User talk:C.Fred

PRSA Foundation

Hi C.FRED,

I don't work at PRSA Foundation. I am a volunteer, and I love the work that PRSA Foundation does in helping minorities get opportunities in PR and marketing communications fields. This is a crucial organization for the field of communication in the U.S., and I think they deserve a wider presence in the web to highlight the great efforts they do. This is the reason why I helped Himehdi12 with the PRSA Foundation article on Wikipedia.

Regarding the status of the PRSA Foundation and its relation with the Public Relation Society of America, I reached out to the Foundation and asked them to clarify whether they are part of PRSA, and below is the response that I received:

"The PRSA Foundation is an independent, 501c3 charitable organization, with historical, but no direct ties to PRSA. The allegations from Mr. O'Dwyer that we receive financial support from PRSA are false. He should not be a trusted source of information. His decades-long feud with PRSA is well documented. In fact, this is one of the many reasons why it is important for our foundation to remain separate from PRSA and critical for us to assert our independence. We have one full-time employee and an independent board which includes many leaders in the public relations profession -- CEOs of major firms and Chief Communications officers of leading companies."

Since they are completely separate from PRSA, I believe that their article on Wikipedia shouldn't be associated or merged with PRSA.

Thank you for your understanding.

--Theedititor2014 (talk) 23:19, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

@Theedititor2014: Whether you're a volunteer, employee, or contractor, you still have a conflict of interest. The key is that you need to base your edits on independent, reliable sources—and those were sorely lacking in the old PRSA Foundation article.

If you have those sources about the Foundation, you could try to draft a new article in your user space. If you really don't want the foundation associated with the Association, even though they share a name and a historical connection, you could consider nominating the title via the WP:Redirects for discussion process to see if the community wants to delete it. —C.Fred (talk) 23:27, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I meant by volunteer that I am volunteering for Wikipedia.

The WP:Redirects for discussion for the PRSA Foundation is closed. Could you give me more info about how I can go through the process? Or a direct link of where I can discuss the issue with the community?

Thanks.

--Theedititor2014 (talk) 23:52, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

WP:Redirects for discussion is the page for the discussion; I don't see where any discussion about PRSA Foundation has taken place there. There was an Articles for deletion discussion that led to the creation of the current redirect, but that's a separate process. —C.Fred (talk) 00:26, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Theedititor2014. I think I have to apologize for mine (and Fred's) assumption that you are affiliated with the PRSA Foundation in some way. This is an assumption we make of any promotional article written about a small organization. Unfortunately with so many editors writing articles about their client or employer and lying about it, we never know who to trust and this leads to some justifiable paranoia.

Regardless, we can only have articles about organizations that have been covered extensively by credible, independent sources with in-depth pieces. The sources you provided were only brief mentions, quotes, blurbs, press release reposts and the organization's website. We cannot evaluate the PRSA Foundation's significance in the real world and have no interest in promoting their cause, even if it is noble. We can only evaluate whether there is a significant body of source material available on them by sources we trust to be fair and accurate. Hope this helps. CorporateM (Talk) 04:54, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Emily Aviva Kapor

How do I go about creating Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emily Aviva Kapor? 50.74.152.2 (talk) 03:10, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 03:14, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Why did you revert the Singahi Bhiraura Page

The original editors painstakingly created this page and cited sources from the India office. Later editors deleted large sections of a brilliant article and one said the sources were dubious.They though the India office records were kept in India and had not heard of them. These editors were clear not historians as anyone who has studied the period knows about these records. However you choose to thake their sides and when the original editors removed the vandalism you reverted the article.

Here is the full source from where the research was done on this article.

The India Office Records are the repository of the archives of the East India Company (1600-1858), the Board of Control or Board of Commissioners for the Affairs of India (1784-1858), the India Office (1858-1947), the Burma Office (1937-1948), and a number of related British agencies overseas.

The focus of the India Office Records is in the territories now included in India, Pakistan, Burma and Bangladesh and their administration before 1947. The Records also include source materials for neighbouring or connected areas at different times, covering not only South Asia, but also Southeast Asia, Central Asia, the Middle East, and parts of Africa. The official archives of the India Office Records are complemented by over 300 collections and over 3000 smaller deposits of private papers relating to the British experience in India.

The India Office Records are administered by The British Library as part of the Public Records of the United Kingdom, and are open for public consultation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.55.95.60 (talk) 12:12, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Singahi Bhiraura‎

Hi, I'm unsure whether you added Singahi Bhiraura‎ to your watchlist when you semi-protected the thing. Salvio has now semi'd it for a longer period but the anons (now clearly a logged-out registered contributor, as I can explain by email) are not giving up, despite being reverted by multiple people. - Sitush (talk) 15:49, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

FTI Consulting

Hello, I would like to request changing some of the copy on the FTI Consulting page on "Venezuela destabilization". I know this content was changed in the past, but I want to go around doing it in the correct way. The following Huffington Post article shows that the existence and authenticity of the report mentioned on the page cannot be verified. [1]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tom-hayden/the-urgency-of-venezuela_b_4860950.html?1393614753

Would we be able to remove this reference with this article? Please let me know. Thank you so much for your help! SAM 3/10 Samohabeer (talk) 17:57, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

@Samohabeer: Thank you for the link. I have removed the section from the article and explained why on the talk page. I figured it was better if I made the change, since I'm an established editor, whereas you're using a new account. —C.Fred (talk) 19:01, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

@CFred: Thank you so much for your assistance. SAM 3/10Samohabeer (talk) 19:42, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

St. Martinus University Faculty of Medicine

C. Fred, I made a number of changes to the ST. Martinus Page. Many of which were taken down. You cited that I didn't explain my edits, which is my fault and I shall add the explanations as necessary. But other things, like taking down references that didn't go to live pages, should not have been reversed. I will try to better explain my edits, but would appreciate it if you would not revert them all next time. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jay1783 (talk • contribs) 19:26, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

@Jay1783: Part of the problem is that you're one in a number of accounts making the same edits, which raises the question, based on the names of the other accounts, of whether the article is being whitewashed and turned into a non-neutral article. —C.Fred (talk) 19:45, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Additionally, if a reference goes to a dead link, you should leave the reference but flag the link with the {{dead link}} template at the end of the ref. —C.Fred (talk) 19:47, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks...

It's nice to be thanked for what I do. The reassurance that someone appreciates my efforts is welcome, and your recent thanks are no exception. However, I can't help wondering "If C.Fred thinks that was a good thing to do, then why didn't he/she do it him/herself?" (Forgive the clumsy "he/she". "Fred" suggests a male, but for all I know you are Christine Fredriksen). The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 18:14, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

@JamesBWatson: One big reason is that I felt too close to the situation, in terms of editing based on content, to where any block I issued might not be seen as independent. There are times when I file reports at AIV, RFPP, and the like, because I don't want to change hats from involved editor to admin. I also wanted to let a second set of eyes assess the situation. Finally, I had sent the message near the end of an online session, and I didn't "pick up where I left off" the next time I logged in, so I hadn't looped back to see if he'd replied.

(I think I've gotten misdirected emails for somebody with a name like that a few times. :) I'm male. The user page isn't direct about it, but it's implied when I mention that I'm a member of a fraternity.) —C.Fred (talk) 18:25, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

1. Yes, I suppose you could be regarded as involved, I suppose. Fair enough.
2. Hmm. I looked at your user page, but evidently I didn't study it deeply enough, as I missed the mention of the fraternity. Actually, a number of things suggested that you were probably male, and putting them all together it was a pretty good bet that you were, perhaps being "a high-school football official" being one of the most striking, but I try hard not to presume that anyone is male because of typically male-type interests. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:23, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Help with Possible Reversion

Hi C.Fred,

I noticed that you recently reverted a user's edits on List of Nintendo GameCube games. This same user has also made major changes to List of PlayStation games. Over half of the content was removed, there are numerous reference errors, and no edit summary was given.

Should the page be reverted? I'm unable to "undo" it since the user has made additional changes in the meantime.

I've never made such a major edit so thought I'd check with (since you look like you know what you're doing).

Thank you.

--MarkTee (talk) 09:06, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

@MarkTee: The biggest issue to me is that the user didn't explain the purpose of the edits. In the absence of logic explaining it, and since it clearly removed items from the list, that sort of gutting at least appears disruptive. I've reverted (by editing the version before the major deletion and saving that text as the new current version). —C.Fred (talk) 14:01, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your help. --MarkTee (talk) 20:20, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

lynne

what the hell, man? --YasminPerry (talk) 03:32, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

@YasminPerry: You mean the talk page you created for a non-existent article that was really just an unsourced attack against the subject? I deleted it; it could have met the G10 criterion for speedy deletion as well as G8. —C.Fred (talk) 03:35, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Cosmos (TV series) listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Cosmos (TV series). Since you had some involvement with the Cosmos (TV series) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Beerest 2 Talk page 16:20, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

CRITICAL RECEPTION section of Total Siyapaa cheating by ZORDANLIGHTER

Dear C fred, kindly un do decision in CRITICAL RECEPTION section of Total Siyapaa because it was based on FRAUD played by ZORDANLIGHTER , he misrepresented my edit summary for other protected edit request relating to Controversy section for critical reception protected edit request . He used that summary to show the WP consensus by me but that is not the case. He must also be blocked for playing CHEAT.Xcrescent9 (talk) 14:38, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

@Xcrescent9: If you're saying he misinterpreted your edit summary, I'd hardly elevate that to the level of fraud. The best thing to do in that case is to appeal to the party who closed the edit request; if that doesn't work, start a new edit request explaining your position on the old one and the reasons why, per Wikipedia standards, the text should be changed. Focus on your own perspective and on the article itself; I strongly discourage you from making accusations against another editor there.

That said, if you're alleging that the other user edited your comments on the talk page, that's another matter entirely. I know I reverted an edit where he deleted some of your remarks. If you're alleging that he changed your words, please point to the specific edit (the "diff") where he did so, so we can evaluate the change. —C.Fred (talk) 15:11, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

یہ گلت الزام لگا رہا ہے. اسکی باتوں میں کوئی دھیان نہ دے تو ہے . اسکے پاس کوئی ریفرنس ہے ہی نہیں. جبکی زوردان کے پاس بہت ریفرنسز ہیں --Whistlingwoods (talk) 16:10, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

@Whistlingwoods: Not clear who you're saying is being accused there. Even if English is not your native language, you'll need to use English to communicate on the English Wikipedia. —C.Fred (talk) 18:42, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Regardless of Xcrescent9 accusations that how wrongly consensus was achieved by misrepresentation, I will suggest a middle way. Whistlingwoods on behalf of ZORDANLIGHTER (since he is blocked ) will favour current critical reception section full cherry picking of negative reviews but that was with out consensus and ignores all positive reviews. On other hand Xcrescent9 after block removal will try to put all four positive reviews. Keeping in view all the reviews from both sides,It is a clear case of Mixed average reviews i.e. a combination of good and bad reviews. This fact is also supported by http://www.indicine.com/bollywood/total-siyapaa/reviews/ which says that movie got average reviews from critics with average score of 37. In pakistan too (from where the hero of the movie belongs) it got mixed reviews from movie critics on the premier please see http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/entertainment/13-Mar-2014/total-siyapaa-opens-to-mixed-reviews-moviegoers-treated-to-taj-cinema-s-revival . Forth evidence of mixed reviews is IMBD rating of 6 out of 10 including nine critics see http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2727028/. I think in order to wind up quickly this prolonged discussion. I request a new edit to critical reception section. Since we already know one pool stances of ZORDANLIGHTER , Whistlingwoods and Xcrescent9 no further discussion from them is invited on this proposed edit (see below).

Total Siyapaa received mixed reviews by domestic and overseas critics. Kirron Kher's performance and Ali Zafar comic timings were seen as one of the strong points of the movie. However Critics were critical on the lack of a solid plot,.

please take a quick decision to wind up this prolonged discussion.

Block Evading Sock Puppets

Some blocked user wrote all garbage in my talk page. At first I couldn't understand but reading the lines written in urdu usingEnglish alphabets(check the link-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Whistlingwoods#Mza_aya), it's clear the user is Xcrescent9 or Ibnebatutaji . The translation in English is this "I wrongly presented my statements to make sure my favorite movie gets good opening overseas................"rest is abuse in vulgar language which I don't want to translate. This person is writing in urdu so that International administrators don't understand what he is saying. --Whistlingwoods (talk) 04:03, 18 March 2014 (UTC)