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!

Gen Cone

http://www.kcentv.com/news/local/gen-robert-w-cone-passes-away/321721884

The link above is a reference for Gen Cone's death, but not very detailed. I added the link to the page references, but the format isn't correct or consistent with the other references. I'm sure that there will be better references in the next few days.

Also, I changed the Second Lieutenant date of rank to June 6, 1979 from May 1979 which is the date of USMA graduation. He wasn't commissioned before graduation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.114.52.206 (talk) 02:24, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've added that as a citation. The source doesn't support the date of death, so I've got that noted as questioned. —C.Fred (talk) 02:32, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.westpointaog.org/memorials?srctid=1&erid=18752986&trid=fa7eaf9c-e9c1-4574-8b88-a4f298886317

Association of Graduates, USMA indicates date and location of death as September 18, 2016, in Shawano, WI. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.114.52.206 (talk) 12:07, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

https://externalapps.westpointaog.org/Memorials/Article/36399/ The link above is the AOG, USMA memorial page for Gen Cone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.114.52.206 (talk) 12:32, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Letter sent to Wikipedia regarding Assange copyright of The World Tomorrow

Sir, Please know your long history with disruptive edits at The World Tomorrow church page, and the infringing Assange page of the same title, has not gone unnoticed.

Know also Assange and his NYC attorney and production company changed the name of his ill-advised conflicting planned programme title from "The World Tomorrow", to "The Julian Assange Show", just prior to airdate. No programmes ever aired with the copyright infringing title.

Wilipedia admin will correct the Assange infringing page title, shortly. So, no matter your continued desire to hold fast to maintaining the infringing Wikipedia Assange page World Tomorrow title, the page will cease to exist as such very soon now, and it will be corrected by Wikipedia admin to reflect the correct title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FastNLoud (talk • contribs) 03:27, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@FastNLoud: Umm, where are your reliable sources for the title change? Actually, the information in the article points to the title being The World Tomorrow, rather than World Tomorrow. So, no, the article will not be changed without reliable sources. —C.Fred (talk) 03:28, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The reliable source is we are the copyright owners. Our reliable source is our trademark AND copyright. And yes, Wikipedia admin has advised us the change to the Assange page will be made upon receipt of those certified documents and the letter of agreement we forwarded to them which we received from Assange himself and his attorney. God Bless! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.123.128.179 (talk) 03:36, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So, you are admitting a conflict of interest? You shouldn't be editing any related article at all, then, and you should know that sources for claims like this must be independent sources, not sources from involved parties. —C.Fred (talk) 03:38, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So sorry to disappoint, but I am not an "involved party". Frankly, I am not a Wikipedia user. And as far as rules go, Assange wipes his ass all over every rule of law and regulation. That is why he is in so much legal trouble from so many sources. Evidently he is still holed up hiding in the embassy for over 5 years with no shower bathtub or kitchen facility.

This page infringment will be righted regardless of your personal strong desire to keep the infriging content and disrupt the original church sponsored programme Wiki page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.123.128.179 (talk) 03:47, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused. Are you the copyright owners, are are you an uninvolved party? It's one or the other; it can't be both. —C.Fred (talk) 04:01, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Our typist is our temp "spokesman", the one doing the typing or speaking; the uninvolved party. We, on the other hand are the copyright holders.

What is your personal interest in our programme? Are you a current or former member, or supporter of the telecast or subscriber to The Plain Truth magazine or any Ambassador press publications by Herbert and Garner Ted Armstrong? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.123.128.179 (talk) 04:19, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If the typist is typing on your behalf, they are involved. If you prefer, I can refer this matter over to the conflict of interest noticeboard or, given your prior track record, the incidents noticeboard for administrators.

I have no personal interest in the programs whatsoever. That is why I have no qualms acting in an administrative capacity as necessary on this article, including reverting the deletion of material that is done in a manner inconsistent with Wikipedia policy. —C.Fred (talk) 14:50, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You've deleted material on this page and claimed a .gov website reference is not an acceptable source. Be our guest as we would love to have anyone other that you and your good pap Barek take at look at your long personal disruptive editing to this article. Your long history combined smacks of vandalism.

Please refer the matter for review. A sourced White House State dinner given by President Carter for Sadat should never have been vandalized and removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FastNLoud (talk • contribs) 19:32, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And since you claim to have no qualms about acting in an admin capacity on this, enforce Wikipedia rules on blatant copyright and trademark violations. Edit the infringing Assange article YOURSELF. Remove all mentions of the World Tomorrow from the Assange article, including the article heading, title card, and IMDb link, (which your pal Barek claims to be an invalid source). Prove you're not personally biased, C.Fred by making these proper true and accurate edits.

@FastNLoud: What copyvio? The title card is properly listed as non-free content, noting the source where we obtained the information. The IMDB link is in order. I do not see any violation of Wikipedia's copyright policies. —C.Fred (talk) 19:49, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As intelligent as you portend to be, now you claim ignorance. The Assange show never aired in any market as the world tomorrow. It aired as the Julian Assange show. So, the wiki article title is wrong AND infringing on our copyright and trademark. Assange changed his planned name prior to airing any episodes because he was not aware of our program with the same title. It called trademark and copyright violation. Are there two wiki article for Coke, Walmart or Seinfield, 60 minutes, American Idol.

To create an article and pretend it aired under a name that it did not air under, smacks of ignorance. Others would say it's being a stupid fucking retard. Now, escalate this bullshit — Preceding unsigned comment added by FastNLoud (talk • contribs) 20:25, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that certainly clarified my next step. FastNLoud blocked for persistent personal attacks and for apparent abuse of multiple accounts. —C.Fred (talk) 20:36, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your question about the photo of me used on Wiki's Jeffrey Robinson page

Dear C Fred, I appreciate your continued help with the vandalism on the page about me, but I don't understand your concerns about the photo of me on that page. It was taken by photographer Daniella Zalcman specifically for public use and distribution. You are more than welcome to check with her via the contact link on her website which you'll find by Googling her name. (I don't want to list it here for obvious reasons.) There is absolutely no copyright violation in the public use of this photo. It was taken for expressly this purpose. What's more, and for what it's worth, she happens to be my daughter-in-law. Again, you have been very kind in defending the entry against sustained vandalism, but I would object very strongly to any questions about a copyright violation in the use of this photo. Many thanks and best regards/ JR SJR524 (talk) 11:54, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@SJR524: I don't think she wants to answer email from every user who looks at the picture and wonders about the license status. Either she can email the Commons directly to confirm her donation of the picture, or she can post the picture somewhere that it's clearly stated to be under a free license. By the way, free for Wikipedia purposes means free for any reuse, including commercial reuse. —C.Fred (talk) 11:56, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, and thank you for that. Trust me, if you ask via her contact/webpage, she assures me that she will answer you. The photo has been widely used on websites, with press releases and on book jackets. It is freely available on Google, because it was taken for that purpose. She has just emailed this: "You are welcome to use any photos I have taken of you in any way you choose, digitally or in print, in perpetuity. Daniella Zalcman" Again, if you check with her she will confirm this. Thank you for your help./ JRSJR524 (talk) 12:15, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@SJR524: For record-keeping purposes, she needs to email that directly to Wikimedia Commons. Could you have her email that to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org and note that it relates specifically to File:Jeffrey Robinson.jpg? Thank you. —C.Fred (talk) 15:00, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

C. Fred - I fail to understand why this is suddenly an issue. The photo has been widely circulated for free public use for several years. It definitely and obviously meets Wiki's criteria. That said, she will do it. Thank you for your help, especially where the more serious issue of vandalism has occurred/ JRSJR524 (talk) 15:11, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@SJR524: It would have been an issue; it just now got detected. Also, NFCC and licensing rules have gotten more stringent over time. —C.Fred (talk) 15:50, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, It's not a problem. I simply didn't understand, and appreciate both your explanation and help. Dani will send that email sooner rather than later. Please let me know, if you don't mind, that you've seen her email and the issue is now cleared up. Again, thank you. I wish you well/ JR SJR524 (talk) 15:57, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@SJR524: I won't see the email directly; access to that is limited to a select group of administrators, to protect personal information. They'll then note that they've verified the release. I have left a message for the Commons administrators that I've spoken with you and you're having her send the email, so they should be on the lookout for it.

(Wikimedia Commons has its own separate administrators and policies, but it hosts free images used on all Wikipedia sites, including English Wikipedia. I'm an admin here but not Commons, so there are tools that I have available to me here that I don't there.) —C.Fred (talk) 16:47, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. And thanks again/ JRSJR524 (talk) 17:17, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I thought you'd like to know this. I saw Dani the other night, she's exhibiting at Photoville (huge show under the Brooklyn Bridge) and mentioned your concerns about the photo. She will send the letter as soon as she's got a free moment (it's hectic there) but said she was happy to do it because photographers' work gets ripped off all the time and Wikipedia is one of the very few sites that does what it can to protect their copyright. Kudos to Wiki. Cheers/ JRSJR524 (talk) 10:41, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

your block of 24.142.195.227

User:74.218.182.50 is yet another sock restoring this material. Meters (talk) 04:21, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Meters: Alas, I'm not surprised. There's been a pattern of IP hopping by this user. —C.Fred (talk) 11:42, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. East to spot socks IP hopping by users who feign consensus of support of disruptive edits and then carry on one sided conversations between their main user ID, and their socks. ou81 —Preceding undated comment added 13:45, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Extended confirmed protection

Hello, C.Fred. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.

Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.

In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:

Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.

Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:48, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Christina Aguilera photo

I wanted to change Christina Aguilera's photo but why do you keep changing it? I clearly cited the author and the source so I don't get why. I'm new to this. Charmaine Who (talk) 06:12, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Charmaine Who: hello, just in case C.Fred is busy, here is an answer of sorts. Mostly the only way you can add a photo of a living singer to Wikipedia is if you took the photo yourself with your own camera and you want to license it the way Wikipedia likes. There are some other ways, but just crediting the author is not usually enough. This is different to other websites, so it can be confusing. MPS1992 (talk) 18:17, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Marisela Marrero

To Whom It May Concern:

Why did you delete my page on Dr. Marisela Marrero?

This is being completed as part of an ongoing project at the Harvard Kennedy School. Please undo your most recent action.

Thank you, MTR2017 — Preceding unsigned comment added by MTR2017 (talk • contribs) 23:52, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@MTR2017: The page had sat unimproved for a day. A doctor who has a segment on a local talk show does not make a clear assertion of significance or importance.

If you need the history of your work, I'll be glad to restore it to either Draft: space or your user space. Let me know which you prefer. —C.Fred (talk) 23:53, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have steadily improved the page over the last two days and was continuing to do so today. I need both the user history and a copy of the page.

Thank you for your consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MTR2017 (talk • contribs) 23:55, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@MTR2017: It's restored at Draft:Marisela Marrero. —C.Fred (talk) 23:58, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MTR2017 (talk • contribs) 00:05, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@MTR2017: You're welcome. Also, don't be surprised if you're asked to clarify your relationship with Marrero and whether you have a conflict of interest, since you apparently were on set with her when you took the picture you uploaded today. —C.Fred (talk) 00:06, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. I was not on set with her (and have never been on set...I don't work in tv). I requested a photo from her through NECN and that is what she sent me.