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 {{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!

thank you for help on Let's Marry!

Thank you for help on Lets Marry article. Moscowamerican (talk) 19:39, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Slither.io

Hi C.Fred, I was wondering if you could protect the Slither.io redirect I made from being turned into a full article for now. It has been covered by a reliable source, MCV, here and there may be more articles about it, but I think it is WP:TOOSOON for a full article on the subject and thus I feel it should be kept a redirect. Capcapandgengen (talk) 21:04, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Capcapandgengen: Where do you see any reason for a redirect? Just because two products are similar doesn't mean the non-notable one should redirect to the notable one. They are published by two different companies; the only connection between the two is the reviewer's comparison. —C.Fred (talk) 22:30, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And I have !voted delete at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 April 15#Slither.io. —C.Fred (talk) 23:37, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point, so for the moment I've changed the redirect's target to Miniclip (where the game is hosted). Capcapandgengen (talk) 04:09, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TRNC

Hi C fred please can you change proclaimed north cyprus to 20 July 1974 because Fazil Kucuk was the first former president of the invaded cyprus and we celebrate it on 20 july with turkish fighter planes doing shows i downt know how to do it thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1hello12321 (talk • contribs) 16:31, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@1hello12321: No, I can't, because there are no reliable sources that support the claim. Kucuk is listed a Vice President of the Republic of Cyprus; nowhere in his article does it mention that he was President of Northern Cyprus. Further, the TRNC Ministry of Foreign Affairs states, in a source cited in the article, that independence was proclaimed on 15 November 1983. Turkey may have invaded on 20 July 1974—and that's probably a good day for Turkey to do flyovers and other military activities—but that doesn't mean that the declaration of independence gets backdated to that date. —C.Fred (talk) 16:39, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks for your help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1hello12321 (talk • contribs) 16:41, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry c fred there was a mistake fazil was actually the first president in 1974 please change it Link:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faz%C4%B1l_K%C3%BC%C3%A7%C3%BCk — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1hello12321 (talk • contribs) 16:48, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@1hello12321: As I noted above, you must provide a reliable source before the change can be made. —C.Fred (talk) 16:49, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

why

why did you deleate my wiki it was about a website — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isaiah James Patton (talk • contribs) 21:38, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Isaiah James Patton: Because there was nothing in the article to indicate that the website is significant or important. For a website to have an article, it must meet the notability criteria at WP:WEB. —C.Fred (talk) 21:40, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@C.Fred: but there was a parragraph about its significant

@Isaiah James Patton: No, there wasn't. There were a few sentences about features. There was nothing about reviews, coverage in the press, awards, or anything else that would meet the notability criteria. —C.Fred (talk) 21:44, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@C.Fred: can I get a copy of it back so I can wook on it

@Isaiah James Patton: Yes, I'll restore the text into your sandbox. Be advised that you're working a very slippery slope, writing about your own website: if the article turns into a promotion for your website, it could be deleted as blatant advertising. —C.Fred (talk) 21:53, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

why?

why has my page 'MeDugOut' been deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joel Evetts (talk • contribs) 23:15, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Joel Evetts: First, because it's a duplicate of Medugout; there's no need for two of the same article. The underlying reason for deletion, and why Medugout is tagged, is for failing to assert that the subject is a significant person. Just having a Youtube channel or other website doesn't make somebody notable; not even having 1,000 followers is significant. —C.Fred (talk) 23:18, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

what classes as being significant then? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joel Evetts (talk • contribs) 23:19, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Joel Evetts: See WP:BIO and WP:GNG. For his website, see WP:WEB. —C.Fred (talk) 23:31, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Palliative Care

Hi I edited the Palliative Care page, but it looks like you undid all of my revisions. I am not sure why this happened??? Please advise, thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PCnurse (talk • contribs) 03:41, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@PCnurse: Adding 8,000+ characters to the article is not "edited spelling errors". Please discuss your changes at Talk:Palliative care and make sure there's consensus for them. —C.Fred (talk) 03:45, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I am new to this wiki editing. I am a grad student, trying to make edits to the page. So did you delete all my edits? How can I get them back to "discuss my changes at Talk: Palliative Care". — Preceding unsigned comment added by PCnurse (talk • contribs) 03:50, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the links. Do I have to get permission from an article "owner"? Also, since you undid my revisions I can't see them??? (it took me hours, especially all the citations). I saved multiple times as "content editing" and then my last revision was spelling — Preceding unsigned comment added by PCnurse (talk • contribs) 03:59, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker)@PCnurse: Your work is kept safe and sound on the History page. Zhaofeng Li ^talk (Please {{Ping}} when replying) 04:01, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How do I submit my major page edit for review? Without it just being undone? — Preceding unsigned comment added by PCnurse (talk • contribs) 04:26, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@C.Fred how do I submit my major page edit for review? Without it just being undone?PCnurse (talk) 04:30, 17 April 2016 (UTC)PCnurse[reply]

@PCnurse: Part of the problem was that the revisions were so major. You're better off to work in smaller chunks so it's easier to see what's being changed. And there's no way to guarantee it won't be undone. As I said, the best thing is to go to the article's talk page and explain the changes ("I want to add X based on source Y"; "I want to change K to L because of what's in source M"). Best case, other editors say it's a great change and you should go ahead and make it. Next best, they have some minor improvements to suggest, and you go ahead and make the change. Worst case from your perspective, they have objections ("That contradicts what source Z elsewhere in the article says"; "That doesn't follow the Manual of Style"), and you have to keep discussing or back down from that change. —C.Fred (talk) 12:46, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Peach

Most of the links in the Andrew Peach article are dead and some refs are not cited. How can these be flagged for deletion? There is a comment on his talk page which suggests the article is purely for self promotion. There seems to be "too much" information for suck a minor person. BBC Radio 2 made lots of cut backs a few years ago and I have not heard Peach reading the news om the station for a while. He was in the same pool of freelancers as Ricky Salmon, Fran Godfrey and Fenella Fudge. He has also not presented on BBC 5 Live since his stint covering Stephen Nolan. RadioAnorakUK (talk) 11:49, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@RadioAnorakUK: Dead references don't get deleted, but you can tag them with {{dead link}} so others know they need repaired. Or, you can fix them yourself by finding na archived version of the page. Any material that isn't supported by a reference can be flagged with the {{citation needed}} template. —C.Fred (talk) 16:59, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Urban News Service, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Democratic Party (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:53, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User Iistal

I wonder if you could have another word with Iistal (talk · contribs). He has resumed reverting at Daryl Hannah, this time with an edit summary that he is not discussing because "it's not debatable." I'm not asking for a block at this time. But he might listen to reasoning better with you. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 19:39, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Articles

Hello, I've noticed that you reverted my edits in the Flag of Syria and Coat of Arms. I'll start with the coat of arms first. I know that we need to change the picture not remove it, but I can't upload pictures. Every time I try to upload it doesn't let me. And I do have the picture.

Second, the Flag of Syria article. What is in their is truly false and biased. The two stars flag DOES NOT represent the loyalist of the regime or Assad. And we don't want to use the opposition flag as a new flag to Syria. It's used as a symbol for the revolution, just like as a symbol to a party. I work in the Syrian Interim Government, what am I giving to you is official. If you ask the Syrians today, the majority of them want the two-stars flag and sees it as a representation for the people of Syria, even the FSA and those who support it. So please, let us be accurate. After all it's our country and our revolution, gentlemen!JaberEl-Hour (talk) 23:43, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@JaberEl-Hour: Please remember that the encyclopedia needs to be written from neutral point of view. If you work for the government, as you assert, then you have a conflict of interest and should probably not be editing any articles related to the Syrian government, broadly construed. That said, if your information is official, just provide a link to a published source, and independent editors can change the article based on that. —C.Fred (talk) 00:02, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, How is that a biased attitude if I work for the opposition, I am not defending the revolution flag, I am defending the Syrian flag. I do understand the policies her, but I kinda see that some users here are the ones who are radical and biased, and they keep edit warring. I don't mean to attack anybody, I'm just keeping you aware that some users here are being biased.JaberEl-Hour (talk) 01:54, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@JaberEl-Hour: Precisely because you work for the opposition! Your professional connection to the subject is viewed as inhibiting your neutrality toward the subject—or at least as giving the appearance that your edits will not be neutral. —C.Fred (talk) 01:56, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My edits are being natural and accurate when I put the Syrian flag as the flag, and I delete the part where it says that only loyalist people rise this flag. Let me notify you that there is an official opposition group who only rise this flag that you relate to as "Assad's Flag". You can find it in the link below. Also, let me remind you that the flag is also raised by people who are neutral and don't side with anyone. So let's be accurate, and we can include a part where it says that the opposition held areas rise this flag to distinguish themselves from the government.

https://7al.me/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/%D9%A6%D9%A61.jpg

It's called the National Coordination Committee for Democratic Change. Thank you.JaberEl-Hour (talk) 02:03, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]