User talk:C.Fred
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Welcome to my talk page!
|
A link for reading
- Hi C.Fred, Happy New Year 2013. You reverted me that I had reverted an IP address. It is OK, no problem. A link just for your reading.Please take a look at...Thanks.Justice007 (talk) 23:26, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Moshe Friemdan
My changes all have multiple sources. And the current article is wrong (including even source #1 which doesnt even say he is a rabbi as they falsely claim). Appreciate your assistance in getting it cleaned up Tellyuer1 (talk) 04:18, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
- Gave my suggested changes there. On Netureia Karta they dont even have sources. What should i do on a page sans sources? Why leave it there?Tellyuer1 (talk) 04:37, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Allison Dine Photo
Hi Fred. You asked me to verify the photograph posted on the 'Terrance Clark' page of Allison Dine. The photograph was scanned from the book "Underbelly: Tale of Two Cities" John Silvester, Andrew Rule Publisher: Floradale Press ISBN: 0977544095 EAN: 9780977544097. The photo is at least 25 years old, originally taken by an unknown source and is not copyrighted to the Authors of the book. Sarah Delatour (talk) 09:19, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
- That certainly doesn't make it your work, and I'm not convinced that it puts it into the public domain. I've tagged the image as a copyvio on Commons. —C.Fred (talk) 14:56, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
My apologies. I have never claimed it as my work. I have uploaded the photo without citing source and with incorrect details. I will be correcting this shortly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarah Delatour (talk • contribs) 21:40, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Curious about the welcome
I'm not sure why you would be welcoming an Anon with the following edit history of vandalism? Do you see some redeeming aspect of widespread removal of cited data? Just curious. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:12, 4 January 2013 (UTC).
- The major reason is that there's no {{welcomevandal}} variant for anonymous users. I do not see redeeming value from the user's edits; I do think the user should be pointed toward the guidelines so that they can learn about how to edit within the rules. —C.Fred (talk) 18:16, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
BTW, I like that {{welcomevandal}} idea especially if it is a content dispute, which is sometimes the case, not just someone buttering around for fun. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:24, 4 January 2013 (UTC).
Moshe Friedman
Keep discussing BLP. The guy is noteable for something wacky - and there are plenty of noteable sources for it. Its not a violation of BLP to use multiple sources to say so. Have laid out ample sources showing it but the one user just keeps pushing back. Even the lead - who says he's from NY? There is NO source. and if i change it I am wrong? Seems like an odd catch 22. Help. Tellyuer1 (talk) 16:25, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
- At this point, yes, you're "wrong" if you change it. Edit warring is disruptive to harmonious editing; users who persist in edit wars and/or violate the three revert rule are subject to being blocked. You've already been blocked once for edit warring, so a second block is likely to run at least four days.
- That's why I've said you need to have a dialogue with people on the talk page and work toward common ground with the changes. You can't just dump a new version of the article into the talk page and expect buy-in. Try going point-by-point. And don't expect immediate change; a meaningful discussion will take some time to get multiple users' perspectives. —C.Fred (talk) 16:30, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
- I do many many times - and no one except that one guy comments. I have left sources there and edits. WHy isnt he blocked as shld be.Tellyuer1 (talk) 16:33, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
- To rephrase: try working for small changes, one at a time. I haven't seen you try to do that. I have seen about four users strongly oppose your wholesale changes. —C.Fred (talk) 16:35, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
- They arent interested in engaging in dialogue and "edit warring" takes two, not one. I comment and leave ideas. they dont respond and I never put info without sources all of it is very well sourced. They are white washing a Holocaust denier, radical. And just bc they are 2 and I am 1 doesnt mean they shld be able to bully me. They place "The Vienna Review"? What is that exactly ? My sources are major papers and real.Tellyuer1 (talk) 17:30, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
- Reply at your talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 17:32, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
- So I dont break the revert rule, TheRedPenOfDoom wrote "this is just a filing of a suit that may have no merit" - absolutely inaccurate. It is a judgement which was made, and Friedman lost. Wasnt a filing. Was a decision. Read. Tellyuer1 (talk) 17:39, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
- Reply at your talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 17:32, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
- They arent interested in engaging in dialogue and "edit warring" takes two, not one. I comment and leave ideas. they dont respond and I never put info without sources all of it is very well sourced. They are white washing a Holocaust denier, radical. And just bc they are 2 and I am 1 doesnt mean they shld be able to bully me. They place "The Vienna Review"? What is that exactly ? My sources are major papers and real.Tellyuer1 (talk) 17:30, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
- To rephrase: try working for small changes, one at a time. I haven't seen you try to do that. I have seen about four users strongly oppose your wholesale changes. —C.Fred (talk) 16:35, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Citing Help pLease . Thanks
Hi I did make the to . Brian Littrells page. edit But I am unsure of how to cite it ? can you help me ? Thanks cuz its all truth. :) <3 thanks a bunch! :D MyHusbandsAngel (talk) 20:12, 5 January 2013 (UTC)MyHusbandsAngel
- You'll need to back up every item in your edit to secondary sources—newspaper or magazine stories about Littrell. And they must be published stories in reliable sources; blogs and first-hand accounts are unacceptable. —C.Fred (talk) 20:14, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
- Also, please reply at your talk page. I'll be watching it for changes. —C.Fred (talk) 20:16, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks man!
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar | ||
Thanks for fixing articles I tried to edit, and teaching me a lot more about Wikipedia! Lostromantic (talk) 01:48, 6 January 2013 (UTC) |
Hut 8.5
I just spent two hours updating Ohio politicians for the new general assembly. Hut 8.5 is on some tirade to revert any edit by any individual on this. I am very passionate and informed on the general assembly and it is very frustrating to see good edits reverted. Take a look at joe Schiavoni as an example of the problems he causes. He also deleted a page on John Rogers who is a new representative. You will see that all of his reversions make no sense in keeping these pages up to date. In fact, he has no interest or knowledge on these topics at all. I am very upset. Please do what you can to restore my edits, which in fact are very useful and by no means harmful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.238.130.72 (talk) 23:10, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
- No, Hut 8.5 is working to prevent one individual from editing the articles. Sorry, but while you're banned, you can't edit Wikipedia. I could, in all rights, have deleted this message from my talk page, but I wanted to do you the courtesy of explaining why any editor, including admins, may revert your edits on sight. —C.Fred (talk) 00:24, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
San Onofre
The California Star | ||
For removing unbalanced content from San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, I would like to present you with this barnstar. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:40, 7 January 2013 (UTC) |
Hi C.Fred, Orange Grove is an independent band but they have a name
Hi C.Fred, I understand that Wikipedia wants to keep their pages limited to what is generally considered popular enough..and I understand that there are way too many bands in existence to allow every independent non-signed band a page section in Wikipedia..but I do believe there are a number of non-signed bands out there who are worth mentioning simply due to the success they have managed to achieve. I am certain that Orange Grove is more popular than many bands out there who are actually signed, plus they have managed to stick around for over ten years and continue to release high quality productions in both song and video. I live in The Hague and have been to many of their concerts in this city and others. I have seen the draw crowds of over 1000 here. When they have performed on certain islands in the Caribbean they have also drawn upwards of 1000 to a concert and on those islands their music can be heard regularly on most of the local radio stations.
Is there no exception for bands that are not signed to a label? I can show you many examples of bands that are signed and do not have half the fans that Orange Grove does.
Yours sincerely, Arne van der Meulen aka Twemz Twemz (talk) 01:04, 8 January 2013 (UTC)