User talk:C.Fred

Please add new threads to the bottom of the page. Misplaced threads can get lost and go unnoticed, especially if I'm in a busy or similar status.

If you are a registered user, I will usually reply to your talk page unless you request otherwise. I may reply to your talk page and copy my response here to preserve a thread or note that the issue has been dealt with. Likewise, I may also reply here and leave a {{Talkback}} template on your talk page for the sake of threading.

If you are an unregistered user, I will reply on this page and leave a {{Talkback}} template on your IP address' User talk page.

Note that all threads older than 7 days will be archived. Please sign and date your comment (by adding ~~~~ at the end) to assist the bot that archives this page.

Uncivil comments may be deleted summarily.

thanks

DougsTech (talk) has given you a fresh piece of fried chicken! Pieces of fried chicken promote WikiLove and hopefully this piece has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a piping hot piece, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Bon appetit!

Spread the tastiness of fried chicken by adding {{subst:GiveChicken}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

SAE, SPA, and Wikileaks

You make a good point about the Sig Phi article. Again, I think this is a quandary we may want to work to settle at a higher level as it may determine issues regarding a lot of articles and the use of Wikileaks. Here is a few of the issues as I see it:

1) Wikileaks is an independent site from the wikifoundation

2) Wikileaks is being used as a source for MSM such as the NYT, LAT, and WSJ

3) Wikileaks is non-profit, and journalist operated like any news source

4) Wikileaks publishes information on its own site

As to the issues regarding publishability of material, the policy seems clear that items being claimed for copyright shouldn't be directly posted on wikipedia. However it may behoove us to have the issue clarified about material, on a news site such as wikileaks, which while linked is not hosted by wiki. It is a weird situation, given the SAE refuses to comment publicly about the book, so it cant be refuted or have its copyright arguments heard, but Sig Phi sends a copyright cease and desist letter, and the link is pulled from that particular article. It may be time to take a couple of actions regarding both the article itself and the overall issue. If you are interested, we could take the issue up the chain to the appropriate wiki project and get an opinion and hopefully get a policy regarding wikileaks for others to follow in the future. Also, I am considering doing a lit search at my university regarding the fraternity to get some clear and strong third party citations to back the material currently on the page. Your thoughts?

IlliniGradResearch (talk) 16:25, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Dead Links and BLP

You posted the following on this article talk page.

"Link death does not change the reliability of the sources, even if verifying them becomes more cumbersome. I will agree that two paragraphs can be removed because they cite no sources; however, the sourced paragraphs should remain, unless a more compelling argument than link death can be given. If anything, the correct step at this point is to search an archive for the stories and find a more permanent link."

Because I was still confused by the policies involved, I asked a question on the BLP policy talk page here. Another editor has stated that your interpretation of policy is incorrect in regards to BLP. I wanted to let you know in case you wish to involve yourself in the discussion. Thanks! Sperril (talk) 20:33, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Scott Harrington

I found a reference for the Scott Harrington article. You have to pay for online access, but I looked up the article through my local library and found the necessary quote. There may be another reference available from the Indianapolis Star, but I can't access the archives. [1] -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 10:47, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I was wondering why he was just removing the reference and not the actual statement. [2] -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 07:13, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

[Relocated from Template talk:Talkback]

Dear C.Fred, Thank you for deleting me so quickly. I didn't know the rules, but now i know. I'll find some notable subject to write about apart from myself. Kind regards, Per Roald Fluge not yet sufficiently notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Perfluge (talk • contribs) 19:43, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Sarah Thomas

Unitanode has moved the Sarah Thomas article to the new title, after being asked to wait until you had declared the discussion over. I will leave it up to you how to proceed. If you want me to move the title back until the end of the seven days, or until it's clear the discussion is over, please let me know. Otherwise, I'll leave it. The article and talk page histories are merged. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 23:21, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Golf putter.

why redirected? --Jaoa9103 (talk) 17:42, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: Ken Schultz

Hello C.Fred. I have been adding some references from Ken Schultz's Encyclopedia On Fishing because it's a great resource. Mr. Schultz is one of the most widely-published fishing authors ever, and his Encyclopedia is considered to be the most comprehensive fishing books available. I can see where it looks a bit like spamming, I'll adapt the text to play down promoting Ken's personality but still share his expertise on some fishing topics as I see entries that could be improved. Brimc83 (talk) 19:26, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: NOWNESS page

Hello C.Fred. I am not sure why you speedily deleted my page. I have looked at the rules and I'd like to know what changes/ additions I need to make so I can republish it. Please let me know what I need to do. NOWNESS (talk) 21:05, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

answer

It is obvious Insulting to Turks and must be deleted.Jimmycardiel (talk) 17:26, 31 December 2009 (UTC)