User talk:C.Fred

Cite my information then, cause your wrong. Quit deleting my information that's real disrespectful. My information was golden so go cite it for me thankyou

Your dachshund userbox

Hi, I just wanted to say that I've never laughed at a userbox before but, the one you've for the dachshund really made me chuckle. Very subtle.. It's great. You totally nailed that one. :) dsprc ^[talk] 05:00, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Stole it for my userpage, must get a pic of my dog. Hope you don't mind. Dougweller (talk) 21:10, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

{{subst:Dougweller}} Go right ahead; I don't mind at all. Nor is the pic one of my dog; I'm using free clip art. I should swap the pic on my userpage out with a pic of my dog, though. Hrm... —C.Fred (talk) 01:59, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Paul Delima Coffee

Hi C.Fred. I added a page for Paul Delima Coffee. We are a company in New York that was founded by a woman in 1906, incorporated in 1916 and has been in operation since then. I'd like to add a page on Wikipedia for this. A company founded by a woman, incorporated by her son and that has existed since 1916 is quite a feat in an of itself. I think the documentation of the history that we share here especially in Central New York is wonderful. Theodore Roosevelt once wrote a letter stating how he appreciated our efforts. Please let me know how we can become a permanent page on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.90.72.18 (talk) 14:33, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

@72.90.72.18: Nearly 100 years of existence does not make it a notable company directly, although it stands to reason that the company will have gotten enough coverage in reliable sources in that time to meet the guidelines of WP:CORP and WP:GNG. The article that was created last year did not meet those criteria; that's why it was deleted. —C.Fred (talk) 18:28, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Should I (or you) unblock?

After I saw the sock puppetry I blocked[1] for 72 hours, then noticed your warning. I've asked MaterialScientist but he hasn't responded and forgot to ask your advice? Unblock now he's served his 24 hours and hope he'll be good? Dougweller (talk) 20:51, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

@Dougweller: I didn't extend the block because s/he hadn't repeated the sockpuppetry. It's certainly within reason for you to roll your own block extension back to just 24 hours (or unblock if s/he's reached time served). —C.Fred (talk) 20:54, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

I've rolled it back to 3 hours, which is probably an extension of about 2 1/2 hours. Dougweller (talk) 21:01, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, that was a mistake. He carried on with the same edits, just a different article. He was lucky, he's only been given a 1 week block. I'd have indeff'd him as obviously WP:NOTHERE. Dougweller (talk) 19:07, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Sahyounie

here's the proof that's there's no i please look at the picture thank you https://twitter.com/iAdore_Luke/status/434054829015445504 (Its sahyoune not sahyounie (talk) 03:28, 24 June 2014 (UTC)).

@Its sahyoune not sahyounie: Not only is there no way to prove the reliability of that image, but IDs and primary sources are not permitted per WP:BLPPRIMARY. —C.Fred (talk) 03:30, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

How much time?

Hi C.Fred, Is there a time frame here? I need more time to understand how to post a page here properly.

Sincerely, healingnow4u 06-24-14Healingnow4u (talk) 18:54, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

@Healingnow4u: A time frame for what? Speedy deletion allows for almost immediate deletion, especially in the case of copyright infringements or blatant promotion. —C.Fred (talk) 18:57, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

BNE

Hello C.Fred. I have added further citations to the BNE thread, including one from StreetArtNews, the #1 Urban Art news site, plus a statement from Charity:Water, the 501(c)3 organization in the middle of this scam. I don't understand why the scam controversy is being blocked, especially since it is the defining moment in BNE's career and is 100% legitimate. Banksy said he was used by BNE to scam thousands of people out of hundreds of thousands of dollars. PayPal froze BNE account because they had so many scam complaints. This is a legitimate news story with hundreds of articles written about it online. It is clear that friends of BNE (or BNE himself) are trying to remove the content becuase the scam is being investigated by the authorities,

thx — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sonicyouthbh1 (talk • contribs) 02:14, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. And I have read all the iterations of the various updates to the BNE entry—they are factual and backed up with legitimate citations. I really question why these edits are being removed without care for the facts. Smitrovich (talk) 03:39, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

BNE Scam

I was a victim of BNE's scam as many others were and continue to be. The scam is well documented and like it or not, it's part of BNE's history. The facts of this scam should be added to his wiki page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smitrovich (talk • contribs) 02:58, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

@Smitrovich: In other words, you just admitted you have a conflict of interest with the subject. As a result, you should not be editing his article. You may propose edits at the talk page, but you need to make sure to have strong sources that are independent of the situation. —C.Fred (talk) 03:01, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

The person who created the wiki page and is undoing all the edits is BNE himself. I would say that is a conflict of interest. I am only interested in the facts around the scam being added to BNEs history. One of those facts is that Charity:Water returned the $35,000.00 donation and ordered BNE by legal action to remove all mention of their organization from his websites due to this scam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smitrovich (talk • contribs)

@Smitrovich: Multiple editors have created the edits and undone the page. Are you really asserting that all of them are BNE? —C.Fred (talk) 03:08, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

User "Louiesan" is BNE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smitrovich (talk • contribs) 03:10, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

@Smitrovich: What about the four other editors? —C.Fred (talk) 03:15, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I see several users attempting to add cited facts about the scam to the wiki page, and I see Louiesan undoing them. Smitrovich (talk) 03:21, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

BNE Scam edits

Dear Sir

I hold that the edit I made to replace the 'contested' information is factual and true to the best of my knowledge. I am aware that multiple editors have been involved in contesting the information, just as multiple editors (including myself) have sought to preserve what we believe to be factual and has been widely reported by many websites.

I don't understand why the edits are now being blocked. I understand that in your opinion there is an 'orchestrated effort to post contested information' , but with the organized responses of the counter-editors, is it unreasonable to consider that perhaps there is an equally orchestrated effort to contest the material in question, and that it is perhaps being orchestrated by a party who is not objective? BNE has a history of deleting and blocking messages made by those he has allegedly scammed and, whilst not all these editors are likely to be him, it is highly likely that he is one of the main parties contesting the information here and quite possible that the other editors are affiliates.

Why is one group able to contest the information and another group denied the chance to repeatedly contest that act?

Kind regards Otomo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Otomochaser (talk • contribs) 03:40, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

@Otomochaser: As I noted in the WP:BLPN case about the article, "widely reported by many websites" is not the same thing as getting coverage in reliable sources. The biographies of living persons policy says to err on the side of caution: the more serious a claim, the stronger the sources need to be. For an assertion of running a major scam, the source really needs to be a newspaper or similar publication with a good reputation for fact checking—not somebody's personal blog or a website that posts a disclaimer that its material may not be accurate and it doesn't run corrections.

I also point out that the BLPN case was brought by one of the editors trying to add the material: they invited the scrutiny onto the edits themselves. They should've been prepared for the genie let out of the bottle by the report (or the boomerang effect). —C.Fred (talk) 03:52, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I fail to see how the citations provided do not meet the standards for identifying reliable sources as defined in the link above. Smitrovich (talk) 04:02, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I have not seen the article to which you refer, but I shall check it out. I also understand your position on this as laid out in your message above. I can't argue with it, I get why you needed to remove my edit. I shan't attempt to post the same contested information again, until such time as it can be sourced to a reputable publication at which point I trust it will be allowed to remain. Not that I can repost it anyway, since the page has been put into protection mode. I now understand your reasons for that, however, so thank you for your explanation on this matter.

Kind regards, Otomo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Otomochaser (talk • contribs) 04:05, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I have "no horse in this contest"... did not get "scammed" but what the other edits say is true - if you take the time to search google you will find dozens of articles that speak of the scam. That being said, is there a way to contest your decision and bring in another moderate the dispute? 24.97.4.148 (talk) 19:13, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

what about Complex Magazine as a citation? They are a major news magazine. http://www.complex.com/art-design/2014/03/banksy-bne-collaboration-fake

Hi Fred, Thanks for protecting the page. I just wanted to let you know that the "scam" narrative was originally propagated by the cited website, animalnewyork.com. The very few other blogs that wrote about this simply copy and pasted the Animal story without doing any fact checking. No real media outlet has covered this. BNE worked with Animal in 2009 and had a falling out with them. The person making edits is an employee and founder of animalnewyork.com. The cited article and wiki edits are an attempt to discredit BNE and incite an unwarranted police investigation. These edits and the proganda contained within the 3 online articles written by animalnewyork are harrassment motivated by a personal beef. With kind regards, @Louiesan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Louiesan (talk • contribs) 22:53, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Furthermore, the Complex article sited above was not only a copy and paste of the Animal article, the Animal employee harassing BNE is also a former employee of Complex. Proof here: http://www.complex.com/pop-culture/2010/01/animal-instinct-bucky-turcos-greatest-internet-moments — Preceding unsigned comment added by Louiesan (talk • contribs) 01:18, 27 June 2014 (UTC)