User talk:C.Fred

Clemson/Carolina Page

FYI, the IP hopper is GarnetAndBlack. He has started this mobile anonymous editing tactic to edit war because he's been banned too many times for edit warring in the past. You'll notice that he'll start to revert something and then it suddenly changes to an anonymous user.

New Content on Biometrics in Schools

Hi Fred! I'm new to all of this. The page Biometrics in Schools has been outdated and inaccurate for years now. It really bothered me since this is my area of expertise - for decades. I decided to roll my sleeves up and do something about it. I purposely only added content to the site since the history is interesting and cited everything. What was inappropriate? I certainly want to work within the rules. Thank you Fred!Biometricsexpert (talk) 02:00, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

@Biometricsexpert: Your edits appear to be adding content related only to one provider, with a tone that approaches blatant advertising. I think this edit is a prime example of the problems. Your text reads more like an advertisement for the product than a neutral encyclopedia article. —C.Fred (talk) 02:03, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Fred, for your insight. There were other vendors mentioned in the article so I thought that it would be OK since biometrics with young children is an issue. Are my other content additions OK? It really was an outdated article as you can see. Thank you, Fred, for your help and expertise.Biometricsexpert (talk) 02:18, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

So can I add a picture that I took of him when i saw him? it is mine (FB.COM/MORINTEAM) and Twitter.com/PoloMorinDF — Preceding unsigned comment added by KarinaMartinez1 (talk • contribs)

Replying on your talk page. Please keep the thread in one place there. —C.Fred (talk) 19:36, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Copyright? (Prody Parrot page)

Sorry for all the trouble, but I am new here. By the way, about the "bad image links", I don't know how to upload the images to the Wikipedia exactly. I am searching a way, I am just searching. About the copyright, I don't know how to prevent from being blamed, because Mindmaker is no longer a company, but if it still can be copyright-protected, I don't know how do I prevent the copyright thing. Anyways, I have a Prody Parrot program and I would like to complete the page, once for all.

My apologies,

- JJ1013 (talk) 22:40, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

If you say so, I will stop.

I just noticed I got engaged in an edit war. Never heard of it, and noticed that if I could get blocked from editing. If you say that I should stop editing, then I will do so. I am really sorry for the trouble I caused.

Greetings, JJ1013 (talk) 23:53, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Violence against women

--Blanca Lap (talk) 20:44, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

@Blanca Lap: I have the article on my watchlist. You can mention me in comments there; no need to notify me directly. —C.Fred (talk) 20:45, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

拉斐爾

Hi,

The last 2 were copies from Chinese wikimedia, the first from Zh:维基百科:管理员, and the second from here. Should these be treated as copyright violations? Adam9007 (talk) 01:34, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

@Adam9007: Maybe, but it's clearer that the "robot admin" stuff rises to the level of vandalism. —C.Fred (talk) 01:47, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

User Notice if neccessary

(cur | prev) 00:51, 20 April 2017‎ C.Fred (talk | contribs)‎ . . (8,593 bytes) (-832)‎ . . (Reverted to revision 774700182 by Kashmiri (talk): Easier to just revert than clean up the formatting. (TW)) (undo | thank)

If any user feels to contribute to the wikipedia platform with logical writing and authentic sources should he be welcomed or discouraged? i am new to this website but hope to help and contribute to wikipedia sources in various ways but i find the above remarks insulting and discouraging. It takes one's valuable time to write and add valuable information to an existing article however to have it removed without any reason (As above ?) with the addition to the added remarks as can be seen above show a clear disregard and lack of insight to the removal of changes thus can you help me decide if new users are welcomed for making contributions to this platform? . I hope i have come across to you as clear as possible that could have been.

❤ ❤ ❤ ❤ ❤

Thank you Fred.

❤ ❤ ❤ ❤ ❤

Bulleh Shah (talk) 01:49, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

@Bulleh Shah: Sorry, but it's the easiest way to describe it. It was impossible to sort out whether there were any improvements in the article among all violations of the Manual of Style. —C.Fred (talk) 01:52, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Fred are you implying the actions taken by you personally were inadequate that it required for another users intervention.

Bulleh Shah (talk) 01:59, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

@Bulleh Shah: No. I'm saying that the damage caused by your edits outweighed any benefits, so the best course of action was to just revert the edits. —C.Fred (talk) 02:34, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

For example let me narrate a story for your understanding In a classroom of students the teacher asked someone to volunteer to bring the students attendance logbook from another room of the school and suddenly two students got up and said we both will go and get it for you ma'am. Do you see anything wrong with that?

Okay, the teacher replied how will you both get the logbook for me is that heavy in its weight that one of you is not adequate to do the job. With embarrassment the students realising their mistake and sat back on their chairs and the teacher ordered another student to do the job.

Please understand the moral of the story.

Its very intriguing to read their was significant damage without any feedback provided to what was being damaged by further reverts and btw not to forget the moral of the story.

Bulleh Shah (talk) 02:49, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

@Bulleh Shah: That's why I expanded on your talk page, that you violated MOS, particularly WP:PBUH. —C.Fred (talk) 02:59, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

thats it in relation to one edit that you had reverted. The talk or discussion in concern is in relation to the followed up reverts by another user? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bulleh Shah (talk • contribs) 03:06, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

@Bulleh Shah: If you're being reverted by more than one editor, that's usually a sign that there's a problem with your edits. —C.Fred (talk) 03:21, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Usually implies a sign of weakness to the discussion and not a proof to be presented as evidence or being able to give the impression that its adding something insightful to the discussion. Usually when its required for more than one user to take action for the same article within the same time period/frame implies the users are following the instincts of one another's remarks and are impotent (thats usually defining a scenario that can take place) i.e in a mob people tend to follow the instincts and the actions of one another thats usually the case as have been seen usually in field of studies conducted on humans.

Hope you understand. Please refer to my USER TALK PAGE its very intriguing discussion on a different but intriguing subject would also welcome your response on that too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bulleh Shah (talk • contribs) 03:27, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Because kittens wear no socks.

bonadea contributions talk 15:00, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
@Bonadea: Oh yeah? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:03, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

That... made this afternoon wonderful. You may prove me wrong anytime you want, NeilN. --bonadea contributions talk 15:09, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

The Buying Platform

Hello,

I made an adjustment to further define the concept of The Buying Platform. I'm curious to hear your thoughts. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AustinHill (talk • contribs) 20:57, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Help!

The article about the school which was misinterpreted and it's now being debated over in the afd for no good reason. It needs your help to give your precious insight that you have over the years of experience on wikipedia. Thanks! ZealD (talk) 17:27, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

@ZealD: I had asked a question to get more information before opining. Now that I have answers to that question, I have made a recommendation in the AfD. —C.Fred (talk) 18:00, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, C.Fred. Please check your email; you've got mail! The subject is Suspected sockpuppetry.
Message added 20:54, 22 April 2017 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

GAB^gab 20:54, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

+another. GAB^gab 20:59, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Fred - What is the reason you deleted the page Wally Sajimi I created? It is a real person with multiple references. He is significant to colleges, startups, companies, and his community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caaventures (talk • contribs) 22:06, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Fred - I want to retreive the deleted article for future reference. Can you please send it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caaventures (talk • contribs) 00:15, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Don't you mind if I mentioned something that you didn't?

Don't you mind if I mention on the Prody Parrot's page that it uses microphone, it haves a lot of commands, and it haves a Dr. Sbaitso? I will also add his behaviour, which has the way he introduces himself, and mentioning that he doesn't break off with the "parity error" and that Prody is on the conversation. I don't want to create any trouble, but I would like to insert that. Would you allow me to?