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!

That "Persistent" Vengaboys Museum

That Vengaboys Museum appears to be Persistent... Keep a eye on the official Vengaboys wiki or Protect it and force Vengaboys Themselves to provide their ID if they want to add any new Edits to their Wiki...

First a weird page came up saying the Museum was under attack, now it has returned to normal... They must be planning something big because this recently popped up on google if you do a search for Vengaboys Museum and you check out their official facebook page and you see a ominous message about their museum creating some kind of "global domination"...

Image and Ominous Message — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.130.80.182 (talk) 22:06, 14 October 2017‎ (UTC)[reply]

Hello my Canadian brother

See [1]. I see you went to UNC. A lot of my family went to Duke. Doug Weller talk 18:54, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop deleting my edit. I’m just correcting the wording. The reference is already there. They just left out the word Reserve.

Please stop deleting my edit. I’m just correcting the wording. The reference is already there. They just left out the word Reserve. IShoot556 (talk) 01:04, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reply at your talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 01:08, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sock

Fred, Vbnmj is a sock of Nsmutte. Please block the account, see the SPI if needed. Thanks. Home Lander (talk) 02:42, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Home Lander: Yeah, it just took me a bit to spot the pattern. Blocked. —C.Fred (talk) 02:49, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Home Lander (talk) 02:51, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Northwell Health

Think a sock is active at Northwell Health where you just were at - apparently they have an issue with the COI tag. Home Lander (talk) 02:58, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Home Lander: I don't see who it's an obvious sock of, but it feels like some pretty WP:POINTy editing, if it isn't pure vandalism. —C.Fred (talk) 03:01, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, I see it now. Two new accounts in one day. —C.Fred (talk) 03:02, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I mass-reverted the second account's edits to multiple pages, all were removing COI tags. Home Lander (talk) 03:04, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested power pose edits

I requested 3 edits. You refused them based on a single reference to a blog, what about the other changes? The reference to the blog itself s a minor point, the reference itself was to a blog that was already cited by the article you might note if you took the time. My text that referred to the blog states its existence, which is verifiable, rather than the veracity of its content, either way, that part need not be included. All other edits cite academic sources. Whats your excuse for not including those? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Socialpsychfollower (talk • contribs) 18:44, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Socialpsychfollower: If you twist a reference from a reliable source by adding what a blog says, it stands to reason that the other changes aren't any better. —C.Fred (talk) 18:47, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You may note that this was not one of my requested edits. Don't include that point if you think its not accurate, this is your job as an administrator. This point is not relevant to the merit of the requested edits. Do you have any actual objections to them? If they are sound shouldn't you allow them? Sorry but wikipedia is starting to look like a massive waste of time for this contributor. Socialpsychfollower 18:52, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Socialpsychfollower: You had requested "including the content of some of my recent edits", so I looked a took at the most recent. —C.Fred (talk) 18:54, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@C.Fred:Oh. Could you look to the next sentence of the edit request page and look at those before rejecting my edit requests. They are numbered 1. 2. 3. Please let me know if you have any further troubleSocialpsychfollower 19:03, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]