User talk:C.Fred

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by .

Welcome to my talk page!

Please sign and date your comment (by adding ~~~~ at the end) to assist the bot that archives this page.
Please add a new thread to the bottom of the page if you wish to leave me a new message. If you're following up on a previous message, keep your comment in that same place:
- If you leave me a message here, I will reply here and leave a {{Talkback}} template on your talk page, unless you indicate that you are watching my page or no talkback message is necessary.
- If you are responding to a message I left on your talk page, I encourage you to reply there. Please leave a {{Talkback}} template here so I know about the message, unless I indicate that no talkback is necessary in my message. If you are commenting here on a message or warning I left there, don't be surprised if I move the discussion back to your talk page.
This page is set for automatic archiving every 7 days. I will remove talkback messages as acknowledgment that I have read the related reply, and I reserve the right to summarily remove any uncivil comments.

Thank you, and happy editing!

Godzilla Attributes delete

2/17/2013 9:30 pm User:JJHOHO3 hello, i had edited the Godzilla page for a class experiment i am doing for my cybernetics and sociology class, please put the edit back so i can study the behavior of others editing it, i or you can remove it with in 7 days after the assignment is received by my professor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JJHOHO3 (talk • contribs)

Somehow, I don't think your professor authorized you to add "NINJAZILLA DEATH!" to the Godzilla article. Even if he/she did, that wouldn't be an appropriate use of Wikipedia. NawlinWiki (talk) 03:33, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

9:37 Understandable, i go to an arts college, and i got carried away with the experiment, if you would like i could re post a variant of it without my creative optimism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JJHOHO3 (talk • contribs) 03:40, 17 February 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

No. Wikipedia is not a venue for science experiments—at least, nothing at this ad hoc a level. —C.Fred (talk) 03:44, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to be intruding on your talk page C.Fred, but JJHOHO3, if your experiment is to study the behavior of other individuals editing the article, then seeing people undoing edits that are perceived to be unconstructive, such as yours, should be a pivotal part of your assignment. Jonathanfu (talk) 03:49, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you,Jonathanfu, i was thinking that if it was removed so quickly there wouldn't be enough time for a reaction, but the fact that it was removed so quickly was a factor of what would be seen in an obviously unconstructive edit vs a seemingly constructive edit. didn't think about that at first, i will use that in the paper and for the rest of the experiment as it progresses for the week, Thank you again Jonathanfu for your advice it has been a tremendous help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.140.218.200 (talk • contribs) 23:49, 18 February 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

Hey.

Your bot deleted the company I work for, Infinite Industry. Its page got requested for speedy deletion on grounds that it is insignificant. Hurt feelings aside, please put it back up and if there's any way I could improve it to better meet Wikipedia's standards, let me know.

Sincerely, The Emotional Automaton (talk) 23:50, 18 February 2013 (UTC)The Emotional Automaton[reply]

Signed: February Eighteenth, Two-Thousand Thirteen at 3:50 PM

There was no valid assertion of the significance or importance of the company in the article. A record label serving a single band is not notable.

If you can show that the company has been written about in multiple independent reliable sources, then it might meet the standards. —C.Fred (talk) 23:52, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. That makes sense. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Emotional Automaton (talk • contribs) 23:59, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

HEY, why did you delete my page?!?

This page in an intense auto-biography of my close friend. You have no right to delete this last memory of the most awesome person i have even known.

Please reinstate the page that you have deleted

And if there is anything that i can do to improve please tell me — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stuartbenn (talk • contribs) 01:50, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The subject is clearly not notable under WP:BIO and should not have an article. Wikipedia is not a webhost for you to write a history of your friend (or post your friend's stories about himself). —C.Fred (talk) 01:57, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CFSYE Cultural Exchange Programs

FYI the article creator took the deletion tag down one other time, and put a warning on his talk page. He's removed the tag twice in all....William 02:33, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I gave him the level 2 warning about removing speedy deletion tags. —C.Fred (talk) 02:34, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When an editor does the same thing twice, I have trouble with AGF. There's this article- List of accidents and incidents involving commercial aircraft, which above the edit box has a notice in big red letters not to add an entry unless it has a dedicated wikipedia article. Most of the time you have the one-time adders and they're gone but just recently we had a person undo my revert. He still wasn't getting the message. Till I put it on his talk page. Cheers!...William 02:41, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little more generous with AGF, especially if they could've removed the tag the second time while they were getting the warning. —C.Fred (talk) 02:47, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good question- Say an article creator kept taking down the CSD tag. Would I be violating 3RR if I kept reverting?...William 02:44, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Removing the CSD tag is in that grey area. If it's a copyvio, restore the tag: flagging the copyvio is in the clear best interest of the project. If it's CSD A7, it's not as clear-cut. The safer route would be to report the individual at the edit warring or some other admin's noticeboard. —C.Fred (talk) 02:47, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tip. BTW he's recreated[1] the article again. Time for a block?...William 03:26, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Astronomer28

I was looking though the report, and apparently he was warned about getting consensus on the talk page two days ago, and he ignored it and kept on revert warring, so I did the 31 hour block, but by the time I was about to close the edit warring discussion, I noticed you looked at it first and gave him a warning. I think it's better to give him a 31 hour time out as he was warned. Looks like one of those nationalist single purpose accounts anyways. Secret ^account 18:02, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ralph Geolomin Volturi

The info box says he was born in 1120 BC Los Angeles. LA didn't exist in 1120 AD. That's the reason(plus the hidden info box) why this smells like a hoax....William 18:46, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree about the hoax. I've asked the author to provide reliable sources that this character is in canon and not something he made up, but based on my Google search, I'm not expecting him to be able to come up with anything. —C.Fred (talk) 18:47, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm giving him another 10 minutes or so to respond; otherwise, I'll delete it myself under G3. —C.Fred (talk) 18:49, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You deleted it. If its not a hoax, he can always contact you and offer proof and it will be restored. Some how I don't think that will happen but I'll admit to error if proven wrong. Cheers!...William 20:29, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AREDS article - adding new information but everything removed

Dear Fred,

I think the wiki article should reflect the facts in the NEJM letter below. I tried to summarize those facts and state their implication regarding B&Ls selective use of the data in their advertising. Not sure why you've removed my addition.

N Engl J Med 2008; 359:1735-1736October 16, 2008DOI: 10.1056/NEJMc081470

To the Editor: The review of age-related macular degeneration by Jager et al. (June 12 issue)1 does not refer to an editorial accompanying the report of the Age-Related Eye Disease Study (AREDS) in the Archives of Ophthalmology in 2001 and two subsequent letters,2-4 all of which criticized the study analysis for setting aside a negative result in which dietary supplementation with high doses of vitamins and minerals was ineffective and instead reporting on a subgroup in which the result was positive. The investigators argued that the excluded patients had too few end points to be eligible for treatment. However, the group of patients who received the supplement had greater disease progression and provided valuable data regarding early intervention.

Discarding prespecified negative analyses and reporting on positive subgroup analyses has been repeatedly discouraged.5 The omission of the above information perpetuates the myth that the supplement used in the AREDS was effective, at the price of a treatment that has no benefit and carries undetermined risks.

Daniel Seigel, Sc.D. [redacted]

5 References

B&L advertising:

Helps preserve eye health**

Bausch & Lomb PreserVision soft gels are based on the AREDS formula, the one and only antioxidant vitamin and mineral supplement proven clinically effective in the age-related eye disease study (AREDS). AREDS was a 10-year, independent study conducted by the National Eye Institute (NEI) of the Nationals Institutes of Health (NIH).

- This statement has not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease.

So the product, according to AREDS, prevents the progression of disease, but it is not intended to prevent any disease?

The studies conclusions can be questioned and the article in wiki should reflect this. It might also add the caveat that clinical studies supported by drug companies might not be valid, especially when those drug companies plan to use the results in their advertising.

What do you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ms20202020 (talk • contribs) 04:42, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First, I reverted your edit because you didn't add anything to the article. What you did was delete the external links and categories from the article.

As for your concerns, they're probably better discussed at Talk:Age-Related Eye Disease Study, where more editors will see the discussion and be able to chime in. —C.Fred (talk) 05:06, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Page Title

I saw the note regarding my page, (Carey May Edge...redirected from search Carey May) Can you remove the "Edge" from the title page, I don't use that name any more. I tried to edit it but couldn't figure out how to change the title. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Careymay (talk • contribs) 15:54, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. —C.Fred (talk) 16:02, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vampire: The Masquerade – Bloodlines

Good day! I am deeply sorry for breaking the three revert rule. May I ask you to pay a little attention for the section "External links" of [2] In "Talk" page, section "Mods and unofficial patches", [3] states "I removed most of the "unofficial patches" section, leaving the first paragraph since it was backed up by a reliable source", referring to [4] as a reliable source and deleting link to the unofficial patch of modder [5] because this is unreliable source. The problem is that a protected by [6] link [7], titled as "Unofficial patch" is a selection of different mods, choosed by [8] depending on their preferences. Therefore one unofficial patch [9] is denied(though it's created by acknowledged author-[10]), while another is promoting, thus violating "Tendentious editing" rule. It is also feeding the warring between rival modders. That's why I am considering my last editing as a prudent one: the link to [11] should be titled as [12] site's page, not as a link to supposedly one and the only mod/patch(thus advertising it). Thank you for your time! Dazkalt (talk) 16:35, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop

Your insisting on calling an organization a rude and insulting name, is unacceptable. Also, your removal of my edit without any explanation at all, is insulting to me personally.