User talk:Fred Bauder

I maintain a fork of Wikipedia at http://wikinfo.org, alternative address, http://internet-encyclopedia.org/. It is hosted by ibiblio.org. Fred Bauder 18:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

Picture of the day

The European bison (Bison bonasus), also known as the wisent, is a mammal in the family Bovidae, one of two extant species of bison. Having been hunted to extinction in the wild by the early 20th centry, the European bison was reintroduced to the wild in various European countries by the 2010s, following captive breeding programmes. It is the heaviest wild land animal in Europe, and individuals in the past may have been even larger than their modern-day descendants. The largest bulls of the species have a mass of up to 1,000 kilograms (2,200 lb). The European bison is a herd animal, which lives in both mixed and solely male groups. Mixed groups consist of adult females, calves, young aged two to three years, and young adult bulls. A typical herd numbers around eight to thirteen animals on average. This male European bison was photographed in the Białowieża Forest, Poland.Photograph credit: Charles J. Sharp

Archive – More featured pictures...

Fred_Bauder (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Barnstar

		The Minor Barnstar
		For of few words are made great men. It is the minor actions, the small subtleties, that can show the greatest valor, the deepest insight, the discerning thought. Thank you : ) Jc37 03:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Defender of the Wiki

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		I award you this Defender of the Wiki barnstar in recognition of your three years of continuous meritorious service on the Arbitration Committee. (Sorry that it's a bit late) Eluchil404 11:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update
RfA candidate	S	O	N	S %	Status	Ending (UTC)	Time left	Dups?	Report
Worm That Turned	263	4	8	99	Open	09:47, 18 November 2024	1 day, 4 hours	no	report

Sakotis!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Here's a Sakotis for you! This cake promotes WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving this cake to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Make your own message to spread WikiLove to others! Happy editing! Fernando Buceta (talk) 10:50, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet

Yesterday I started a new account as Proxima Centauri 2. I don’t want to abuse the sock puppet. Many people are advising Internet users to avoid using their real names on the Internet to prevent stalkers tracing them. I would like to keep my account as Barbara Shack active as well. The account in my real name is useful if I want to post anything which I will transfer to other websites and when I want to take credit for something I have written in my real name. Please tell me how this affects voting. If there is a vote over something I have written as Proxima Centauri 2, I would rather vote as Proxima Centauri 2 so it is clear I am voting for myself. I also don’t want to lose the large number of posts I have under my real user name. I’m not sure which account I want to use more in future. I'm testing the water.

More on why I want to conceal my identity

This page used to say in the (joke?) stalkbox that I’m in Birmingham. They’ve changed that fortunately. I don’t mind people knowing that I’m in Birmingham as it’s a large city. This type of thing could easily get worse. As a first step I plan to do some of my Wikipedia contributions as Proxima Centauri 2. That will make Barbara Shack less prominent. Later as Proxima Centauri 2 builds up a record I plan to do progressively more there and finally limit the Barbara Shack account to work where I’m keen to take credit myself. I’ve started with Wikipedia as that’s the biggest Wiki and bad people are more likely to notice me there. I’ve done Wikinfo because you know me there too. I’ll move on to the smaller Wikis later. Look out for User:Proxima Centauri on Wikinfo Barbara Shack (talk) 08:41, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scientology

I’ve gone back to Wikinfo. May I suggest that you have a look at criticism of Scientology before you decide if you want material favourable to Scientology on Wikinfo. Here’s the main critical website. Operation Clambake Proxima Centauri 2 (talk) 19:41, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am well aware of most aspects of Scientology. And have been for many years. Wikinfo will continue to have an article on Scientology from a sympathetic point of view which emphasises its virtues. Fred Talk 20:08, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is, I presume, the same "sympathetic point of view which emphasizes its virtues" that Wikinfo extends to Catholicism, Wicca, Jehovah's Witnesess, Islam, and the like. Is this a working definition for NPOV, or is this something specific either to Scientology or to Wikinfo? (It is possible, of course, that NPOV is not a policy at Wikinfo, in which case, I withdraw my questions.) ៛ Bielle (talk) 20:54, 19 April 2008 (UTC) Now that I have read the Main Page of Wikinfo, I have answered my own questions. I should have done that first. My apologies. ៛ Bielle (talk) 20:59, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Giovanni di Stefano

I have nominated Giovanni di Stefano, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Giovanni di Stefano. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Lawrence Cohen § t/e 22:48, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Giovanni di Stefano

And yet again, minutes after my correction someone uses Heading 1-indent type headers. As I say on the page itself, please take care not to screw up the formatting, especially if your edit spilled over to the main WP:AfD page itself. Thank you. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 00:36, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scotch College

I think the section is well-balanced, it was written by a then-student of Scotch. Although the name strippergate appears to have been made by that author, id probably rename it to something a bit more subdued, possibly "Controversy" or something lame like that? Thoughts. Five Years 16:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ive renamed the section to Controversy, until a better title can be found. I dont personally see how it can be made any better, i guess the only real time it mentions other schools/perth culture is with this; Syme made clear his intention to meet with headmasters of other Perth private schools in an attempt to cut down on events which bring about bad publicity.. Five Years 17:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Susan Bryce

Hello fred, sorry to disturb you. Awhile ago you were involved in an arbcom case involving myself and a user RodentofDeath http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/RodentofDeath/Proposed_decision Since the ban on this user, he has been caught twice again breaching his ban. Now, once again he has reapeared as a sock, the matter was taken to the arbcom enforement, and despite the fact that 4 users identified the sockpuppet as Rodent, as well as IP matching, no action was taken. To say the least im very upset that RodentofDeath has so easily been able to get around his ban with such ease. I suffered 12 months of abuse from this psychopathic stalker and was hoping the ban would be the end of things, only to find Rodent has persisted with socks to continue his exact same ways. Over the last few months Ive did some good work on wikipedia, mostly on articles pertaining to charities. But im tired of being stalked by this psycopath. Please, do you think you could have a close look at this as you already have experience in this matter. Other editors who have had previous dealings with Rodent have very easily identified this sockpuppet. Hoping to hear from you, kindest regardsSusanbryce (talk) 00:20, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Fred. I am the user this user thinks is Rodent. So you have a complete context, I would point out I have edited no articles this editor is involved in editing. Please see my user contributions. I have, however, brought some issues in the talk page of one of the articles this user edits. I was reported to AE. You can see that here. I also posted a admin notice about possible copyright violations and cut and paste editing. You can view that here. I would also point out this view is shared by at least two other editors. Please see this and this. I cannot and won't deny I share some and have some of the same issues Rodent had with certain articles on WP. But I am not him. Thank you. HurryTaken (talk) 15:16, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for dealing with the allegations under Wikipedias 'do no harm' guidline, now that they have been proved false in the court judgement. It's a shame other admins do not act similarly. -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 19:37, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your input requested regarding reliable sources

Any insights you might offer to this discussion would be helpful and appreciated. : ) --MPerel 03:48, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Wikinfo

I have nominated Wikinfo, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikinfo (6th nomination). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 01:32, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Rosencomet

It's my understanding that you're familiar with Rosencomet. (Please correct me if I'm wrong.) Do you have anything to add here? This seems to be a sticky situation, and input from people familiar with the situation who don't have a direct interest in it would be greatly appreciated.

Feel free to let me know -- by e-mail or on-wiki -- if you have any concerns regarding this request.

Thanks a bunch. - Revolving Bugbear 22:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Taxwoman

Taxwoman has been blocked indefinitely at Wikipedia for being a sock puppet of User:Runcorn. See, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive89#Runcorn, sockpuppets and vote stacking. I don’t know which sex Runcorn is but he/she has a whole gallery of sock puppets. See Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Runcorn. Proxima Centauri 2 (talk) 04:54, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia business. Fred Talk 12:50, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Traveller here has the same name as User:Traveller on Wikinfo. On Wikinfo Traveller is developing similar interests to Taxwoman. It could be worth using Checkuser to see if Traveller is yet another sockpuppet of Runcorn here. Proxima Centauri 2 (talk) 12:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User Taxwoman is an administrator on Wikinfo, just as you are. She can have all the accounts she wants. Fred Talk 12:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Emma Wilson

For Emma Wilson, I think the reviews of her books are enough to establish notability as an author. --Eastmain (talk) 14:40, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikinfo is down

You probably know, Wikinfo has been down for about an hour or more. Proxima Centauri 2 (talk) 11:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Mancala

I am very concerned about Mr. Mancala whom you, IIRC, inaugurated as an Sysop on Wikinfo. I was informed by E-Mail, that Ralf "Mr. Mancala" Gering, blocked an IP commenting

[...] This is a well-known criminal from German Wikipedia: an admin called "Ach

. Regarding to Wikipedia:Liste_der_Administratoren I am the only Sysop whose Usernames starts with "Ach". Please ask Ralf to verify this statement or delete that libellous filthiness from the database. Thanks in advance from Germany. Achates (talk) 09:28, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What does this mean:

Ralf Gering ist eine Heulsuse, weil sein Artikel gelöscht wurde und er nach diversen Beleidigungen in der deutschsprachigen Wikipedia indefinitegesperrt wurde. Jetzt trollt er als IP im Wikipedia-Artikel Mancala herum. Ach ja, für einen tollen Spieleerfinder hält er sich auch. Und wenn er nicht gestorben ist trollt er weiter.

That was the edit made by Vielzugering the alleged "well-known criminal from German Wikipedia: an admin called "Achates")" Was that you? Fred Talk 13:00, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He was it. At 10:26 (Central European Time) I gave a link to Wikinfo's mancala start page (at the bottom of the mancala article on German Wikipedia), at 10:31 Achates removed the link for personal reasons unrelated to the article (his other edits also show that he knows close to nothing about mancala games), at 10:33 he initiated auto-confirm for the German mancala article, at 10:37 he created the user account "Vielzugering" on Wikinfo (a play of words meaning "much too less"), a few minutes later he created a libellous article ("Ralf Gering" - contents see above and they prove that Achates is breaking German law.) Achates was called an "Admin des Grauens" ("a horrible sysop"). - Mr Mancala —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.55.39.176 (talk) 17:55, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bottom line: Mr. Mancala is a sysop, Vielzugering is banned. I don't read German, so I can't see what he posted. This stuff doesn't belong on Wikipedia anyway. Fred Talk 18:35, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And I don't care what Mr. Mancala believes in. He can't prove that I am a criminal and that would be important. I am engaged as a juryman on monday, so I have obviously a clean certificate of conduct and it is quite a simple thing to have a chat with the district's attorney. The more Mr. Mancala repeats this defamation the easier it will get to file in a lawsuit. Achates (talk) 20:18, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody knows who Achates is, it is a pseudonym. However, it is obvious from the timeline of events (outlined above) and the contents (including the exact wording) of the defamatory article that Achates and Vielzugering are identical. Achates deleted valuable information on Wikipedia's mancala article and removed contributions (not only my own ones) to the article's talk page as early as of June 2007. Wikinfo articles related to mancala were vandalized by people living in his area. I hoped that cooperation could be possible, but it doesn't appear so. - 89.55.89.197 (talk) 00:26, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong again! The "Gemeinschaftsseite" is a project where "Pseudonyms" confirm, that they met another "Pseudonyms" in the Real Life 35 people is a little bit more than nothing, there are Meetups in Germany too. You skate on thin ice, Mr. Mancala. Achates (talk) 19:53, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. So anonymous pseudonyms "sign" an experimental site to "confirm" that they have "met" someone? How many of these pseudonyms are your sockpuppets? How many people are behind "User:Achates"? How many of these pseudonyms have vandalized my user page, my talk page, the 55Stones articles and the "village pump" on Wikinfo? In fact, nobody knows. So, what does it prove? It's pretty simple: don't write a defamatory article about me and you don't cause any problems. If you do, you get problems: on Wikinfo and elsewhere. The identity of Vielzugering can easily be proved, if I need to. My suggestion: Let's not waste our time. - (talk) 21:02, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Giovanni reports 3RR

I used your name. He decided to use the reverts that I put on the Scarborough page as basis for 3RR. His revert was simply to bait me. If you think I was wrong, let me know and I will self-revert. I view reverts like that as BLP violations that are not subject to 3RR violations. --DHeyward (talk) 00:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I would like to know about this, as well. I see no BLP issue with adding the information about the abortion view and capital case rejection issue. I do object to DHeyward not assuming good faith with his unfounded accusation that I was trying to "bait him." That is untrue. I even left a message on the talk page asking him to discuss his concern instead of just edit-warring, and left one on his talk page. If there was some BLP issue then the offending editor would have been warned, or blocked. Instead we just have DHeyward edit-warring on his own, over the course of several days, and that is the problem I had with his behavior.Giovanni33 (talk) 00:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct concerning what is visible in the edit history. There was other material however, which was inappropriate. Fred Talk 01:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Huh?

Can you (via email if needed) explain what happened here? dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 01:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Confirming E-mail

How do I confirm my e-mail at Wikinfo? Proxima Centauri 2 (talk) 17:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Go to preferences and enter your email address. Save, then respond to the email you get from Wikinfo. Fred Talk 18:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cbsite

Cbsite (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Thanks for letting me know. I will keep an eye on things. --Rodhull andemu 00:48, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock of User:216.171.96.18

216.171.96.18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Thanks for the heads up Fred. This IP has been repeatedly used by Serafin, who is a long-term serial vandal. He he created several hundred sockpuppet accounts and uses IP around Guelph. In particular, its pretty clear he's a student at the University of Guelph, probably at Johnston Hall, since most of the IPs he uses resolve to there. I have been using relatively long blocks on these IPs to try to stem the tide of sockpuppets. In the past short IP blocks have resulted in him coming back on the IP as soon as the block expires. Hopefully that won't happen again with the library IP. Best, Gwernol 22:57, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

G'day Fred

I started a conversation concerning how to properly attribute the Giovanni di Stefano article over at Durova's talk page - because I don't think the issue is really resolved. I think much of history should likely be restored, because the current article is credited entirely to you in December, when it was really the work of many (I absolutely do not believe that you're in any way trying to claim 'credit' - however that's the way the history tab currently shows things!) - your thoughts would be most welcome, and I'm happy to chat further if you'd like. best, Privatemusings (talk) 00:58, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

rfc on bobby

I have notified Bobby fletcher that I will open an RfC on his conduct if he continues. I don't know if this is canvassing, as it's not my intention. Someone else needs to write on his talk page, asking him not to do any more incivility, personal attacks, assumptions of bad faith, etc.. You may wish to do so. diffs:

personal attacks, some assuming bad faith: [1], [2], [3], [4]
attempt at "outing", sometimes with personal attacks mixed in: [5], [6], [7] -- Please note, these are only a sample. Attempted "outing" goes back months, and Fred Bauder oversighted it. But the user has continued recently.
original research: [8] -- Please note, the user has not aggressively reinserted this after it was pointed out

--Asdfg12345 01:36, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification needed on past Arbcom vote

As a member of the Arbitration Committee that in August and September of 2007 heard the the this case, you assented to the following finding of fact:

6) Seven editors (Gzuckier (talk · contribs), Humus sapiens (talk · contribs), IronDuke (talk · contribs), Jayjg (talk · contribs), JoshuaZ (talk · contribs), Leifern (talk · contribs), and Tickle me (talk · contribs)) voted to delete the allegations of Israeli apartheid article, largely on principle, after having earlier voted to keep the allegations of Brazilian apartheid article. Given the circumstances, the only reasonable explanation for this voting pattern is that the editors in question were attempting to prove a point regarding the allegations of Israeli apartheid article.

I took great exception to this assertion at the time, but decided not to vigorously defend myself, as it seemed clear to me that the finding would not get the needed majority to be established by the Arbcom; and that my scarce time was better spent on other issues, on the arbcom case and elsewhere on Wikipedia.

However, your vote for this finding has now been used as an argument to discount my vote on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of apartheid (fifth nomination).:

This case eventually collapsed due to unresolvable divisions among the arbitrators, but the fact that four committee members were willing to endorse the aforementioned statement suggests that it wasn't a completely arbitrary charge. It's probably also worth noting that nine arbitrators agreed that "Allegations of Israeli apartheid" was the locus of the dispute. I would tend to think that these matters bear some relevance to the present discussion. CJCurrie (talk) 23:27, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Other editors have similarly raised this proposed finding of fact as a basis to question mine and others' vote on the AFD in question.

I am obviously not asking you to get involved in the AFD, but would like you to clear up the following:

If your vote in this Arbcom case can properly be construed as a legitimate argument for discounting my vote on any article that is related to Israel or apartheid, then I would like the chance to properly defend my votes on the articles in question and see if I can change your mind.

Conversely, if your vote fails to give the closing admin the grounds to discount my vote, then I would appreciate this clarification.

Just to be clear, this is the first time I have gotten involved in any "apartheid" related article since the Arbcom case. My apologies for having to drag you into this messy business again, and with thanks in advance for your consideration. --Leifern (talk) 00:11, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question about Colorado law

Could you be interested in opining on a small matter of Colorado law? talk:Prem Rawat#Emancipated minor. The question is whether one becomes emancipated in order to marry or if emancipation is a result of marriage. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is not the question. Of course, once a minor marries he/she attains emancipation by default (this would apply for example, to a minor that gets married with parent's consent). The question is actually this: If a minor wants to get married and his father is dead and the mother is unreachable, is it not the case that the minor needs to go before a court to request emancipation by filling a petition for emancipation so that he can then obtain a marriage license? That is the information I have from a respected family lawyer. Could you please confirm this is the case? My understanding is that the Juvenile court judge assess proof of financial independence, adequate housing arrangements, and sufficient maturity to grant emancipated minor status to the applicant. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:28, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have to look it up, and even then might not have a good answer. I guess, as a practical matter, I would do whatever is required to get a marriage license. Fred Talk 01:47, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, the question was also put to another Wikipedian, see:User talk:A Sniper#A civil law question. He responded here:User talk:Jossi#Emancipation of Minors and here:User talk:Will Beback#Wikipedian lawyer's opinion. While your opinion would still be welcome, we've already received one "3rd opinion" so you're off the hook. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:00, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Cbsite

Hi! You asked me to let you know if something came up again with User:Cbsite, Tanthalas39 has blocked him two weeks for PAs and harassment. All the best, Gwen Gale (talk) 01:11, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seem righteous, even mild. Fred Talk 01:25, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's spot on what I was thinking. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:27, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tasc0

Some time ago, you gave Tasc0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) a second chance, following his threat to Ronnotel's family. I have proposed that Tasc0 be community banned and am notifying you because of your prior action in this matter. Please see WP:ANI#Ban proposal of Tasc0 if you would like to offer an opinion. Thanks. --B (talk) 19:56, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No thanks. Obviously, he is unable to control himself. Fred Talk 23:46, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

S-man

Hello, I am one of the administrators on the Simple English Wikipedia. Today, he left an unblock request on his talk page. He was originally blocked in 2007 by one of our admins for being a sockpuppet of Kimberly Ashton. I checked his block log and talk page over here. I am not sure whether to unblock him or not (especially being labelled a sock), so I am asking you as you were the unblocking admin of S-man. Thanks, Chenzw Talk 13:42, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if there has been a discussion on AN before, please take me to it. Thanks. Chenzw Talk 13:42, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He engaged in childish vandalism about a year ago. He's pretty much on probation, as far as I'm concerned. If you have time and energy to monitor his editing (and checkuser to go with it), I would encourage unblocking him for a trial. Fred Talk 22:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks for your help! Chenzw Talk 11:21, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Learned Hand peer review

Sorry to bother you, Fred, but I wonder if you could possibly spare the time to check Learned Hand over? Slp1 and I have put it up for peer review, prior to a submission for FAC. I expect you know that the idea is to bring this article to FA as a tribute to Newyorkbrad. (In his final message, he wrote: "I am sorry for the pages that never got written and the FA that never got done"—by which he meant Learned Hand.) We're particularly hoping for peer reviews from people who know American law, since neither of us are American. Just a glance over the terminology would help. All the best. qp10qp (talk) 14:23, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Morgan Bowen.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Morgan Bowen.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:27, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Idol

Fred, your restoration of a single revision of this article was a clear GFDL violation. I'm not going to restore without consulting you, but going through the deleted revisions I didn't see any egregious BLP violations - and in fact most of the ones I did see are still in the version you restored (unsourced claims of drug addictions, affairs, etc.). Could you let me know, by e-mail if necessary, what the problem was in all the deleted revisions, and we can figure out a way to proceed from there? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 14:12, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if you might also have time to consider fixing up the history over at Giovanni di Stefano - we probably should at least try and explain somewhere that the article which appeared at the end of December is based on lots of contributions from lots of editors? I understand this is difficult, but I don't think it's right currently.. Privatemusings (talk) 23:25, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Statistical phenomena

I have nominated Statistical phenomena, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Statistical phenomena. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? —G716 <^T·_C> 04:13, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

You may be interested in this discussion on ANI. Toddst1 (talk) 15:05, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Copyright notice

Why does that even need to be in the article, the notice isn't in any other article. D.M.N. (talk) 20:09, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, OK. D.M.N. (talk) 20:19, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Financial crisis of 2007-2008

Financial crisis of 2007-2008 is a current event because the situation is rapidly changing. Our article is unlikely to accurately, or fully, track the rapidly changing situation. Fred Talk 11:56, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Our article will always lag the latest news coverage. Fred Talk 12:26, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is well and good, but it is not what the {{current}} template tag was created for, as a reading of the guidline for its use will show. It is unremarkable that any topic is in the news, as a few thousand topics are constantly in the news. George W. Bush, for example. It is also standard that all articles are out of date, and this too is unremarkable. The template is intended for those rather few occasions in which many, as in many dozens may edit the article in the same day, and perhaps several hundred edits a day are being saved, and everyone is stepping on each other's edits. For example: 11 March 2004 Madrid attacks, the article which was the cause of the template's creation, which had 460+ edits in 48 hours. I think you can agree this is not the case for Financial crisis of 2007-2008, which has hardly had at this moment 50 edits over the past three days, 30 by a single editor, with the participation a grand total of one dozen editors.
Yellowdesk (talk) 15:15, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Financial crisis of 2007-2008 / Illiquid asset

The edit you made to Financial crisis of 2007-2008 redirecting illiquid asset to high-yield debt is, I think, inappropriate; that is junk bonds. Part of the problem with securitized subprime mortgages is that they are not-high yield and were often rated AAA initially. Now, downgraded and with the ongoing subprime mortgage crisis their value is quite uncertain which makes them illiquid. That is the term Treasury Secretary Paulson used to describe them. Fred Talk 14:37, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fred, I was ambivalent about it myself. However, please note that illiquid asset was already a redirect to toxic debt, which was no more than a poorly-written stub with minimal context. I chose to merge toxic debt with high-yield debt; there may be better choices around--I'd be happy to add the 'toxic' section to a more suitable article. Or perhaps leave toxic debt as a redir to high-yield debt, but find a better target for illiquid asset? I'd welcome your suggestions. Owen× ☎ 15:24, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the redir target of Illiquid asset to Market liquidity, which is a well-written article with links to liquidity crisis and other relevant terms. Owen× ☎ 15:32, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Toxic debt is tendentious and should probably be deleted. It is a phrase in use, but probably should not be a Wikipedia article. I'm not sure illiquid assets, however well-written, could support an independent article. The issue is liquidity. Fred Talk 16:02, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My thoughts exactly! Which is why I turned both Toxic debt and Illiquid asset into redirects, to High-yield debt and Market liquidity, respectively. Both toxic debt and illiquid asset are likely search phrases, so they should stay as a redirect to the more general articles. Owen× ☎ 16:31, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

notifying of mediation case

Well, I see that you already found your way to Giovanni's mediation case on your own :) --Enric Naval (talk) 01:28, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Angela Davis

Fred, thanks for your note. I figured it out. JKeck (talk) 02:15, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question

You might want to respond here. There is a question about whether you meant the Three layer cake with frosting finding to be only a statement or summary of background information or the parties' positions. That's what Newyorkbrad says. I used it to justify an edit removing the implication that no scientist could be a parapsychologist. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:53, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

German 'Guarantee'

Hi thanks for the note.

I removed the line about the german guarantee due to what was actually announced. The Germans said no one would lose out, with out actually guaranteeing it. This is similar to the British Govt saying that they have not let anyone lose their money. A quick look on the BBC website shows the following note http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/robertpeston/2008/10/what_the_germans_did.html

Whilst they are saying people will not lose savings this is not quite the same as offering an unlimited guarantee as issued by the Irish, Danish and Greeks.

Secondary Source - http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Business/German-Bank-Deal-Sky-News-Learns-Germany-May-Not-Guarantee-Savings-In-Full/Article/200810115113805?lpos=Business_Carousel_Region_3&lid=ARTICLE_15113805_German_Bank_Deal%3A_Sky_News_Learns_Germany_May_Not_Guarantee_Savings_In_Full

Lots of confusing and apparantly inaccurate reports out there.

--GazMan7 (talk) 14:13, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]