No follow-through on donation of text

While it is normal Wikipedia process to assume good faith with editors, we're a little more careful when it comes to copyrights. That's why we ask for somebody from the donating organization to send email to Wikipedia to attest that yes, they have donated the text in question and are willingly placing it under a free license—and are aware that the donation is irrevocable. That's why there are specific processes to follow, such as mailing the volunteer response team.

Of course, if you were to write an article about Finnov using your own words, instead of those from the Finnov website, this process wouldn't be necessary. So long as the text wasn't found to be copied from another website, placing it on Wikipedia would be the act of free licensing. —C.Fred (talk) 15:29, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Two more thoughts: I checked the Finnov website again, and there is no statement on the site regarding the licensing status of the website's content. In the absence of an explicit statement, Wikipedia assumes that the content is copyrighted and under an all-rights-reserved license—i.e., not free.

Second, checking the contact page at the Finnov website, it is very clear that you have a conflict of interest with Finnov. Again, this doesn't preclude you from editing, but it means you must be very careful that all text you submit is written from neutral point of view, and it means you should back up statements with independent reliable sources wherever possible. Because of the conflict of interest, there are some editors who will be very wary that you are using Wikipedia not to inform about the organization but to blatantly promote it—and they may be likely to flag it for deletion as spam if they feel it is promotional. —C.Fred (talk) 15:35, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I understand your point, but you have to appreciate that this is not a lucrative promotion, it's an academic research website which have been finance by the FP7 Programme (which is present on Wikipedia) and it's supposed to be informative. So if I have someone else to upload the information and I grant the person the right to use the website material we can get around this? User Talk:AlexTaffetani —Preceding undated comment added 14:18, 26 April 2011 (UTC).

No. Trying to make an end run around this by giving somebody else permission to use the website material may only make matters worse. I really think the best course of action is to write original text that does not appear on any website and use that as the basis for the article. Text that is purpose written for Wikipedia and does not appear on any other website is free: when you submit an edit, "you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL," so the new text is under a proper license.

(That license clause is a major part of the issue with copying text—along with the preceding notice that "Content that violates any copyrights will be deleted." The user copying the text, in almost every case, does not have the authority to relicense the text. That's part of why copyright infringements are removed so aggressively: to keep the unfree, invalidly-licensed text from improperly intermingling with text under a valid free license.)

There is a secondary issue of your conflict of interest. As long as you are up front about the conflict, write the article from neutral point of view, and cite independent sources wherever possible, the conflict of interest can be overcome. It sounds like you have a grasp on the second point: the article is supposed to be informative. That also means presenting all sides of an issue, if Finnov has been involved in any controversies. The difference is that other editors can help polish the text to make sure it's neutral—we can edit and improve the article that you start. When the article begins with copyright infringing text, we don't have that option: we must delete the text and start fresh on the topic. —C.Fred (talk) 15:33, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Ararat Heritage

Ararat heritage is a European non-profit making NGO based in London, England. Its constitution, as established in November 2010, provides the following human-rights objectives: monitoring abuse; obtaining redress for the victims; relieving need among victims; research into human rights issues; educating the public; providing technical advice to government and others; commenting on proposed human rights legislation; eliminating infringements; engage in political activity within a specific framework. Additionally, the organisation can provide relief and assistance, financial or otherwise, to the victims of natural or other kinds of disasters. Hovhannes montenegro (talk) 17:47, 22 April 2011 (UTC) Tony Kahve, 22 April 2011

As I've explained at Talk:Ararat Heritage, it's not a significant or important organization per Wikipedia standards. Please see further discussion there. —C.Fred (talk) 17:48, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Dear Fred, Ararat Heritage is a significant organisation and is very active in this field. It deals with the issues that are dealt with the organisations that are in the Direct Links section of Ararat Heritages website — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hovhannes montenegro (talk • contribs) 14:06, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Then I trust you can provide independent reliable sources that have covered the organization? Stories about it in newspapers, for instance? —C.Fred (talk) 14:08, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Beer sommelier

That user made some changes in what seems to be valid but unsuccessful attempts to improve the article, and they were twice (at least) reverted and called vandalism. I have left the editor a note and removed one of the rather bitey warning templates placed there by User:The Master of Mayhem. Drmies (talk) 21:38, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Your advice would be appreciated

I've had a short policy/guideline discussion regarding notability as it relates to alumni of a baseball club/team at User_talk:Sitush#Blue_Sox_page. Could you advise please? I've been applying the criteria I refer to there (no WP article for the person usually means not notable enough for inclusion in a list of notables/alumni) on umpteen articles which you have had some involvement with, eg: the University of Patna merges etc. There's no row going on here, it is merely a clarification issue. - Sitush (talk) 20:14, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Sony rumour

Who are you? If you're a moderator, it's RIDICULOUS to allow unsubstantiated rumors to be on a front page of a wiki article. RIDICULOUS and without merit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AranhaHunter (talk • contribs) 04:12, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Then perhaps you should discuss the situation at the article's talk page. If we know what the problematic rumour is and why it's problematic, it's easier to address. Also, discussing it at the article talk page makes it easy to determine whether consensus has put it in the article for some reason or otherwise objects to removal. —C.Fred (talk) 04:15, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

User:K22UFC re-adding flag icons

I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but the user continues to re-add flag icons[1] after your warning.[2] At what point should they be blocked again? —LOL ^T/_C 03:05, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Tyler ballard

I am here to ask why you deleted the page about me by jkmik i am real i have been in monk,camp rock etc i was born in la and my mum died in 2003 so please put the page back on — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tylerballard11 (talk • contribs) 21:13, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that Ballard is not notable. Just appearing in Camp Rock and the like is not enough to meet the notability criteria. WP:BIO provides more information, but the simple answer is that without reliable sources that have covered him at length, Tyler Ballard is not a notable enough actor to have an article. —C.Fred (talk) 21:16, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

3RR problems

I'm having problems with User:P.Ganakan at Kaniyar Panicker. Umpteen warnings have been issued, umpteen reverts have taken place - it appears to be him against the world. I deliberately stopped reverting his actual content when I hit 2 in 24 hours, and because he was actually starting to cite some of his additions even though at the cost of deleting my earlier copyedits, but others have also reverted him within the same time span.

Worse, I've now had to revert him at least twice for removal of maintenance templates, even though I've tried to tone them down in an attempt not to cause him to feel attacked. So, in a way I have also breached 3RR but I have been trying to talk with him about it along the way and have had no response. I feel that reverting maintenance tag removals is acceptable but do not want to prolong a silly war. I'm probably wrong about this but have never actually hit that particular problem before. Can you advise please? I have warned him that he may be blocked for disruptive editing. Block me also, if you must. - Sitush (talk) 16:17, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I've left a message for the user suggesting that he start discussing at the talk page rather than edit warring—or at the least explaining his edits in edit summaries. I've also made it very clear that further removal of the maintenance tags will result in a block. That's a very bright line situation: if he's been warned not to do it and does it again, it's disruptive, and a block is warranted whether or not it's a technical violation of 3RR. —C.Fred (talk) 16:36, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm learning: I noticed before writing the above that 3RR applies even to different edits by the same editor (not merely the same or similar content) in a 24 hour period, which is why I got worried about reverting the maintenance templates. Mind, I had tried to converse beforehand, as you have advised me to do in the past. One day, I'll be half-decent at this. - Sitush (talk) 16:42, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but I am afraid that we're at 3RR again here. This time plagiarism/copyright issues are thrown into the mix, and he's still not summarising or communicating in any way at all. I've merely been tidying things so as not to upset the contributor. - Sitush (talk) 14:51, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, he's done far worse than 3RR. After your messages plus the Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents report filed on him, he still kept adding copyright-infringing text to the article. I blocked him for 72 hours for that, and if he does it again, I wouldn't hesitate to block him indefinitely.

Also, I'm aware of the use of 117.254.135.60 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) to edit the article. I haven't formally flagged it as a sock, but I'm keeping an eye on how that account is used, especially at Kaniyar Panicker. —C.Fred (talk) 15:58, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the IP had reverted the copyright back in during my stint. I assumed the guy had logged out but ignored that. That was a quick pick-up by the copyright holder, though, and I find it slightly mysterious that the complaint got to OTRS so quickly. Must be a Wikipedian! I'll try to tidy up the article during the block - get the cites inline, check them for accuracy vis-a-vis the statements etc.

What does "RD1" mean? Blade has used it in the AN/I thread. - Sitush (talk) 16:51, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

RD1 is shorthand for criterion 1 for redaction in the revision deletion policy: blatant copyright infringement. —C.Fred (talk) 16:55, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the edit help. I am new and need some time to get this all right! — Preceding unsigned comment added by KarenCorbin (talk • contribs) 17:04, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Main page appearance

Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of this article know that it will be appearing as the main page featured article on May 6, 2011. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/May 6, 2011. If you think it is necessary to change the main date, you can request it with the featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions of the suggested formatting. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :D Thanks! Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 20:24, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Aaliyah (1979-2001) was an American recording artist, actress and model. At age 12, Aaliyah signed with Jive Records and Blackground Records by her uncle, Barry Hankerson. He introduced her to R. Kelly, who became her mentor, as well as lead songwriter and producer of her debut album, Age Ain't Nothing but a Number. The album sold three million copies in the United States and was certified double platinum by the Recording Industry Association of America. After facing allegations of an illegal marriage with Kelly, Aaliyah ended her contract with Jive and signed to Atlantic Records. Aaliyah worked with record producers Timbaland and Missy Elliott for her second album, One in a Million; it sold 3.7 million copies in the United States and over eight million copies worldwide. In 2000, Aaliyah appeared in her first major film, Romeo Must Die. After completing Romeo Must Die, Aaliyah filmed her part in Queen of the Damned. She released her third and final album, Aaliyah, in July 2001. On August 25, 2001, Aaliyah and eight others were killed in an airplane crash in The Bahamas after filming the music video for the single "Rock the Boat". Since then, Aaliyah's music has achieved commercial success with several posthumous releases. She has been credited for helping redefine R&B and hip hop, earning her the nickname "Princess of R&B". (more...)

User:HellYeahPartyTime

Can you please indef block this user as a clear sock of User:BlueMondo131? Thanks, CTJF83 21:11, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Handled. KnownAlias contact 15:42, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Slow edit war at Stanford University

With this edit on 26 April at Stanford University a user named DeusExa continued his campaign of removal of a statement about the founding of companies by Stanford graduates. I notice you've edited the article and reverted the same change by an IP. A report about this is still open at WP:AN3. Though 3RR has not been violated, do you think it may be time for a block? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 02:47, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I've effectively left a final warning on their page for edit warring. I've invited them to discuss the edit—but I've also cautioned them that continuing to delete the text without edit warring is a disruptive practice and will be dealt with as such—with a block. —C.Fred (talk) 03:07, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Why do you accuse me of making personal attacks on my own IP# talk page?

If you take a look at the bottom of the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Samuel you will see that IAN THOMSON makes a personal attack on an editor by calling him "crazy" and promoting an external defamitory site that was removed but placed back by someone else. Wikipedia should be called Wickedpedia 99.148.192.105 (talk) 05:23, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Two wrongs do not make a right. The slew of personal attacks directed at Ian.thomson were utterly inappropriate, and as a result, users from your IP have been blocked for 31 hours. —C.Fred (talk) 05:41, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

User:GoNC Network unblocked

I wanted to let you know that I unblocked User:GoNC Network as OrangeMike said he was Ok with it on his talk page some time ago. Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 17:03, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! I guess I missed the reply. —C.Fred (talk) 17:05, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

User making personal attacks

At the bottom of the Samuel talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Samuel&action=edit&section=15 the user below makes personal attacks on another user. Below is the personal attack. Dr CareBear (talk) 18:46, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

If you look over the rest of that editor's contributions, as well as this site about his activities elsewhere, you'll see that that user is indeed crazy.