User talk:C.Fred

Problematic IP editor from NY library

I've been having some difficulties with User:65.88.88.202, who is apparently contributing via a library/hotspot in New York. It took me a while to catch on to the fact that it is a static address but I did try to advise them a few hours ago.

Subsequent to that they yet again pushed exactly the same POV as they had previously been pushing on Kashmiri Pandit. The article is very poor (although I've actually increased the number of RS etc in it) but there is no need to replace one reasonable but unsourced statement with another that is both unsourced and unreasonable. Furthermore, they keep meddling with the mention of "Mongol", which was discussed on the article talk page here.

What should I do next? The idea of reporting this to WP:3RRNB for edit warring is a bit awkward if that IP address really is used by the location stated on the IP talk page. We could end up briefly blocking contributions from a major library, albeit at present the sole contributor from the address is clearly a the same person (edits are confined to Kashmiri subjects). - Sitush (talk) 00:18, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

If you do feel it needs reported to the 3RRNB, I would make sure to raise that point. Whichever admin acts on the issue will take that under consideration—and also consider whether page protection would be the better remedy. Since most of the edits from that IP appear to be to similar topics, I think that a short-term anonblock would be placed, but only if there was a pattern of reverts over a short period of time. —C.Fred (talk) 00:23, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Semi-PP will not do the trick when an IP has >: 4 edits (or 10, I forget which it is). Or have I got that wrong? Full protection would force the issue to the talk page, I guess, but when it is pretty much one vs one then achieving anything from it seems pretty unlikely. Even though I am (I think!) policy-comliant and they are not. I'll have a think. Thanks for the input. - Sitush (talk) 00:28, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Semi-protection will work against all IPs; they can't get autoconfirmed like named accounts can. —C.Fred (talk) 00:30, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh, wow. I've misunderstood that. I'll drop a note on their page about the Mongol issue, since I have not specifically mentioned that one to them. If they continue in the same vein thereafter then I'll request semi-PP. - Sitush (talk) 00:36, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

It turns out to be more complex. The *.202 IP is in fact the one with whom I had a brief discussion about Mongols back in July, linked to above. And an IP making similarly problematic edits to the same range of Kashmir-related articles was indef'd on 30 Sept & resolves to exactly the same institution (see User:65.88.88.175). I'll either have to request semi-PP on quite a few articles or go the 3RRNB route & nuke a small range. Neither is a particularly appealing solution. - Sitush (talk) 01:16, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

No, but it sounds like somebody with an agenda is abusing some IPs. If the owner can't control them, then Wikipedia does what it needs to to protect the project's integrity. And that's the only IP I've ever seen indefed, so if this guy has that much history, it's likely that either the articles will get protected or more IPs will get blocked. —C.Fred (talk) 01:25, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I left a note on the blocking admin's page, referring them to this thread. Rrather stupidly, I did not look at the IP's user page but saw the block on their contributions page - consequently, I have "sort of" queried whether the library issue was known. Dammit! I have the feeling that this may be an ANI case, given the potential fall-out if *.202 continues in the same vein. I mean, the library will definitely have a range & that is what would have to be blocked. - Sitush (talk) 01:33, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd definitly try and see about getting a long-term range block - IPs usually don't get long-termed or indef'd due to collateral, but it seems there aren't any productive edits at all coming out of that range. So... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:58, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks folks. I will await developments in the (probably vain) hope that the contributor has learned something. A repeat instance will cause me to take it to 3RRNB, where I am pretty sure the result will be "oh, er, but this is a library" ... and then it will have to go to ANI. This is not meant as a criticism of those patrolling 3RRNB: I think that the awkwardness of this particular situation is already apparent and a community decision would be an entirely appropriate thing for a 3RRNB patroller to expect. I'll ping you should anything occur. - Sitush (talk) 00:33, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok, we have a twist. Another US IP has again been "meddling" on the article, in a slightly different but similarly contra-source manner. And then they posted this. Hm. Same or different? I have been "accused" recently week of being from Liverpool and Manchester, of being Jewish and Muslim, of being a paid editor, of being out of work, of being a member of a "high caste" (India), a vandal, a defamer and who knows what else. I seem to be attracting more rubbish than many admins who mop up! Perhaps I need to return to my long term projects: defunct UK businesses & prizefighters of the 18th C. - Sitush (talk) 00:55, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

They've done it again, so I have reported at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:65.88.88.202_reported_by_User:Sitush_.28Result:_.29. This thread and your name are mentioned. - Sitush (talk) 00:26, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

GPM Antivirus Issues

Hellow, regarding to the Article GPM Antivirus, can the developers/other editors edit the content of this article just only to remove the issues. I am not advertising or any other violations. and to stop deleting this article. I am gonna let the developers/other editors to edit the contents of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gian20 (talk • contribs) 14:05, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

The issue I have is that I don't see any purpose for the article other than to promote the product. If the text were re-written, the article would still be subject to "normal" deletion for failing to assert the notability of the software. —C.Fred (talk) 14:17, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

User talk:Factiod

Time to disable talk page access for this user? Clearly not getting with the program, and now with a large dump of copyvio. EdJohnston (talk) 03:37, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I pointed out the copyvio issue. If he keeps abusing that, yes, cut off the talk page access—and monitor Ran kurosawa (talk · contribs), as there may be some sockpuppet-type behavior. —C.Fred (talk) 03:40, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

So many experienced editors have pleaded with him, in a friendly way at first, to edit collaboratively, to no avail. Also take a look at the abysmal Net Talk Live! which somehow made it through articles for creation, and was written by Ran kurosawa. Surprise! The host of that show invented the CueCat. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:45, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

AirTran

You give the very good response, which is civil response. I stating to JetBlast to follow your role models example. Thanks. --B767-500 (talk) 05:12, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

C. Fred blocking Users - willing to learn that which is considered dictionary and not TALK. TJ Morris

Dear Sir:

I am willing to learn to share words that are listed as DICTIONARY terms. I am also willing to learn to share TALK pages.

Therefore, I request you unblock me and share the words which are now words in etymology.

Those that I share in cosmology which you believe on TALK pages are rambling are important to many of us who are creators, authors, science fiction writers, script writers, special effects creators, editors, publishers, and webhosts.

Please refer to all the articles, pages, photos, and references made with the words which I have requested to be included such as the Alphaverse and Omegaverse.

I have a strong suggestion that those who are of the interest in making Wikipedia the free encyclopedia that is the best in the world shall agree that it is best to include all words and not just those chosen by yourself.

It would be best if one who deletes information know that it is better to take one's creative words and (Ramblings) as you define them and create them into more of what one of your stature in life expects.

This is a formal humanitarian apology to one named C. Fred who has seen fit to delete me and block me. One having such POWER on EARTH must also define opulent control.

Those of us who are desiring to include words in our genre in social networking and futurists creations such as cosmology would appreciate your contributions to our cause in etymology on the free wikipedia.

Please know that much of what I read on Wikipedia appears as explanation in TALK form and articles.

Thank you for assisting me as a new contributor. Your help would be most appreciated in the editing the words and fields instead of simply deleting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.170.25 (talk) 02:10, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

The mere fact that you left this message on this talk page means that your IP address is not blocked. If your account is blocked, you'll need to request unblocking by logging in with your account and placing an unblock request on your account's user talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 23:26, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Bold merge

Do you think that Kulin Brahmin and Kulin Brahmins can be merged boldly? Neither are great articles but they are also not duplicated content, just both about the same subject. The singular form is more commonly used for India caste articles, so Kulin Brahmin would contain the content.

I am almost tempted to cut them back to a short single para due to the poor sourcing, but one does have a few listed if they are not cited inline. - Sitush (talk) 20:22, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Volume 4, Issue 3 • Fall 2011 • About the Newsletter
Departments Assessment roundup Portal selected articles and pictures	Features Junction list template updates coming ACR processes merged Stub drive getting toward the end	State and national updates Project reports for CA MD MI PA VA TX
Archives • Newsroom • Full Issue • Shortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS

—JCbot (talk) 01:15, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Cue cat suggestions

Hello C Fred, I see you have both commented on the records for cue cat. I have made suggestions on the cuecat record for improvement and would welcome your comments and suggestions. Will you please join this and add your comments? Thank you (ProofPlus Professional Researcher 19:44, 2 November 2011 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Proofplus (talk • contribs)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is CueCat article. Thank you. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:24, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank each of you, wiki editors and such, for giving me such great pointers and also for the direct emails of encouragement in learning this process. Shabbat Shalom - and since it's Friday I plan to make my additions and updates to the record on Monday. ProofPlus Professional Researcher 19:42, 4 November 2011 (UTC) (ProofPlus Professional Researcher 19:42, 4 November 2011 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Proofplus (talk • contribs)

AIGOW

Just letting you know I've speedily tagged it as G3. →Στc. 00:13, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Images of wrestlers

WWE does let fans use and show off photos to websites for informational reasons and to show people that points of intrest in the shows.Tiffany Nicole Herrington (talk) 02:08, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Can you (1) show where that policy is in writing and (2) show where that policy allows commercial reuse of the images? —C.Fred (talk) 02:09, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism?

"Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Seattle SuperSonics, you may be blocked from editing. This appears to be the third account you've used today to vandalize the article. You may not abuse multiple accounts in this manner. —C.Fred (talk) 22:31, 5 November 2011 (UTC)"

I apologize. I wasn't trying to vandalize the article. I simply didn't like the wording at the top of the page. Please explain to me how my edit can be considered disruptive, let alone vandalism? I promise you that this is my only account. Furthermore, let me explain to you why I edited the article, and how I did so without any intent of vandalism:

You see, I recently watched Sonicsgate, so I decided to look at the Sonics wiki page. When I read "This article is about the defunct Seattle basketball team. For the current incarnation of the team, see Oklahoma City Thunder." and then noticed that that part of the article changed when I refreshed the page a few minutes later, I decided to look at the page's edit history. And when I also noticed that that section of the article had been edited by several people, multiple times in the past couple of hours, I thought I should create an account, and try to make the friendliest edit possible, according to which statement I agreed with most at the top of the page. Thus, I changed "This article is about the defunct Seattle basketball team. For the current incarnation of the team, see Oklahoma City Thunder." to "This article is about the beloved Seattle basketball team, regrettably relocated after 41 years in the city."

Instead of defunct, I thought it should be noted how beloved the team was. I realize that this is the same word used in previous edits today, but it was just something I appreciated, and therefore wanted to keep in my edit. And then I added "regrettably relocated after 41 years in the city," in place of "For the current incarnation of the team, see Oklahoma City Thunder" because I feel it is disrespectful to call the Thunder the Sonics' reincarnation; especially after the way the Sonics were relocated to Oklahoma City.

So if these changes are considered vandalism, then once again I apologize, and I guess Wikipedia is not the place for me.

Thank you for your time, and sorry for any inconvenience.

P.S. Because of this experience, I will no longer make edits on Wikipedia. But if you are kind enough to take into account my point of view, I humbly ask that you make an edit that uses kinder words in the Seattle SuperSonics page than "defunct" and "incarnation" — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlfredoMontoya (talk • contribs) 23:02, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I suppose it's possible that you, Mistah Perfekshun (talk · contribs), and DerpDderp (talk · contribs) all just happened to watch that today and all decided to change the introduction to the article independently. However, it sure looks like the three accounts are all connected. —C.Fred (talk) 23:05, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree that those other two accounts look connected, but I promise you that my account is independent from those two. Therefore, can you explain to me why my edit was considered vandalism? I made such edit in good faith. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlfredoMontoya (talk • contribs) 23:10, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Yet what was your edit? Undoing mine and restoring the text that Mistah Perfekshun added to the article. That sure paints you as connected. —C.Fred (talk) 23:16, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I thought I explained my edit to the introduction as such: Instead of defunct, I thought it should be noted how beloved the team was. I realize that this is the same word used in previous edits today, but it was just something I appreciated, and therefore wanted to keep in my edit. And then I added "regrettably relocated after 41 years in the city," in place of "For the current incarnation of the team, see Oklahoma City Thunder" because I feel it is disrespectful to call the Thunder the Sonics' reincarnation; especially after the way the Sonics were relocated to Oklahoma City.

I mistakenly undid your edit instead of just making the edit I made anyway, first. But I still don't appreciate you saying that I vandalized the page. I don't know what else I can do to prove to you that I'm not connected to Mistah Perfekshun nor DerpDderp, besides the assurances that I have already given. Yet that doesn't seem to be enough.

And I've already apologized for the similarities between my edit and the edits of the two aforementioned accounts , but you still refuse to explain to me why the edit I made was vandalism. What is so disruptive about me editing the introduction to the Seattle SuperSonics page, to state that "This article is about the beloved Seattle basketball team, regrettably relocated after 41 years in the city."? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlfredoMontoya (talk • contribs) 23:30, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Meddling and Violating Personal Space

I mean this in the nicest of ways, but you need to stop bothering everyone and their personal edits. Most are constructive, however you are opinionated and feel they are not constructive. Do not forget that the idea of Wikipedia is a group effort, not your private project. You had better stop or I will need to report you to the board. 71.132.196.34 (talk) 23:38, 5 November 2011 (UTC)