User talk:C.Fred

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!

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 .

Re: recent edit war between Luganchanka and IP

I don’t see any point in commenting on the various other aspects of the matter, but here’s my two cents on the only part(s) of it that I care about:

Both editors were more or less equally to blame for the edit war.
IP was apparently correct about the content, but that doesn’t excuse the 3RR violation, which was not their first.
This particular IP has a rather extensive contribution history (794 at last check). Given their frequent invocations of the WP namespace contrary to WP:CRYPTIC, they should have been treated as an experienced editor.

I had previously encountered this IP in a situation where they ended up violating 3RR. I decided not to report them, partly due to not feeling confrontational and partly because I had made two small mistakes relative to the ideal of the textbook parfait WikiKnight (slightly peeved edit summary and then RVing a 3RR violation with Twinkle and marking it minor — in my defense I hadn’t slept the whole night) and had a feeling IP would engage in whataboutism, as they indeed would later do. Instead I invoked WP:GS/RUSUKR to get the page ECPed so a talk page consensus could be reached, which I stepped back from once I saw that IP was probably correct on the content (although this only became clear on close examination).

As far as I’m concerned, this IP has shown a pattern of bad acts in their RUSUKR edits through their repeated flagrant (and almost certainly wanton, given that they act and talk like an experienced editor) disrespect for Wikipedia’s editing norms, habitual and egregious violations of WP:NPA in nearly every contentious edit summary in addition to their talk pages comments, as well as other bad behavior. For instance, this wanton and unchallenged violation of WP:TALKO, apart from a less unambiguously unjustifiable mess of mutual reversions between them and a mostly retired editor who appears to hail from the Global South at the revision history of Talk:Sergey Lavrov.

I don’t feel like making a stink about it for now but sooner or later if they keep it up and I’m not busy with Real Life I will. There’s already a strong ANI case but I’m not feeling combative at the moment. I can respect IP’s active sense of patriotism (they geolocate to Kyiv City or Vyshhorod) but their behavior on WP is completely intolerable.

In any event…

I have to give Volunteer Marek the benefit of the doubt but had I been him, I would have reported both editors. And regardless of any foibles and biases they might have, Luganchanka does not appear to have (that I’m aware of after a peek at contri history) a significant history of deliberate abuse of the process and habitual incivility the way IP does.

Again, just my two cents. I could be biased due to having been on the receiving end of IP’s name-calling and axe-grinding.

RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 07:35, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sholom Dovber Schneersohn

Thank you very much for the reversion. It has been years since I seriously edited on English Wikipedia, but is there any possibility of protecting the article? I don't remember the procedure and I'm too lazy and preoccupied to find out. They've been attempting to delete that part for years. All Chabad articles are subject to intense PR by users affiliated with the sect. I also must emphasize it is not a "theory": Please note the sources on the TP. No scholar (as opposed to Chabad mouthpiece) contests that it is SD Schneersohn who was treated by Steckel and Freud. AddMore-III (talk) 10:25, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why was my edit on XXXTentacion reverted?

Answer please. ErceÇamurOfficial (talk) 11:08, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ErceÇamurOfficial "For the other rapper, see DMX" is not a useful hatnote. There are more than two rappers, unlike what your hatnote implies, and nothing in the intro of the DMX article suggests that he was ever known as X. —C.Fred (talk) 11:36, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Study Invitation

Hey @C.Fred, thanks for patrolling edits and reverting vandalism! I wonder if you are interested in our ongoing study for patrollers. The study aims to evaluate AI models that power recent change filters, Huggle, SWViewer, and many other anti-vandal tools. Your feedback can be really helpful! If you're interested, please check out our recruitment page for more information. Thank you for your consideration! Tzusheng (talk) 02:57, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – July 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2023).

Administrator changes

Novem Linguae

Bureaucrat changes

MBisanz

Guideline and policy news

Contributions to the English Wikipedia are now released under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License (CC BY-SA 4.0) license instead of CC BY-SA 3.0. Contributions are still also released under the GFDL license.

Technical news

Discussion is open regarding a proposed global policy regarding third-party resources. Third-party resources are computer resources that reside outside of Wikimedia production websites.

Arbitration

Two arbitration cases are currently open. Proposed decisions are expected 5 July 2023 for the Scottywong case and 9 July 2023 for the AlisonW case.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:57, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rathod Sravan

Why delete request this article. Rathod Sravan is very famous in local area. Sachin96700 (talk) 03:23, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]