User talk:C.Fred

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

P. V. Ramana[edit]

I reverted P.V.Ramana only to referenced information only unlike others who are tending to provide false information. Research well please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pvsaraswathi (talkcontribs) 02:16, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

@Pvsaraswathi: Whether your edit is true or not is not the issue. The main issue is that you've repeatedly made the same edits. The secondary issues are your legal threats and personal attacks. —C.Fred (talk) 02:17, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

First you see who made such personal attacks and then talk sir. I did not start by calling anyone names. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pvsaraswathi (talkcontribs) 02:19, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

@Pvsaraswathi: The edit history of P. V. Ramana suggests otherwise. —C.Fred (talk) 02:21, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry sir please carefully follow news papers in all Indian languages and then carefully look at all the 1 billion people falsifying the truth. These thugs work for politicians. This is a news that is trending now. I am only by myself in the world of false history. Thanks again and good bye and enjoy such people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pvsaraswathi (talkcontribs) 02:23, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Sir, and you are taking sides with this User: Net Neutrality who is the same as User:2602:306:3701:3e20:b55a:44f2:1d2e:5a40 who has been trying to remove referenced information so that their agenda becomes true. Look at that faceless losers names and actions. Have fun with such friends. Thanks and have a wonderful Crest of the year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pvsaraswathi (talkcontribs) 02:28, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

@Pvsaraswathi: I am not opining one way or the other on the content of the article. I cannot get involved in making content-based decisions because I am acting as an administrator in this matter. To that end, I must caution you that referring to other editors as "thugs" or "faceless losers", as you have done above, will be dealt with as a personal attack. —C.Fred (talk) 02:32, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Sir if you are not opining on eway or the other, why are you only blaming me on my talk page that i reverted my article. Have you taken time to see how many times others have reverted my article. I have never put anything is not referenced. That guy threatens me to begin with by saying that the P.V.Ramana wanted to have privacy with his info. Every newspaper has a history and every 1 sec it is trending and this guy threatens me on my talk page. Thanks for being such a wonderful admin. I do not know why i keep wasting my time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pvsaraswathi (talkcontribs) 02:38, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

User is also making legal threats. Mlpearc (open channel) 02:40, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
@Pvsaraswathi: The conduct of others is not the issue here. The issue is your conduct: your violation of WP:3RR, your personal attacks, your legal threats.
The conduct of other users is a separate matter that will be dealt with separately, as warranted by their situations and possibly by different admins. —C.Fred (talk) 02:43, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Sir you have a name, I have a name, but the guy doesn't even have a name his name which is User:Net Neutrality was changed from gibberish just to threaten me. He is telling Net Neutrality while there was nothing but reference stuff and he says P.V.Ramana wanted Privacy. Do you believe in that. You think every thing is a threat. Then what is not a threat. Isn't giving false info or deleting info not a threat in the world of knowledge in this century. Thanks I could not but resist from asking this question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pvsaraswathi (talkcontribs) 02:52, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Sir one more question, that User:Net Neutrality fellow who changed his usernames 4 times at least for that article, has threatened me with "‎(This article needs Neutrality. Wikipedia team will revise shortly, User Pvsaraswathi shall be flagged for posting false and irrelevant information)". Who is he to call me as posting false information when I only referenced the information. Isn't it a personal threat to me. Please in the whole world I am not understanding the rules set by Wikipedia. I do not know if I am wrong or if the world is gone wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pvsaraswathi (talkcontribs) 03:02, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Seriously sir the world is gone wrong and I am sorry for saying so to a person who has threatened me first. And I am sorry to you as well for your understanding. And what kind of threat do you think the User: Net Neutrality made towards me. Is "This article needs Neutrality. Wikipedia team will revise shortly, User Pvsaraswathi shall be flagged for posting false and irrelevant information)" not a legal threat? It is my fault for creating an article and helping the wikipedia grow. I am sorry for that as well. If I missed anymore sorrys, please leave another message on my talk page and I will be more sorry. Thanks. I think I have answered to your question that you posted on my Talk page. Now let me please remove it. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pvsaraswathi (talkcontribs) 03:14, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

@Pvsaraswathi: to clarify your queries, a legal threat is one where someone threatens another user with legal action, for example, by going to the police, or filing a court case, etc. A personal threat includes attacking other users with uncivil language. Both are not allowed on Wikipedia. There is no question about bickering about "who did it first" or "she/he/they did it as well". You don't do it, period. If you find someone else violating this, then contact an admin or post on the admin noticeboard. MikeLynch (talk) 08:07, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

MikeLynch, I have to tell you something and also I am going to reference more authentic information for the article from events that happened few hours back. You removing the information from the article is just same as what the other users have been doing. I have referenced information and did not writeup something by my own. At least C.Fred did not remove the authentic information from the article. The reason that this article was being edited so much is because it was India's first olympic silver medal won by a family that belonged to Region1 which was divided from Region2 on the basis of political drama. The politicians of one region do not Region1 to come to limelight, that is why various people have trolled and removed the information. If you have utilized the same amount of time that you spent deleting and writing comments here researching the subject you would have not removed the information from the article. Here is a latest video link v=2cjUWhfhUgw in which the family of P.V.Ramana is being felicitated in Region1 and the whole family is on the stage and the host is mentioning at min 1:05 on the video that her father belongs to Eluru in West Godavari and mother belongs to Vijayawada both in Region1. If you are not satisfied have a translator do the job for you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pvsaraswathi (talkcontribs) 12:08, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

MikeLynch, How would Mike Tyson of US feel if he were to be told that he belonged to UK and so his laurels? That is how I feel. So my kind request is please do put that P.V.Ramana belonged to West Godavari and his wife belonged to Vijayawada. The article seems to be semi protected by you. You are wasting as much time of your life as I am by removing reference and authentic information. We have to make the world better. Wikipedia has given us an opportunity to be true and unbiased Reporters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pvsaraswathi (talkcontribs) 12:18, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

@C.Fred: I hope you don't mind me continuing the discussion here -- the user has posted pretty much the same on my talk page, and I'd rather not fragment the discussion.
@Pvsaraswathi:: Let me comment on the issues you raised one by one:
  1. To reiterate what C.Fred already said and I mentioned, comments and warnings directed at you were solely about your conduct, and independent of the conduct of any other user. It is expected that you maintain civil and polite discussion irrespective of what anyone else says.
  2. Wikipedia functions on reliable sources, and as such, Youtube videos are not reliable sources, with or without translation.
  3. This particular article on P.V. Ramana is about that person and should be centered on him and not his family or ancestors. The article's claim to notability is based on his achievements as a sportsperson. What would belong to this article is information like his sporting career, his achievements or his trainers (for example). Information about his family is a nice add-on, but is most certainly not the central point of the article. I find it ridiculous to argue about the place of his and his wife's ancestors when the primary topic of the article should be his achievements.
  4. To add to the previous point, just because a certain piece of information exists (in this case, information about his ancestry), it does not mean that it belongs to the article. In the present state the article is in, it does not belong there. MikeLynch (talk) 13:30, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
First, @MikeLynch: I prefer non-fragmented discussions, so I have no objections to you continuing the discussion here.
@Pvsaraswathi: Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate facts. As Mike mentioned above, the article should focus on the person and what makes him notable. For most people, that includes some brief background information. That typically includes date of birth, hometown, and name of his parents. That typically does not include trivia or details about ancestry, unless it is relevant to the article. For example, in most cases, it would not be important to the article to say that John Doe's great-grandmother is Jewish. However, it would be relevant in the context of "John Doe is an American handball player who competes on the Israeli national team. He is eligible for that team because his great-grandmother is Jewish." In that case, the information has direct bearing on something in the article.
The other thing to remember is that information needs to be verifiable. There need to be reliable sources cited to support assertions made in the article. This is important for all articles, but it is critical for biographies of living people. Frankly, sources are even more critical in articles about Indian people because statements about a person's caste, family origin, or even region of origin can be contentious and controversial. WP:BLP is clear that any statement in a biography of a living person that is not supported by a source may be removed from the article.
Finally, because the article is now protected, the way to proceed with any changes is to suggest them on the talk page, provide sources to support the change, and (civilly!) discuss the matter until consensus is reached. If consensus is to add, then the material will be added to he page. —C.Fred (talk) 15:24, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Very "wonderful points" you both have. I wish you put the same points for all articles such as William Shakespeare etc. Who cares about his family history or who his grandpa was or what percentage of some blood he has in him, or who they married or where they lived etc. All that is important about him is that he is a great writer. I have had a lot of fun time with this article. Friends hope you both live to these points in your practices. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pvsaraswathi (talkcontribs) 01:01, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Honorifics not required around Islamic names[edit]

Why you changed the page I edited just now? Rashkehoor (talk) 03:23, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

@Rashkehoor: Because your edits do not comply with the Wikipedia Manual of Style. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Islam-related articles has more information on that, including the sections on Allah and Muhammad. —C.Fred (talk) 16:55, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the intervention[edit]

Thank you for this revert. The user is clearly a vandal-only account, as all they have done is vandalise 4 times on two articles. I have warned them, and pointed out each of their previous 3 vandalism edits, and that if they did it again they would likely to be indef'd. But they must not listen seeing as a 4th has been done. You wouldn't happen to have a long-handled mop that you could surgically place onto that Pavle 123 user? Wes Mouse  19:48, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

@Wesley Mouse: The timing was just close enough that I'm willing to give benefit of the doubt that they hadn't seen the warning. If there's another instance of vandalism now that they've had the chance to see the warning, that'd be different. —C.Fred (talk) 21:04, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
I had given the user the first warning directly after their first edit, which despite treating in good faith, I felt a soft warning would nudge them away from vandalism. After the next 2 vandal edits were made on List of countries in the Eurovision Song Contest, which I gave a more stern warning for. The 4th edit which you reverted was made 2 hours after my stern warning was issued and on the same article. So I think they had seen the warning, but chose to ignore it. Wes Mouse  21:08, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
@Wesley Mouse: You're right about the two-hour interval. Still, it was their first edit back and their only one. Or, I'm just giving them a little more WP:ROPE for them to get strung up by if they do it again. :) —C.Fred (talk) 21:13, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Ahh I like the way of thinking with the old rope trick. I'm angelic at heart, but giving someone rope to hang themselves brings out the devilish side within me. (Give out ghoulishly cackling laugh). I'll get the gallows clean-up ready for their execution lol. Wes Mouse  21:23, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  • And here is the rope. Same edit summary style, but this time dodging scrutiny by IP editing. They really are not the brightest lightbulb on the Christmas tree. Wes Mouse  21:46, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Johan Karlberg[edit]


You put a speedy deletion notification on @Neo Asian 2010s: talk page, for the page Johan Karlberg but I do not see the speedy deletion tag, or any evidence that it ever existed on the page or in its history. Did you forget to tag it, or am I just missing something? Cheers, Tazerdadog (talk) 01:02, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

the speedy deletion on Johan Karlberg was false alarm and has been fixed and removed. It was false alarm. Thank you for notice. It's all taking care now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neo Asian 2010s (talkcontribs) 01:12, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

@Tazerdadog: Check the log; the page was previously deleted. —C.Fred (talk) 01:17, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
And there's enough of an assertion of significance this time that I'll go AfD to see if the community agrees that he's not notable. —C.Fred (talk) 01:19, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

I did not request for a deletion on that article. That was an old article with the same name that was removed before. This is a new article and was not requested of a deletion — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neo Asian 2010s (talkcontribs) 01:40, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

@Neo Asian 2010s: Yes it has been "requested of a deletion". I just nominated it at WP:Articles for deletion/Johan Karlberg. —C.Fred (talk) 01:45, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

I see no reason to nominate Johan Karlberg or Romantic Blue for a deletion. If it's needs to be fixed or edit, then ok let's edit as Wikipedia feels more suitable. But delete it is going too far. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neo Asian 2010s (talkcontribs) 01:52, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

The concern with both articles is their notability. No amount of editing or fixing can save an article on a non-notable subject from deletion. Wikipedia articles should be sourced to reliable third party sources with non-trivial coverage of the subject. Neither C.Fred nor I could find such sources for these articles. If you can find such sources, that is a powerful argument to make at the AFD discussions, and would effectively refute us. Even 2 or three sources that discuss the subjects sufficiently well is enough. See the reliable sources guideline for more detail on the type of sources we are looking for. Cheers, Tazerdadog (talk) 02:21, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Jeremy Strong[edit]

I am not the agent of Jeremy Strong, his agent simply asked me to see if I was able to take out the photo on the site on behalf of Jeremy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Philipdeluca96 (talkcontribs) 23:46, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

@Philipdeluca96: When you said "We represent Jeremy Strong",[1] that implied that you were representing him in a professional capacity. —C.Fred (talk) 23:48, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

I work at the management company where the agent works. I was instructed to try and see if I can take down the photo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Philipdeluca96 (talkcontribs) 23:51, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

@Philipdeluca96: I think you need to make a very clear declaration of your relationship with the subject and whether you are doing any of this editing in your job capacity per WP:PAID. —C.Fred (talk) 23:53, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

I am a current intern for Mosaic Media Group, a management company that represents Jeremy. His manager, Prince Varughese, was asked by Jeremy's agents if it would be possible to change his Wikipedia photo since they wanted a different photo up. Since there have been issues, they have asked me to request that no picture be up on the profile for Jeremy. That is my relation with the client and the situation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Philipdeluca96 (talkcontribs) 00:00, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

World Economic Association[edit]

Hi Fred,

I did not edit the page; I merely argued that it should not be deleted.

ProfSteveKeen (talk) 15:07, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

@ProfSteveKeen: Yeah, the welcome template is stock. The purpose of it is to make sure you know the COI guidelines. —C.Fred (talk) 15:08, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Yep, I'm aware of it, which is one reason that I haven't attempted to edit any Wikipedia pages before--since I turn up in a fair few of them. But this was different.

ProfSteveKeen (talk) 16:01, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Islamic studies (theology)[edit]

I want to split this article in two, so I create first the two, then I make a disambiguation page out of the original article. --IbnTufail (talk) 23:10, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

@C.Fred: Thank you. The split is now done. Looks good: Islamic studies. I had a comment in the creation edit. --IbnTufail (talk) 23:21, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

ashley massaro[edit]

hi fred someone with the ip deleted ashley massaro's stats can you undo that for her pls and then allow me to change the picture if its not on the one she wants

ty OdellaRobbia — Preceding unsigned comment added by OdellaRobbia (talkcontribs) 17:40, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

@OdellaRobbia: I'll check about the stats. As for the pictures of Ashley Massaro, we go with the best free picture we have. We can't steal a picture by scraping it off another website. If there's a picture she'd like, she can clearly put it on her website with a Creative Commons or other free license, and then we can see about updating. —C.Fred (talk) 17:42, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

ok the one that ive put up every time she likes if you have that one for free please put it up for her cos thats the one she wants

ta OdellaRobbia — Preceding unsigned comment added by OdellaRobbia (talkcontribs) 17:46, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

@OdellaRobbia: First, it doesn't really matter what picture she wants. The picture in the article is the one that the community of Wikipedia editors decides is the best for the article's purposes. For most articles, the picture doesn't get changed without discussion over the new picture.
That said, the picture you last placed in the article is the one that's currently up. —C.Fred (talk) 17:47, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

thank you ashley will be more than happy with that shes got a nicer pick and her stats back she'll be happy

thank you fred from me and i know ashley would like to as well OdellaRobbia — Preceding unsigned comment added by OdellaRobbia (talkcontribs) 17:50, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

My first article[edit]

I just published an article and it was deleted because there was another ongoing article that was relatively close to my article, i know my article was short but it was not finished yet, i was going to make it proper in some time as i was already working on it, The article to which my article was found linked is Dota 2 and i am thinking to write article about the heroes of dota 2 and their roles and guide on how to play them, that is totally different from that page, i hope you get my point. And yes it was my mistake to publish it when it was not finished yet, i was actually checking stuff as i am new to Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saad Jillani (talkcontribs) 01:38, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Reply at your talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 01:38, 29 August 2016 (UTC)