User talk:C.Fred

Jerry Speziale biography

It appears that you are one of the main contributors to the Jerry Speziale biography so I thought you should know that a user has recently taken it upon him/herself to delete about 80% of the contents without bothering to discuss it with the contributing editors, or anyone. The reason? "This is an encyclopedia not a biography" which doesn't really make sense because Wikipedia is filled with biographies and many of them are filled with extensive coverage of the person's accomplishments, work history and so forth. I have restored the page to its prior setting, however I thought you might want to keep an eye on the page. The photo gallery section IMO should be placed near the end of the bio. Other than things like that it looks like a well researched and well sourced piece of writing. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:22, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Ellie Darcey-Alden

I removed the BLPPROD from the article as there were three sources in the article when the tag was placed. However, I did add a regular PROD. I also added a PROD to Joseph Darcey-Alden. Bgwhite (talk) 01:02, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

"Doppelgänger" - why I undid your edit:

I undid your translation of "Doppelgänger" ("double-goer") and shortly wanted to explain this:

You wrote that you got this information from the web dictionary http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/doppelg%C3%A4nger

It actually says:

"Origin of DOPPELGÄNGER

German Doppelgänger, from doppel- double + -gänger goer"

BUT THIS DOESN'T MEAN "DOUBLE-GOER" WAS THE RIGHT TRANSLATION!!

The dictionary also gives an example for the usage of Doppelgänger:

"<at the mall today I saw someone who could be your doppelgänger>"

This example is very good, because Doppelgänger is really used in such a context. Of course you will end up with double-goer, if you try to translate it word by word, but languages are far to complicated to do it that way. The German word "Doppelgänger" is only comparable to the English "look-alike" and in some cases "Alter Ego".

Please don't feel attacked - I just wanted to give you some friendly advice... I apologize in advance in case it doesn't sound as friendly as I wanted it to.

Kind regards!

Quod-erat-demonstrandum. (talk) 04:00, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

A link for reading

• Hi C.Fred, Happy New Year 2013. You reverted me that I had reverted an IP address. It is OK, no problem. A link just for your reading.Please take a look at...Thanks.Justice007 (talk) 23:26, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Moshe Friemdan

My changes all have multiple sources. And the current article is wrong (including even source #1 which doesnt even say he is a rabbi as they falsely claim). Appreciate your assistance in getting it cleaned up Tellyuer1 (talk) 04:18, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Gave my suggested changes there. On Netureia Karta they dont even have sources. What should i do on a page sans sources? Why leave it there?Tellyuer1 (talk) 04:37, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Allison Dine Photo

Hi Fred. You asked me to verify the photograph posted on the 'Terrance Clark' page of Allison Dine. The photograph was scanned from the book "Underbelly: Tale of Two Cities" John Silvester, Andrew Rule Publisher: Floradale Press ISBN: 0977544095 EAN: 9780977544097. The photo is at least 25 years old, originally taken by an unknown source and is not copyrighted to the Authors of the book. Sarah Delatour (talk) 09:19, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

That certainly doesn't make it your work, and I'm not convinced that it puts it into the public domain. I've tagged the image as a copyvio on Commons. —C.Fred (talk) 14:56, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

My apologies. I have never claimed it as my work. I have uploaded the photo without citing source and with incorrect details. I will be correcting this shortly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarah Delatour (talk • contribs) 21:40, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Curious about the welcome

I'm not sure why you would be welcoming an Anon with the following edit history of vandalism? Do you see some redeeming aspect of widespread removal of cited data? Just curious. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:12, 4 January 2013 (UTC).

The major reason is that there's no {{welcomevandal}} variant for anonymous users. I do not see redeeming value from the user's edits; I do think the user should be pointed toward the guidelines so that they can learn about how to edit within the rules. —C.Fred (talk) 18:16, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

... and best of the New Year! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:20, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

BTW, I like that {{welcomevandal}} idea especially if it is a content dispute, which is sometimes the case, not just someone buttering around for fun. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:24, 4 January 2013 (UTC).

Moshe Friedman

Keep discussing BLP. The guy is noteable for something wacky - and there are plenty of noteable sources for it. Its not a violation of BLP to use multiple sources to say so. Have laid out ample sources showing it but the one user just keeps pushing back. Even the lead - who says he's from NY? There is NO source. and if i change it I am wrong? Seems like an odd catch 22. Help. Tellyuer1 (talk) 16:25, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

At this point, yes, you're "wrong" if you change it. Edit warring is disruptive to harmonious editing; users who persist in edit wars and/or violate the three revert rule are subject to being blocked. You've already been blocked once for edit warring, so a second block is likely to run at least four days.

That's why I've said you need to have a dialogue with people on the talk page and work toward common ground with the changes. You can't just dump a new version of the article into the talk page and expect buy-in. Try going point-by-point. And don't expect immediate change; a meaningful discussion will take some time to get multiple users' perspectives. —C.Fred (talk) 16:30, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I do many many times - and no one except that one guy comments. I have left sources there and edits. WHy isnt he blocked as shld be.Tellyuer1 (talk) 16:33, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

To rephrase: try working for small changes, one at a time. I haven't seen you try to do that. I have seen about four users strongly oppose your wholesale changes. —C.Fred (talk) 16:35, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

They arent interested in engaging in dialogue and "edit warring" takes two, not one. I comment and leave ideas. they dont respond and I never put info without sources all of it is very well sourced. They are white washing a Holocaust denier, radical. And just bc they are 2 and I am 1 doesnt mean they shld be able to bully me. They place "The Vienna Review"? What is that exactly ? My sources are major papers and real.Tellyuer1 (talk) 17:30, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Reply at your talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 17:32, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

So I dont break the revert rule, TheRedPenOfDoom wrote "this is just a filing of a suit that may have no merit" - absolutely inaccurate. It is a judgement which was made, and Friedman lost. Wasnt a filing. Was a decision. Read. Tellyuer1 (talk) 17:39, 5 January 2013 (UTC)