User talk:C.Fred

September 2014

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you delete a Articles for deletion notice or a comment from an AfD discussion, as you did at Shooting of Samantha Ramsey. You've acknowledged (by multiple postings) a prior warning to leave Shooting of Samantha Ramsey article alone. If you remove it again, you will be blocked to prevent further disruption of the discussion. Thefreedomskool (talk) 02:48, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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 {{Mention}} you here or 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, please reply there so the discussion stays in one place. Please {{Mention}} me in the message there or 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!

FC Bears

Independent editors do not care about this article I work hard on this artice and please if you can not ask ;Independent editors; to reviewed this article please leave me to work — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trobinson66 (talk • contribs) 14:10, 23 August 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Phil Savage (baseball) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Phil Savage (baseball) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phil Savage (baseball) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Jrcla2 (talk) 14:00, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Utah Jynx

Hi C.Fred; I've returned from my slumber here just to revert this [1]. Yes, the editor supplied an acceptable source, but I think it's not even close to meriting mention, and am concerned that the long term objective is to use Wikipedia to grind an axe with the individual. Though I admit trying to sneak something in on cookie dough malfeasance is funny. You've been helpful with the article, and if you think I've been overzealous restore whatever you find appropriate. Thanks and cheers, JNW (talk) 03:51, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why delete article

Why do you think Sindikatu should be deleted? There was was no stated reason for the request to delete the article. It seems more like vandalism to me... could you tell your reasons why the article should be delete? — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiTrollTerminator (talk • contribs) 00:10, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@WikiTrollTerminator: While "this apparently reeks of an elaborate hoax, not to mention that similar articles have been deleted before for the same reasons" may not be the strongest reason for the request, it's a reason. I don't see it as a bad-faith nomination, so the AfD should run its course. —C.Fred (talk) 00:13, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As it may but sindikato is not a total hoax, its in the Cebuano Tagalog dictionary which translate to Syndicate,this gangs mentioned in the article does truly exists the citations alone gives a clear view on the nature of this organized crime groups the news reports are not an elaborate hoaxes it is back up by the news media in the Philippines, please dont believe that there is no big agglomerate of syndicate groups operating in the Philippines this is exactly what they want anonymity so that they could go on with criminal activities unnoticed and unrestrained,i for one will try to expose their heinous activities Chveawful (talk) 12:28, 31 August 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

At ANI it's been suggested WTT is a sock of this editor:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Malusia22/Archive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 14:15, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No Hard feelings

Hey man, no hard feelings about the deletion of the POET Technologies Wikipedia. Hey, I wasn't aware of the copy write rule and that all of the content had to be re worded in order to meet the Wikipedia standured. Thank you for the education all be it a little rough around the rear end. In the future I will do my best to apply what you have brought to my attention in this life lesson. Thank you. Question, would it have made any difference if the article had been written using the same article formatting and content with more 3rd party references? MJB an imagination of little renown 03:19, 2 September 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JordanBaldwin (talk • contribs)

@JordanBaldwin: If by formatting, you mean the layout of the article, then probably not: that's part of what contributed to the advertising tone of the article. If by content, you mean the text, then absolutely not: the article can use ideas from another site, but it can't use words from it. —C.Fred (talk) 03:33, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Miniatures Page

C. Fred

I will place references on the site after the next edit. It seems that you have been removing a lot of these edits that are factual and referenced. Please detail why that is being done.

Crow the Saint (talk) 06:42, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Crow the Saint: Forum postings are not reliable sources. The source for the assertion that members were banned for no reason is a discussion forum: this is not a reliable source. The claim that the staff have no experience in war is weak: just because they don't mention an interest in it in their profiles doesn't mean they aren't. —C.Fred (talk) 18:03, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, because of the underlying issue with no evidence of coverage in independent, reliable sources, I've nominated the article for deletion. —C.Fred (talk) 18:11, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes we agree then. there are only self-promotional references. Where we differ is that the references to the masthead type references (such as the listing of the editors) are NOT forum posts. They are clearly intended to show who the editorial staff are. As such they are self-referential, but are not unreliable.

Crow the Saint (talk) 20:42, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]