User talk:C.Fred

A highly biased article needs equilibrium

Fred, Prior to making 'undos' it is requested that you visit the polarized, biased information formerly on this article and question your ethics as a CPA if the article was not, in fact, biased before. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pharmameatsdorkies (talk • contribs) 02:23, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Pardon my butting in, but you'll want to discuss this on the article's talk page, Pharma. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:47, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Their wedding was verified by Associated Press, that was the "AP" reports. Just google it and you will see. Their people verified as India Times and others were just putting something to sell papers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mamajoe777 (talk • contribs) 22:31, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Deletion notice re: International Society for the Study of Medievalism

Dear Fred,

I will add more information on the Society soon. The Society's work is notable and worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia because the various other projects/pages it is connected to (Studies in Medievalism, Medievally Speaking, etc.) all happen under the umbrella of the organization. If it is the list of names that is problematic, I can certainly take those off and simply put a link to the Society pages soon to go up on the Studies in Medievalism website. Thanks for any help you can give me. Best, r — Preceding unsigned comment added by Utziputz (talk • contribs) 12:42, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

The Society's products could be notable without the Society itself being notable. The key is to find independent reliable sources—and I stress independence as you appear to have a conflict of interest with the Society—that will attest to the Society's notability. —C.Fred (talk) 12:48, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Sure, Fred, go ahead and delete it. I don't have all the materials on the society's history at hand to make appropriate changes. It's existed since the 1980s, with members far and wide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Utziputz (talk • contribs) 15:12, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

October 2011

[Copy of warning I left on IP's page removed.]

User talk:LardoBalsamico keeps making deceitful edits regarding his personal sports team whereas attacking rival team pages. I would explain you further if you hadn't come as such a condescending prick. The feud will not come to an end even if it takes months before an administrator resolved this matter: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADabomb87&action=historysubmit&diff=455476256&oldid=454721537 and punishes User talk:LardoBalsamico for deliberately and continiously inserting controversial information into WP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.244.102.189 (talk) 14:44, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

In the absence of an explanation, all I can do is act on what I see: you continuing a feud, refusing to discuss the matter civilly, and harassing another user. Frankly, I wouldn't expect anything but the account you use getting blocked for conduct like that. —C.Fred (talk) 15:30, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

What is going on

Why should I be blocked for Adding Information — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drugsarebad89 (talk • contribs) 01:33, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

See User talk:Drugsarebad89#Edit warring revisited for reply. —C.Fred (talk) 01:37, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Explain this to me

Why do people keep reverting information i add what is the problem with what I put. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drugsarebad89 (talk • contribs) 01:39, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

As I said at Talk:Michael Jackson, it's probably because of the large amount of changes you're doing in a single edit and the changes to references you're making. —C.Fred (talk) 01:41, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

So can I now add the information that I wanted to put down

I just wanted to post facts on wikipedia I have no Idea why people would be reverting everything I post — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drugsarebad89 (talk • contribs) 01:42, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Drugsarebad89‎

Hello Fred. the editor is just playing a game, and has consistently done the same type of things over and over. I don't know exactly how far this vandal goes, but I can see the sequence of edits that have lead us to this particular point. The Billy Jean article(from Hungryforfun9000 1,2,3,4)(from blocked Masterknowledgelol 1) from anon ip 96.246.254.161 1,2,3 plus about 4 more of the same edits) and then Drugsarebad89‎ makes the same edits to the article 1 and then moves to other articles playing the same games and has already been blocked twice with this account. This needs Admin action and a CU over at SPI. I'll do it, but I don't have the time right now. Evidently, per edit summaries, the user has had interactions with the Admin Tide Rolls too. It's all in the contribution history and edit summaries. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 02:01, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you!

Just wanted to thank you for the help you gave my students working on the Weardrobe page - all of the class members, including me, their instructor, are newbies in the Wikipedia world. Efforts like yours are what makes Wikipedia a welcoming community where we can delve in and learn more about the backstage working of it. Thanks! LeshedInstructor (talk) 14:21, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks C.Fred

Thanks for taking care of that Rat Pack page! (I'm a newbie here)