User talk:C.Fred

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Hedgielamar‎[edit]

Hi, I saw your disposition of the ANEW report and wondered what accounts you think Hedgielamar‎ has used to sock with "again".--Bbb23 (talk) 13:01, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

@Bbb23: I apologize for commenting unrequested, but Hedgielamar previously used JMB2019 as a sock after a previous ban for edit warring. You recently banned Patrice Starr and Caprae Lac as sockpuppet accounts, and they had very similar editing patterns to Hedgielamar. Are those accounts not related to Hedgielamar? Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 16:47, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
@Bbb23: Based on behaviour, my assumption was that Patrice Starr and Caprae Lac are both socks of Hedgielamar. I saw the connection between the first two through checkuser, but not to the third. —C.Fred (talk) 19:07, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
I understand the inference. The two accounts I blocked are  Confirmed to each other but  Unrelated to Hedgielamar. Given Hedgielamar's previous socking, had they created additional socks, I would have blocked them indefinitely. Regardless, I think your block of one week was well-deserved.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:03, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
@Bbb23: And now the account EJLevywriter is active again at BLPN. Suggestions on how to handle them? —C.Fred (talk) 01:33, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
The account is  Unrelated to the Patrice Starr socks. It is  Possilikely (a mix between possible and likely)/ Inconclusive to Hedgielamar.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:14, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
@Bbb23: What about the issue of the username, since they are holding themselves out as the subject of the article? They've been pointed in the direction of OTRS and probably haven't had time for a request to go through, though. —C.Fred (talk) 11:44, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
The username issue occurred to me, too, but I personally didn't feel like blocking on that basis. It would be a valid block, though. They can always request an unblock if OTRS confirms.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:12, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
@Bbb23: Yeah, it feels just a little too bite-y to me, especially if they aren't directly editing the article, so that's why I haven't blocked. —C.Fred (talk) 15:19, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Re: Edits to Carolyn Murphy Page[edit]

Hello, I am new to Wiki and have seen you have removed my edits several times with regard to the biography page on Carolyn Murphy. You cited a conflict of interest. Though I am not employed by Carolyn or get paid by her in any way, I do know her. She asked me to return her Wiki page to it's original content before it was trolled by someone who removed it and replaced it with the barebone details that you have put back up.

How does Carolyn get her original bio back up? She wants the accurate full story of her career up there, not a barebones placeholder as appears now. Please advise as to how to move forward.

Thank you Ajsl348 (talk) 16:29, 16 April 2019 (UTC)Ajsl348

(talk page watcher) @Ajsl348: If you know her, you have a conflict of interest. - FlightTime (open channel) 16:33, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
@Ajsl348: Please provide links to reliable sources that have printed the "accurate full story of her career". Then independent editors—editors who, unlike you, have know connection or relationship to Murphy—can expand the article. —C.Fred (talk) 19:50, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Operate my bot[edit]

My new proposed bot (TalkPageArchivingBot) got denied because I’m inexperienced. I’m pretty sure that you are more experienced than me. In this case, you will need to make the request at WP:BRFA. Metric Supporter 89 (talk) 02:29, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Don't ask other editors to do complicated things you don't know how to do or have been prohibited from doing. Please stop making bot requests - it's becoming disruptive. Bots require specific skills and experience that you do not possess. Acroterion (talk) 02:56, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
@MetricSupporter89: Further, what does your new bot do that existing archiving bots don't? As Acroterion noted, bots require knowledge and skills that, to be honest, I haven't picked up yet. I'm sure I could if I had the time, patience, and a good idea for a project, but yet another archiver bot does not seem like a good project. —C.Fred (talk) 04:31, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

iHorror[edit]

The page had sourcing from relibale publications such as Yahoo, Deadline, Canyon News and the Tampa Bay Times. Why did you delete it without even a warning to me?★Trekker (talk) 18:23, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

@*Treker: Because it's the third time the page has been created, and I didn't see anything to boost the claims. —C.Fred (talk) 18:24, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
So reliable sources and coverage means nothing because it was delted before? Did you not even look at the sources that were there? And what exactly about your reasoning makes it ok to just delete somthing before even alerting the creator?★Trekker (talk) 18:26, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
If you had at least said something before I could have put it in one of my sandboxes or a draft. Now it's all just gone in the ether.★Trekker (talk) 18:27, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
@*Treker: Fair point. I've restored it to Draft:IHorror. —C.Fred (talk) 18:31, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks.★Trekker (talk) 18:32, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Question[edit]

Hello C.Fred. The editor who is messing with the Tom Baker article also created this. Now it is mostly messing around but there is also the potential for it to be a BLP violation. Is there a speedy delete tag for something like this? I looked through them wasn't sure if any of them applied. I did think that maybe hoax or test page might work but wasn't sure. I did blank the page as you can see, If doing that is enough then fine but I did want to check with you. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 03:42, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

@MarnetteD: It doesn't specifically fit a CSD criterion. However, you're right: there's a BLP issue, and it's enough to maybe push it to the realm of G10. I've erred on the side of caution and deleted it. —C.Fred (talk) 13:41, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a look C. Much appreciated. MarnetteD|Talk 14:13, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Article about Daniel Strachman[edit]

Thank you for getting in touch with me. I don't understand why my article was deleted and would like to get it back up. I am accomplished financial writer - the author of nine books and hundreds of articles. It seems that there is some sort of mistake. Can you help me. Daniel Strachman (talk) 16:26, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

In addition, my work is cited in a number of places on Wikipedia. It is very confusing to see my page being deleted Daniel Strachman (talk) 16:28, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

@Daniel Strachman: The first problem—though not fatal in and of itself—was the complete lack of sourcing provided in the article. The only things backed up by a source were your alma mater and marriage. The rest of the article was unsourced. One would expect an "accomplished financial writer" to have been written about in reviews or other sources that discuss him at length (note: him and not his works).
The greater problem was the tone. I see the concerns that were raised by other editors, both that the creator of the article had a conflict of interest and that the article felt like a promotional blurb (e.g., book jacket) than an encyclopedia article.
IMHO, if you are a notable person who warrants an article, then an independent editor should be able to write one based on reliable secondary sources that clearly show your significance or importance. The last version of the article lacked independence and was weak in showing significance. —C.Fred (talk) 16:39, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

confused by your comment[edit]

Why is this article appropriate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_D._Schwager

and the one about me not appropriate? I don't understand. I would appreciate some guidance here. 76.233.5.126 (talk) 16:44, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Looking at the deletion discussion, it appears people feel he meets WP:AUTHOR and do not have concerns about the tone. —C.Fred (talk) 16:53, 22 April 2019 (UTC)