User talk:C.Fred

Sorry!

I read (red) something onine that Betty White died and then I look more in the story and then they said that she is okay and home. I'm so sorry! I thought she dead because that article said. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darre123 (talk • contribs) 23:47, 9 January 2016‎ (UTC)

Billie Allen

Can you give me a idea for this page I really think she should be on Wikipedia. She was a big actress. Thank you for your support!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darre123 (talk • contribs) 22:55, 13 January 2016‎ (UTC)

Contest Deletion of Article

@C.fred: Contest deletion for wiki article:Ravens Grin Inn ; I posted it to resolve a red link found in another article [ https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimera_House ] but because it was a haunted attraction it was labeled as commercial advertising and hastily removed. This page was not created with the intention of advertising.

@MissMaraclea: The tone of the article was unsalvageably promotional. You're welcome to try again, but the article will need a complete rewrite. Also, make sure you cite independent reliable sources whenever possible. —C.Fred (talk) 02:10, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

@C.fred: I had submitted the page as it was to avoid loss of progress; The lack of citation was solely due to my lack of knowing how to actually do that. Ill look around at the help page to find out how to do that properly but until then, is what was posted permanently deleted??? Or is there a way that we could temporarily restore the page? MissMaraclea (talk) 02:24, 6 March 2016 (UTC) MissMaraclea

Center of Concern Article

Excuse me, but I did not create this entry in the first place. The person who did acted without authorization and made numerous factual errors with serious legal and financial implications for our organization, the Jesuits, the Catholic Church, and possibly others. The organization is not part of the Catholic Church, it is not under the administration of the Jesuits, and it does not have anyone with the title CEO. There are numerous other factual and editorial errors that are harmful to our organization. I am in no way trying to use Wikipedia to promote or advertise the organization. Rather, I am responding to some person who took it upon him- or herself to publish a series of inaccurate and harmful statements about the organization. I have indicated with each edit why I was moving the information. There has been no lack of clarity about this. Our preference would be to remove the article completely. I have tried without success to contact the original author. To insist that we explain why we want removal of inaccurate information the posting of which we did not request, initiate, or authorize in the first place is absurd. Please respect our wishes. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoyalawya (talk • contribs) 03:15, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

@Hoyalawya: If there are concerns with the article that are as grave as you say, you should be commenting at the article's talk page with reliable sources that give updated information. Then, an independent editor can make the changes.

And yes, I mean an independent editor. The way Wikipedia's policies are set up, it is better for articles to be edited by editors who have no connection to the subject and can better maintain a neutral point of view. The subjects of an article have no editorial control about the content of the article. As I mentioned above, they can request changes to be made to the article, but they need to cite reliable sources—just like any other editor should. —C.Fred (talk) 03:43, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Excuse me, Fred, but the Society of Jesus (Jesuits) is not the "parent organization" of Center, the team member whom the article lists as "CEO" will be furious as there is no such title and she would not want it for liability reasons, the organization has not published a printed quarterly newsletter called Center Focus for more than three years, and it has not had an agribusiness project for almost 10. These and many other elements of the content implicate the organization's tax-exempt status, its fundraising, and its grant and other contractual relationships. I should know, because I am the president and I am getting tired of this harassment. I don't want to create a puff piece or an advertisement. I want the article off Wikipedia. It is grossly unfair for us to be in the position of having to disprove a series of false statements. We did not ask for any of this. There is no need for an independent editor, or any editor. Please just delete the article. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoyalawya (talk • contribs) 03:58, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Panthéon-Sorbonne University

Hi, Can't we stop Xmirs vandalism on the Panthéon-Sorbonne page? He refuses to talk and his version of the article is clearly lacking of sources and contains clearly false statements. I tried to do my best to remedy at these two issues but he keep going back to the biaised version! --Launebee (talk) 12:37, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Warring

The pattern of edits which resulted in your revert here is repeated elsewhere on article articles edited by the same IP sock. I made a note at ANI several days ago, but it hasn't yet been picked up. If you had a minute, could you take a look? (RBI only works if the "B" part occurs). Guliolopez (talk) 14:34, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

March 06. 2016. Why are u deleting my articles and genuine contribution in Wikipedia. What is the point? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jarmalinen (talk • contribs) 19:13, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Responding at your talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 19:14, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	hi c fred your so awesome Mikeharrison221 (talk) 19:29, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Tahir Minalay

Hi C.Fred, I was about to report the editor to the vandalism noticeboard, but would prefer not to go around you as you're engaged with the article and the editor. Thanks for your assistance, 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 19:43, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, don't go there just yet. I'm going to continue to work with the editor. —C.Fred (talk) 19:45, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Very well. Cheers, 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 19:46, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, C.Fred, but given the lack of progress, I'm going to request a block. The salt suggestion below looks good, as well. Cheers, 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 20:22, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Ah, you're a step ahead. Thank you. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 20:23, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

I just deleted. I often consider that one-more-removal of a speedy tag as a concession that the article can't be improved. If they recreate, then a block would be the next step. —C.Fred (talk) 20:24, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Re-creation didn't take long. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 20:27, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Astronomy follies

I noticed that you are dealing with the same Cypriot-astronomer issue I wrangled with a bit last week thanks to a presumably entirely different and unrelated user named Benster443. FYI, I just opened an SPI and advocated (with conceded low non-admin weight) that the title be salted at this point. All the best... Julietdeltalima (talk) 19:46, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

@Julietdeltalima: Thanks for the heads-up that this isn't the first go-around with this article. I'm going to check the deleted history and see if I need to salt. I may not salt it right now, though, to see if it draws another sock in the future, to really establish a pattern. —C.Fred (talk) 19:48, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Military history FA/GA discussion

HI, just a quick note about a current discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history (WWII content: Otto Kittel, other GA/FA articles) that you may be interested in. K.e.coffman (talk)

deletion

Hello! I was assisting in editing a page for Dayne Waldal and me and Wowitsdaven noticed you deleted our page. Is there something we can do to fix the page?Sophiageorgiades (talk) 22:03, 6 March 2016 (UTC)sophiageorgiades

@Sophiageorgiades: Before Waldal can have an article, he needs to be a notable person. There was nothing in the article that indicated how he is significant or important, so that's why the article was deleted.

Also, for the article to stick around, you'll need to provide independent reliable sources that have covered Waldal. —C.Fred (talk) 23:17, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Thru (company)

I wanted to see if you could help with fixing an issue. This page had been submitted for review but was moved to an article page and there is a warning at the bottom: How would you fix this? The category is still under Pending AfC submissions. Thanks. Chrisdavidson1004 (talk) 21:06, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

@Chrisdavidson1004: I'll take a look at Thru (company) right now. —C.Fred (talk) 21:08, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. Chrisdavidson1004 (talk) 22:14, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Not again

He did it again. I can't violate 3 revert rule. [1]Abel Lawrence (talk) 03:18, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Strange user

This user [2] has a name same as the page he has edited. I am not sure what to do, so I have told you as you are an administrator. I have also told Materialscientist, but he does not appear to be active.Abel Lawrence (talk) 03:27, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for catching the vandal can you give me a barn star please

From What does the RIley say? (talk) 21:42, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

He called me a fool

First off all it is called christmas and second of all my auto correct From What does the RIley say? (talk) 21:56, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Let's keep this thread at your talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 22:02, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Okay What does the RIley say? (talk) 22:28, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	Thank you for teaming with me What does the RIley say? (talk) 23:01, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Rms125a@hotmail.com undoing my changes

Why is Rms125a@hotmail.com allowed to undo changes I am making , removing FACTS from a page, but when I undo HIS changes I am threatened with being blocked?

Mikkitobi (talk) 18:26, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

@Mikkitobi: Because you have clearly violated WP:3RR after being warned about it. I haven't seen whether Rms violated or not. —C.Fred (talk) 18:28, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

So what I am supposed to do when he keeps undoing my changes of FACT. He is immune? my FACTS get removed?

Mikkitobi (talk) 18:30, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

@Mikkitobi: You discuss the situation, on a talk page. You do not edit war. —C.Fred (talk) 18:31, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

I have already done so and he claims I am trying to get 15 minutes of fame. He is not willing to budge so what else am I supposed to do?

Why does HE get to make the changes he wants but I do NOT? PLEASE EXPLAIN.

He was happy when I added in some of the information and I thought we had finally made progress but he then tried to be clever and 'fix' the name of an organisation and he got it wrong. When I reverted his change and pointed out he had erred in the name he was clearly not happy and then reverted to removing my information again! He clearly does not like being told he has made a mistake.

I want an admin to review this case and make a ruling.

Mikkitobi (talk) 18:36, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

@Mikkitobi: Again, you discuss the matter at the article's talk page. You have not done so yet. I have invited Rms to open discussion there (see this message).

Since you initiated the changes, the burden is on you to substantiate the claims. Rms objected, so the article returns to the status quo: the page as it existed before your changes.

It sounds like a content dispute. This is best settled at the article's talk page. That way, other editors can see what is going on and chime in, so hopefully we can get a good consensus on how the page should appear. It might be your version, it might be Rms's, it might be somebody else's, or it might be a combination of that.

Finally...my first comment to you was in my capacity as an administrator who observed a 3RR violation and was prepared to block you over it. So, my ruling is that the parties should discuss the matter at the article's talk page. Either party is subject to further sanctions, including having their account blocked, if the edit warring resumes. —C.Fred (talk) 18:44, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

He HAS undone my edits at least 3 times in the past 24 hours. How do we warn HIM about violating WP:3RR?

Mikkitobi (talk) 18:42, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

@Mikkitobi: He's already been reminded. —C.Fred (talk) 18:47, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

thank you - i have no idea how to start a talk page for the article - or how to access it if there is one.

I can understand how Rms125a@hotmail.com might not agree with what I wanted to add but I am still unhappy that HE is allowed to undo my edits but when I try I get a warning. Also it appears that this has become personal for Rms125a@hotmail.com.

Why did he leave one of my last edits untouched and only remove it again when i pointed out his error on another change. He then reacted by removing my other changes. Surely there must be a wikipedia rule that does not allow such behaviour?

Mikkitobi (talk) 19:10, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

The Wikipedia rule is the one you've broken: that you may not revert more than three times, which makes you liable to be blocked from editing if you do not self-revert. Rms125a@hotmail.com did not revert because he would have broken 3RR, which you have explicitly violated. I strongly advise you to revert your last change and to use the talkpage to discuss. You may not accuse someone of misconduct for removing material in good faith: it is not vandalism, it is disagreement. Talkpages are where disagreement is resolved, and the responsibility for justification primarlily rests with the person who initially added the content or made the change. Acroterion (talk) 19:20, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

@Acroterion: Mikkitobi has self-reverted (diff) his last revert. —C.Fred (talk) 19:27, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

yes I self-reverted.

and this still makes no sense to me. i feel i am justified in making the changes but Rms125a@hotmail.com does not. he will not budge. that means the page stands? and nobody has yet answered my complaint that Rms125a@hotmail.com was happy to leave one set of edits i made until i then undid a different change he had made that was wrong and he then decided to then remove my other edits. i take that as a person attack with no logical reason for doing so. surely there is a wikipedia rule that does not allow changes made in this way simply because somebodies nose is out of joint. Rms125a@hotmail.com believes he 100% correct and nobody can make changes he does not agree with.

Mikkitobi (talk) 19:32, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

@Mikkitobi: As the editor initiating the change, the "burden" is on you to make sure there's consensus for the change. If it's opposed, the old version remains until a new consensus is reached.

Rms is under no obligation to time his edits at a certain pace. If he sees the changes later, he can come back and revert them later.

A good-faith edit is not a personal attack. As for a logical reason, his initial edit summary was "name dropping/credit seeking"; I take it that he feels the name of the researchers is a detail beyond the scope of what's needed in this article.

The Wikipedia rule that applies here is WP:Assume good faith. You made a good-faith edit to add material to an article. Rms made a good-faith revert to remove material that he felt did not comply with policies and guidelines. So, there's now a dispute: you two need to work together to find a mutually-acceptable solution, or you need to request a third opinion (WP:3O) or solicit comments (WP:RFC) if the impasse continues more than a day or two. —C.Fred (talk) 20:33, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

i think you miss my point. This was NOT a timing issue. When he made a change to the name of the organisation he could clearly see that the names of the researchers were present and did not touch them. He did NOT 'see the changes later'. The names remained there for some time and he only removed them AFTER I changed his HIS change to the name of the organisation.

Mikkitobi (talk) 20:41, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

When I say a timing issue, I mean he's free to go "wait a minute, how'd that creep back in there" later on and remove it after some time passed. Wikipedia works asynchronously; every edit or comment is not in immediate response to the one before. Sometimes there are long intervals between edits; other times, edits happen so rapidly that you can barely get one made around the edit conflicts. —C.Fred (talk) 20:47, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

sorry but that is NOT the case here. he made the change to the name of the organisation when the names of researchers were already present in the text on the same line and could not have been overlooked by him! that is a fact - sorry. he only touched my additions when i dared to change his changes to the name of the organisation. There is absolutely no doubt - he did not like being contradicted and decided to remove my changes. Please accept that and dont try to hide behind 'timing' issues.

Mikkitobi (talk) 20:59, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

i have added something on the talk page. Rms125a@hotmail.com is now keeping his head down and has not responded.

if he does not respond after a certain time period am I allowed to edit the page again? and if he undoes my edits can he be blocked for doing so?

Mikkitobi (talk) 19:38, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Your talk page comment was all of four minutes old when you complained that Rms hadn't responded. That's barely enough time for an active, online editor to write a good response. Further, Rms last edited at 18:15 UTC today; you left your comment at 19:34, over an hour after he last edited. Thus, it's reasonable to assume that he's offline now and won't see your comment until...maybe later tonight, or maybe not until Monday since it's a weekend. I would give him at least until Monday before making the change again. If he hasn't responded by Monday—and if nobody has responded to your thread—then you can try editing the page again. However, tread carefully: one bold edit on Wednesday is okay, but if it is reverted and you revert it back, you're at peril for a block for edit warring. Also, remember that 3RR is a bright-line rule, and you're at three reverts already on the article: another revert within the next 24 hours puts you at great peril for being blocked.

Finally...you'd probably be better served if, instead of worrying about what sanctions Rms will face if he edits again, you read up on the policies that apply to situations like this. Here's a laundry list of things that apply in this or similar situations:

• WP:Biographies of living people
• WP:Reliable sources
• WP:Consensus
• WP:Undue weight
• WP:Coatrack

I'm not saying that all of these apply here, but they should give you sone insight into how Wikipedia works in these situations. —C.Fred (talk) 20:44, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

I've added a few starting comments on the issue to the article's talk page, as well as pointing out that it is not appropriate to call Rms's edits personal attacks. I'm inclined not to include the names, but let's wait to see what others have to say. That's why we have talk page discussions of disputed edits. Meters (talk) 20:54, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

as you will appreciate i am new here - and i thought wikipedia was all about FACTS - clearly you dont always care to have facts on your pages if somebody thinks they are not relevant. At the moment Rms is acting as G-d and he has decided the facts are not relevant to the article in this case. I say they ARE relevant but my vote does not count.

i know it is too early to expect a response from Rms but I want to know what the procedure is if he doesnt.

If he has not responded by Monday and I make the edit then does he have a right to revert my change when he has not even discussed the matter?

there can only be consensus if he discusses this. And if at the end of the day he says 'no' and i say 'yes' and nobody else participates then that is the end of the matter?

now i will read the links you sent.

Mikkitobi (talk) 20:59, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Indeed Mikkitobi you are new here, and yet you pick an article where, judging by your name (Michael-Mikki Tobias-tobi), you have a conflict of interest. I can understand why when someone removes your name from the article you might take it personally but this is exactly why we have behavioral guidelines like WP:COI. I would suggest keeping it to the talkpage and please dont take it personally one way or the other, the outcome "is not a judgment about that person's state of integrity". Murry1975 (talk) 21:11, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

@Mikkitobi: Wikipedia is about facts, but Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of facts. If there is material that is off topic for an article, it may—and arguably should—be removed.

Rms has no more declared himself a god than you have by trying to mandate that the material must go into the article now.

Since other editors have already chimed in, then consensus among the involved editors needs to be reached. Consensus isn't unanimous, but it isn't strictly majority rule, either: it's finding a version that's acceptable to most/all of the editors involved. If it were to stay just the two of you, then (1) the article would remain in its current condition (the status quo, before your changes) and (2) you would initiate a request at WP:3O for a third opinion. If Rms sits out the discussions, but other editors join in and reach a consensus to include the material, then the burden would be on Rms to remove the material—he'd be the one trying to change the consensus version. —C.Fred (talk) 21:25, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

@Murry1975: Good catch on the COI issue. See this comment at Talk:Yisrael Kristal, where he says "I LOCATED IT and we sent it to the Gerontology Group."^{[emphasis added]} That sounds like an admission to me.

@Mikkitobi: This changes things. You have a conflict of interest with the subject—or at least with this matter of research, since it appears you are trying to add your own name into the article. The name of Michael Tobias has not been mentioned in any secondary sources—the only source that mentions Tobias is JRI-Poland's web page. (Haaretz does mention Stanley Diamond by name, but it mentions only him.) So, it now appears that we have an editor with a conflict of interest trying to add material to an article based on self-published sources. WP:Conflict of interest is a behavioural guideline, not a policy, but editors who edit in contradiction of it put themselves at greater risk of being blocked or topic-banned. —C.Fred (talk) 21:38, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

There's no question of the COI. He states that he is one of the two individuals here. Meters (talk) 21:44, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

I admitted on the talk page that I was one of the individuals concerned. Stanley Diamond is the Chief Executive of JRI and he has been the main point of contact with both the Gerontology Group and with Guinness. That is why Stanley is the one mentioned on most sites (though many just mention the organisation). However on JRI the full information is given. I located the critical document and Stanley was the person who forwarded it to the Gerontology Group. Stanley will confirm that it was ME who located the critical document and both the Gerontology Group and Guinness know that too and it is referenced in their files. Feel free to contact them!

I agree that if the work we had done was just part of the research around the world that we would not deserve a special mention by name - it would be off topic. However in this case there was just ONE critical piece of evidence that allowed Guinness to confirm Israel Kristal as the world's oldest man. That ONE document was discovered by ME and without it we would not have the current article. I say that is on topic. What do you say?

If you prefer I can get Stanley Diamond to take over this communication and make the page edits? But does that make a difference?

Mikkitobi (talk) 21:50, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

@Mikkitobi: Diamond has a conflict of interest as well. At this point, your best path forward is that you should not edit Yisrael Kristal again, at least not with respect to the research and Guinness record. You may request changes at the talk page, but you should let independent editors make the changes. —C.Fred (talk) 21:52, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

OK and if we can get a representative of the Gerontology Group and/or Guinness to confirm what I have been saying?

Mikkitobi (talk) 21:57, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

@Mikkitobi: On the one hand, that will be a mention in a secondary source. On the other, the argument will be made that if the names of the researchers were that significant to the story, newspapers would've reported them. —C.Fred (talk) 23:15, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

You think newspapers always report 100% accurately???

How is an email from Guinness World Records a 'secondary' source?

Mikkitobi (talk) 23:29, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

@Mikkitobi: Oooh, good point. An email from Guinness would not have been published and would not be a reliable source at all, much less a secondary source. —C.Fred (talk) 23:31, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

emails are primary sources according to this:

http://www.ala.org/rusa/sections/history/resources/pubs/usingprimarysources

Mikkitobi (talk) 23:59, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

@Mikkitobi: They're primary sources, but they aren't reliable per Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. Only published sources are deemed to be reliable. —C.Fred (talk) 00:03, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JewishGen

Am I allowed to edit this page or is that also a conflict of interest? I want to correct some of the many errors....

Sorry I undid a change you made but I think you were mistaken.

Mikkitobi (talk) 01:33, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

@Mikkitobi: Let's talk first about the tag I added. Where in http://stevemorse.org/phoneticinfo.htm does it mention that JewishGen uses those technologies? I don't see the site mentioned anywhere there. —C.Fred (talk) 01:43, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

gotcha

so if 1 site uses a technology but the technology site does not mention that site 1 uses it then you have to put that tag on it? Seems crazy.

Does that not mean that every time you have a link to another wiki page or external site if that wiki page or external site does not mention the calling site you have use that tag?

Mikkitobi (talk) 01:48, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

@Mikkitobi: It means that if you say that "Site X says Y," then site X actually has to say Y. It can't just be a site about something involved in Y; it has to actually support your claim.

Your assertion was that JewishGen uses those technologies. The reference you added is apparently the website for one of them, but it doesn't mention JewishGen as a client. Thus, the source does not support your assertion. —C.Fred (talk) 02:03, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

I clearly don't understand this at all then. I wanted to say that the databases use Beider-Morse Phonetic Matching. If I had left it like that without a link to a site that explained what that was I thought that would be unacceptable. I therefore put a link to the site that explains what it is. If there had been a wikipedia page for the matching you would have happily let me have a link even though that page did not refer to JewishGen so why is it different for external links? Or am I allowed to have an external link without a citation? How do I do that?

Mikkitobi (talk) 02:09, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

You don't understand, then. References are for sourcing. Assume Superman is real and that I added the statement "Superman is from Krypton" to the article. The reference would be to the biographical book, newspaper story, or other reliable source that says that Superman is from Krypton. If I think readers need to know more about Krypton, then I can link the word Krypton to the article about Krypton; however, if there isn't a Wikipedia article, then I can't add an external link. —C.Fred (talk) 02:15, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Ok so bear with me here. Would I have been allowed to say that we used Beider-Morse Phonetic Matching and left it like that - with no explanation of what it was? I was merely trying to link to an external site and it seems you can only do that if you cite it and that means that site must refer to your page. You know I do have several university degrees and have written several theses and if I refer to a technique without a reference to it then I get marked down....

Mikkitobi (talk) 02:23, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

You shouldn't have been allowed to say that, but you might have gotten away with it. However, if it were challenged as unsourced, it would've been removed. Again, you can link the term with an internal link to another article on Wikipedia that explains the term, but you can't link to an outside server to define the term. As a general rule (and again, not counting links in references/citation of sources), you should not add an external link within the body of an article. WP:External links provides more information. —C.Fred (talk) 02:29, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

So is this purely to encourage you to create wikipedia pages for everything you need to explain/reference? You do agree that is not the same way references are used in academia?

Mikkitobi (talk) 02:33, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Some articles do use explanatory notes. However, it's not common from a stylistic point on Wikipedia. I will concede that a lot of academic papers use explanatory notes; however, they don't have the ability to link to other articles to provide definitions. —C.Fred (talk) 02:41, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

One other thing: when you reply to a comment, you should indent one level more than the comment you're replying to. (That's what the colons at the start of the line do.) You shouldn't outdent back to the top level. —C.Fred (talk) 02:41, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

sorry - final question for now - and I do apologise for taking up so much of your time. If I want to esplain a term or terms and there is no wikipedia page to do so and I need to use an external site I can cite it and use the fv tag you used earlier? Or does such a citation get removed eventually because of that tag?

Mikkitobi (talk) 02:38, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

No. The {{fv}} template means "failed verification": the reference cited does not actually say what the article is implying it does. The citation and the sentence(s) using it as a reference would be deleted.

Frankly, at this point in your Wikipedia experience, if you're trying to mention something that you can't readily explain, you should ask for help on the article's talk page for how to give the explanation. —C.Fred (talk) 02:44, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

I found a better site to link to and it does mention JewishGen.

Mikkitobi (talk) 01:56, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

And that one does support your assertion, so you're good there. —C.Fred (talk) 02:04, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

LIFE Leadership

I would appreciate a tactful and polite response to my Contest for deletion, seeing as I am spent hours on the article and no other information, aside from promotion and flame-bait, exists on the Internet. Ante up, sir? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Youareceo (talk • contribs) 02:25, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

@Youareceo: The problem was as noted in the tag. The tone of the article was unsalvageably promotional. Also, if you spent so much time on the article, why didn't you cite the secondary sources you worked from? —C.Fred (talk) 02:32, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

LIFE Leadership

I did, at the end of the article. I had only the information for the most part they provided, and since they authored it indirectly, it's going to sound that way, like it or not. The spirit of the rule was not violated, I am not LIFE Leadership and I intended to cast light on shadows about it. I see what you see, but disagree. Sorry we can't come to terms about it.

The issue I have now is about your response (me not taking precautions) rather than the deletion, the sole remaining incorrect information. Secondary references say that someone I cited, cited someone else.

Information from interviews and presentations is direct, first-hand speech; and, all online sources documented their own sources. And if there were other secondaries, I wouldn't know to look for them in a speech. #Fail on that, sir. 

Remaining unresolved, is there a server log with my text so I can post off Wikipedia for the world to see? Again, there is little light shed on this company.