User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 58

Seats 501 and 502

Seat 501 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Seat 502 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

In less than an hour after you revised the IP settings for Seat 501, a new one turned up with the same threats of violence against a user. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ACC Notice - Request 31129

Hi, I was recently going over recent request closures when I noticed that you made a mistake on this request. In this case the appropriate action would have been to Create the account and I have since done this for you. Please read the ACC user guide and/or be more careful when handling future requests as users who make frequent errors may have their ACC access removed at the discretion of a ACC admin. If you have any further questions please feel free to contact me on my talkpage or your favorite ACC admin. Cheers «l| ?romethean ™|l» (talk) 07:40, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: DigOurGame

Re your message: Thanks for the note. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 03:55, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

I noticed your edits to Weather Underground. I don't know if you'd find any of these sources useful, but they exist, [1] and there are many others elsewhere on that page. Many of those sources could be used to research numerous topics in the article. I'm not interested in discussing the subject or even looking at the article, but you might as well know what resources exist. -- Noroton (talk) 20:07, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Was it legal?

Thanks for unblocking me. The sysop decided I was someone else, a banned user who lives in Australia. The sysop blocked me accordingly to his (erred) intuition without a proper IP check. I couldn’t edit Wikipedia for a few days.

It’s a pity that the Wikipedia community does not allow users to prove their innocence, as you can see in this checkuser request about me: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Thantalteresco/Archive (as you can see, in this request there’s a link to my IP in Spain: miles away from Australia!).

My concern is that the blocking sysop has threatened to block me again—that is: blocking a user who is not the banned Australian!—if I dare to edit articles of my interest, as you can see in the sysop’s talk page:

If you are willing to unblock this account then thats your choice, when this editor turns up again in articles on my watchlist I will apply the duck test and re-block because I have no doubt its the Premier.[2]

I would like to know if (1) blocking an innocent user like me was a legal Wikipedia action and, if not, (2) where can I present a complaint about such behavior?

Thantalteresco (talk) 11:09, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Google news

Good idea to create this category, I've just created {{On google news}} to make it easier to use and remove it in articles. Maybe a bot could maintain that, I'll see at WP:BOTREQ. Cheers, Cenarium (talk) 21:10, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's now Template:Linked on Google News which is updated by a bot, and should serve this functionality. Cenarium (talk) 00:21, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Virginia Vallejo

Thanks. That confirms my suspicions. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 21:34, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the information. I acknowledge your assessment of the situation. Juancarlos2004 (talk) 21:51, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser hardblocked IP...

... is screwing up this guy: User talk:Jamief00. I have no idea if this is the person whom the block was intended to stop or not, but since you blocked the IP, you probably know much more than I. Is there anyway you could investigate and either decline his request or offer IPBE if needed. Thanks a bunch! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Changed block settings on TreadingWater?

May I ask why you changed the block settings from "Indefinite" to "3 months"? He's still abusively socking, even after the original account was blocked. I'm not sure what the protocol for blocking abusive sockpuppeteers is, but if ever a master account should be indef-ed, I think this guy is it. Unitanode 21:48, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, Fred. Thanks for your quick reply. I'm sure you probably have my talkpage watchlisted now, but I just wanted to let you know I had replied there, offered a few of my thoughts, and asked one further question. Unitanode 22:14, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Possible another one at List of generations; [3], 4.243.46.88 (talk • contribs • info • WHOIS). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Assistance may be futile

As much as I would like to help an individual editor learn how to use Wikipedia, I do not think I have the expertise or experience to deal with the issues now under discussion among the involved named editors. Flowanda | Talk 03:52, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Qainfotech unblock note on my talk page

Really? None of that is reflected on the COI editor's talk page! --Orange Mike | Talk 12:59, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You need to do the steps at User talk:Qainfotech. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:12, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re Desiphral

Thanks for your note. My concerns were:

Desiphral admitted that his account has been used, with his knowledge, by other editors (from the same computer, so I'm not sure Checkuser would be especially helpful).[4]
The 'Desiphral' account has been touted on elance, bidding for a job to create an article that the employer has already acknowledged was previously deleted under CSD A7.[5]
The user seemed to be unwilling to acknowledge either of the above as a problem

I have some doubts about your decision to unblock, both because I think it sets an unfortunate example to other editors and I have little trust in the editor's word, given their previous actions (their quashing of this issue when it was raised on their 'home' wiki being another example). I believe you should have raised this in the AN thread where it was being discussed (and where there appears to be no consensus for an unblock) rather than acting unilaterally on such an important matter. However, what's done is done, and I have no intention of reversing your action. I appreciate that you'll be keeping a close eye on their edits, as will I, and I will reblock at the first sign of anything suspicious.

All the best, EyeSerene^talk 07:46, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I've noted the unblock on the above AN thread. EyeSerene^talk 07:51, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for a template

Hey, there. I notice you and LouriePieterse both left very similar messages on User talk:Thatcher ([6] and [7]), and I'm just wondering if you used a template, or if you could tell me where it came from otherwise. I'd like to make a few minor tweaks to the message if that's possible. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:35, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just copy and paste, but feel free to copy and paste into a template, say Template:Range Block Inquiry. Fred Talk 23:38, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. No idea if it'll see regular use, but there's no harm setting something up I suppose. Thanks. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:59, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

re TGUK

I will defer to your judgment on this. What you have proposed seems sound. Cirt (talk) 22:01, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Homewood Health Centre

Thanks very much for your help with this user; I don't think there's any need to trouble yourself e-mailing me their new username, because I'll be watching the article. My assessment is that the person/organization wants to do the right thing and just didn't know what it was or how to go about it, so your having provided them with information and counseling was definitely the best thing to do. If there's anything further that you think I should do in connection with this, I'm at your service. Accounting4Taste:talk 00:23, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Self-published sources

As you were involved in the original Waldorf education arbitration, I wonder if you'd be able to weigh in on the question of what a "self-published source" is for this group of articles. What the question appears to come down to is this: is an academic researcher's work, published by mainstream publishers, considered self-published in this context due to that person once having contributed to founding a Waldorf school. (Referring to WP:RS hasn't worked, as 'self-published' isn't clearly defined there either, and in any case the question is what it means for this article.) Thanks in advance for any light you can shed. A word now may save a thousand later. hgilbert (talk) 17:11, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Others have helped; seems to be sorting itself out. Best wishes. hgilbert (talk) 18:21, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Fred Bauder. You have new messages at Smartse's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I replied again: Thanks Smartse (talk) 02:16, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Starwood Festival

Dear Fred, Long time no talk.

I am hoping you can help me avoid getting into the same bind I was in before concerning Kathryn NicDhàna. I believe I have been following the advice I have been given by you, Thatcher and Revolving Bugbear, and others, that I am (as you said) "welcome to edit any article, including articles about associates, provided you cite reliable sources. It is best to not rely on personal knowledge."

I do not believe I have edited anything controversial. I have made quite limited edits to such articles as Starwood Festival, mostly adding citations and fixing links (and the odd revert of vandalism). I have not had an objection of any sort to an edit in a very long time. But suddenly, I am getting the old treatment from Kathryn, who is saying I should not be editing this article at all, and calling a simple mention of the Nemeton set up at Brushwood Folklore Center in the Nemeton article "astroturfing". I deleted a few nearly two-year old tags from the Starwood Festival article, and she returned them, adding an "advert" tag with no explanation of what suddenly made the article sound like an advertisment. To me, it seems to state facts without value judgments, and the lists in the article (which have had very few additions, and include only names that are notable enough to have their own articles) are comparable to lists on dozens of other articles about festivals. I have supplied lists of examples of this to the talk page twice.

I really don't want to be drawn into a rehash of the same old arguments. These issues should have been considered settled long ago. I am not adding external links to any website I am connected to, and I am supplying third-party citations to my edits. I am not editing only articles I am connected to, but edit fairly widely and responsibly. I think I am a valuable Wikipedia editor, and have both created and edited many articles that made a real contribution. But I need to be allowed to do so without another repeat performance of harassment; and that's what I consider accusations that I have no right to edit articles that arbitrations and arbitrators have said I can edit. To me, her latest addition to Starwood Festival is an invitation, or even an incitement, for editors to nominate the article for speedy deletion.

Please give me your thoughts on this. I know you don't want to see this become another big fight. I just want to be able to edit responsibly without being drawn into another contentious interplay.

I've also asked revolving Bugbear to comment on this. Thank you. Rosencomet (talk) 18:18, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Wars is out of line - POV fork

You were out of line in re-creating the redirect to American Indian Wars into a separate article in its own right; did you not see the edit history? See Talk:American Indian Wars for the name debate and the why and wherefore; you've also done the usual cliche/myopic view of the Indian Wars as only being the "Hollywood" ones of the Plains and Southwest; the Pacific Northwest Yakima and Cayuse Wars and those in California also qualify as within the purview of American Indian Wars. The simple thing to do here is to just revert all your changes, right back to the redirect, which I may yet do, or someone will, as what you've done is create a Wikipedia:POV fork.Skookum1 (talk) 13:35, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Read these:

There are, as I recall, also discussions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America ({{NorthAmNative}}). Please don't be a nuisance and do an edit war over this; the article you think needs creating already exists.Skookum1 (talk) 14:22, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with you, but will carefully read all prior discussions. I remain interested in learning in what respect Indian Wars is a POV fork. Fred Talk 14:56, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's fairly clear if you'd just read American Indian Wars, and the links above, and also read Wars of the indigenous peoples of North America. Experienced editors in {{NorthAmNative}} and [[tl|MILHIST}} also disagree with your one-man campaign to create a parallel article. As Seven of Nine says in ST:Voyager, "you will fail".Skookum1 (talk) 15:12, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Fred

If anyone can bring a user up to snuff, it's you. Thanks for letting me know and feel free to do so again in the future if a similar situation arises. Regards, --PMDrive1061 (talk) 23:56, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bauder please contact

Dear Mr. Bauder I hope I can get in touch with you this way. Please contact me on jorgendr@hotmail.com. I am a journalist in Denmark, and need to ask you about a matter concerning af thirds person allegedly blocked from Wikipedia. Yours Jorgen Dragsdahl —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.62.7.42 (talk) 20:28, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Protection

At the request of user:Tony Sidaway I unprotected Talk:David Armstrong-Jones, Viscount Linley, which you'd semi-protected in May 2008. I should have asked you first, and now I see there's a thread at WP:AN#Proposed unprotection of some contentious articles - it turns out that TS is seekin gunprotection of many pages. In any case, feel free to reprotect the page. I'll also watch it closely and reprotect if the problems recur. Will Beback talk 20:40, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Antonbharkamsan

This user is requesting unblocking; you created an account for them on August 30. His IP is in a hard rangeblock (Scibaby). If you feel comfortable with it you might want to grant WP:IPBE. Mango juice^talk 19:59, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

No prob at all, Fred. Thanks for lettinng me know. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 14:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

palomaben, previously crmmetrix

I assume this individual (if it is an individual and not multiple people behind one account) will refrain from editing on their conflict of interest? Cirt (talk) 18:45, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay so you will keep an eye on the account's activity? Cirt (talk) 19:14, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay thanks, no worries, just asking. Cirt (talk) 19:18, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

robotics design

Dear Fred, I am a new editor, but have read all the Wikipedia guidelines for new posts (some twice), but still please be patient with me if i am not on your level of understanding. I tried to add "Robotics Design" to the list of Robotics companies, and it was removed. I have also been trying to create several pages such as "ANAT technology " a technology which allows the creeation of modular robots that can shift thier shapes, but it was contested for lack of notability (?) and then deleted for being an advertisement by an admin named Fred, although no reason was provided to me for deletion, though i asked. Please help me out here, ive been doing alot of work on this, and i really think people would be interested to know about this technology. My main source for info is roboticsdesign.qc.ca, and i am finding more press releases by the day, although linking everyone is proving quite time consuming. Maybe its might have sounded like an ad to the volunteer editor, i dont think so, but regardless i find no logic in removing them from the list of robotics companies. Please tell me what to do, and ill be sure to do it. Thank you for your understanding Canadiansteve (talk) 23:49, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Robotics Design

Yes Fred i understand you don't want companies spamming and have read those guidelines, i wrote the page with students from the ETS university who study two ANAT robots in the mechanical engineering course and this is being written for infomational purposes, not advertising. I don't want to sound rude, but i am well aware of the guidelines, and to be perfectly honest, we copied the design for the [irobot] page to avoid any issues like the ones we are experienceing. The university student began giving up when we were bombarded with warnings from wikipedia, and now have all left after i had to fight with a couple admin as to why this wasn't just a great big ad scheme, so now yes, i am all alone and you can throw those COI warnings around all you want, (one promised to be back tomorrow) but regardless this is relevant information, and i am doing my very best to write from the most neutral point of view possible, so work with me a bit please. As a matter of fact, making an ad on wikipedia would end up being detrimental to the company, because it is an insult to what wikipedia stands for, and i just wanna follow the rules and make a good legitimate article for the site. Everone keeps sending me links to guidelines, but not telling what exactly is wrong with what im doing, so if i really am violating the rules, tell me, but if not, help me put this article on wikipedia. Even the "ANAT technology" page was deleted as being an ad, and i didnt mention any products whatsover, except a prototype walking robot that the only existing model is owned by ETS university. Please help me, im really tring to do this the right way and i dont know why i keep hitting a wall. Thank you for your understanding Canadiansteve (talk) 00:07, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Robotics design

Sorry to fill up your talk page, but i really dont want to fight wikipedia admin an more, so do you think it would be better for me just to request the article be written? That is basically what i did with the university students, although no internet was involved. I am worried that itll be requested and never be made, or the author won't understand what it is all about, as a certian level of expertise in robotics is required to write about it. Help me out here, this page should have been done a long time ago. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Canadiansteve (talk • contribs) 00:29, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jds

Based on editing and behavior, he was the same user as Jsmith 51389 (talk · contribs). I blocked that account so he couldn't use it to sock again. Blueboy 96 23:20, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am JDS. I am _not_ the same user as Jsmith51389. I initially left a message on BlueBoy96's talk page and got no response. A week later, I left a message for unblock-en-l in which I carefully explained that JDS is not JBS, and that my account should be unblocked. JBS is my brother. He has a history of sockpuppeting, whereas I have none. It is true that some of our editorial interests overlap, but our behaviours are quite different. I understand basic netiquette and believe that all change can be accomplished by honestly and openly using available channels. Blueboy96 did the right thing in eliminating sockpuppets which belong to my brother, but went too far in blocking an unrelated account which hadn't been used for more than a year and had no flames associated with it. Please unblock the account. I am available at hatwhite.com if you have any questions.

203.177.74.139

Hello Fred. I've been looking at the unblock request for 203.177.74.139 [8] for a while now. Though it has ports open I believe this is probably a closed proxy, restricted by ACL in some way, and therefore not available to our regular vandals. However your recent unblock and re-block makes me hesitate. I wonder if you could take another look, perhaps with checkuser, or explain what made you re-block. It seems to be part of a rotation between 203.177.74.135 - 203.177.74.141. Thanks. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 09:36, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Email

There's some emails for you on the checkuser list. Thanks. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:28, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nareg510

This unilaterally unblocking of a long term problem user is beyond belief. He has been community banned. Also see user:Baboon, Azerbaboon and the e/s of this recent edit which resulted in a one year block (see the IP talk page).

It is great that he is wanting to turn a new leaf, but this type of unban isnt how to regain the trust of the community. Am I missing something? John Vandenberg ^(chat) 11:05, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I second this. I find it utterly incredible that Ararat Arev (or one of his many, many socks) could have been unbanned without any consultation. --Folantin (talk) 17:00, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had seen this comment by Fred Bauder about the Nareg510 unblock. Nareg10 himself does not seem to have messed up on 19 September, since his unblock. Here are Nareg510's contributions. Does anyone think the IP cited above, 216.165.33.9 is the same person as Nareg510? The IP has not reformed, but could be a different person. Convincing Ararat arev to behave would be a worthwhile goal, if it could be done. I did not notice any on-wiki conversations between Fred and Nareg510; there must have been another means of communication. EdJohnston (talk) 17:31, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conversations were on the unblock-en-l mailing list. Fred Talk 17:50, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that this was a honest mistake on Fred Bauder's part, and that the sock is going to be re-blocked. --dab (𒁳) 17:33, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'll second that and hope Fred undoes this honest mistake and reblocks. Ararat has already treated himself to at least 278 "new starts" [9]. --Folantin (talk) 17:44, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see how he does first. If he's finally ready to edit constructively, it doesn't matter how many socks he's had in the past. Fred Talk 17:50, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you should have made this decision without consultation (and off-wiki). This guy has a long history of tendentious editing and abusing other editors and admins.--Folantin (talk) 17:57, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fred, can you provide a link to the unblock-en-l discussion so those who have access can look at it? EdJohnston (talk) 19:01, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Everyone, It's Nareg510. I accept that I was blocked for a bit for a mistake in my editing, but I am not a sock puppet. I sincerely am not a sock puppet. All your concerns are much appreciated and observed, and if I was a sock puppet, I wouldd just create another user name instead of just keeping this one, but I don't want to do that. I appreciate the Wikipedia community's concern, which is what makes this website awesome, but I assure everyone, I am NOT a sock puppet, so please stop calling me one. Thanks. Nareg510 (talk) 13:10, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocking of Tannim1

If I may ask, where did this "extensive discussion" take place, and why was an indef-blocked sock-master allowed to return in such a manner? I was under the impression that such people had to make a request for an unblock, which is then subject to community discussion, i.e. WP:AN or WP:AN/I. The contribs of since this unblock show this person pretty much picking up right where they left off; argumentative, pushing a minority point-of-view in a variety of articles, using non-WP:RS like Pajamas Media as sources. Tarc (talk) 12:48, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion with Tannim1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was on the mailing list unblock-en-l. I wouldn't call him a sock-master; his old account was blocked quite a while ago and he apparently thought things had cooled off, and he could just create an account. He has been counseled at length regarding appropriate editing, but needs help in locating reliable sources and appropriately integrating information into articles. If, after a fair trial, he is not able to edit, then he should be reblocked. Essentially, he is on probation. Please don't simply reblock him without giving him a chance. Fred Talk 13:02, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice

Hello, Fred Bauder. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Unban of user Ararat arev (talk · contribs). Thank you.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 19:57, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

re Resdat

[10] versus [11] = seems like no matter what the name on the account, the single purpose is the same, namely Wikipedia:Vanispamcruftisement... Cirt (talk) 21:44, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Olivia de Havilland

Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:57, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again, Fred.

Good luck on the counseling and thanks for letting me know. Best, --PMDrive1061 (talk) 19:16, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tannim1 and 2

Sorry but this guy is picking up exactly what he's left off. I brought it to AN/I, as he's gonna need some sorta ban on new account creation from wherever his IP is, I assume. Tarc (talk) 23:27, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would have been more patient with him, but now he's evading blocks. Fred Talk 23:55, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Book

Hello, I saw by browsing through the contributions page for North Korea that you were the one who added Norbert Vollertsen's book to the list of further reading. I have been unable to locate this book anywhere. Do you have a copy or can you tell me where I could get a copy? Thank you! wookiekiller626 @ yahoo . com

The Second Coming of The Cookie Monster has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Nareg510 revisited

Could you delete the above section regarding Nareg510? AFAIK, unblock-en-l is a private list and shouldn't be posted publicly. I would do it myself but it's more polite to ask, I think! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 21:14, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re:IP block exemption

Thanks a lot for the very prompt help and kind understanding. I will continue to serve the wikipedia more passionately than before. Yes, I will use this right responsilibily and cautiously. -- Tinu Cherian - 03:53, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Mein Kampf Edits

The edits in Mein Kampf are perfectly valid and the Ford translation IS a new translation and it IS more accurate. This is a fact which is documented in the book MK A Translation Controversy. Download a copy of the book(it is free) and see for yourself if you are unsure. Not one single reputable historian has stepped forward to criticize anything in the new translation. The only person who is screaming is Bytwerk who is not exactly reputable which can be seen from his postings. He regularly makes the same two claims over and over even after he has been proven to be incorrect on amazon. If the Ford translation is not what it claims to be, then let's hear from some real historians? No? Then until we have a concensus the information should stay. If you believe the wording is too promotional then by all means edit those parts or tone them down, but it is dowright dishonest to completely remove all references to a valid translation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Historyprof101 (talk • contribs) 01:09, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We are simply following Wikipedia policy, which requires material included in Wikipedia be derived from Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Fred Talk 02:03, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More libel in Jvmphoto talk

Since you have started removing libel from the talk history, you might want to consider removing the content of one of the earliest revisions [[12]] on the page. --MediaMangler (talk) 03:59, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

Do you wish to have your talk page semi-protected due to excessive IP vandalism, or are you happy for it to remain unprotected. Discussion at WP:ANI#IP Vandalism. Mjroots (talk) 09:18, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you don't mind that I requested for semi protection for your user talk. Like Stifle said: I'd normally leave admins protect their own pages, but I found the page to be under pretty heavy vandalism from various IP-adresses. Ilyushka88 talk 12:41, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

79.170.40.31

Hi Fred. FYI. I saw you recently reply to an unblock request on unlock-en-l for 79.170.40.31. This is an IP I've dealt with before, and I've now allowed account creation[13], as I intended to in the first place. I don't know if you want to tell them; I am not currently near email. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 10:22, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Fred Bauder's Day!

User:Fred Bauder has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian,
and therefore, I've officially declared today as Fred Bauder's day!
For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian,
enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Fred Bauder!

Peace,
Rlevse
00:04, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:04, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of User:Ned Scott/Wikinfo

User:Ned Scott/Wikinfo, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Ned Scott/Wikinfo and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Ned Scott/Wikinfo during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Sandstein 19:04, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]