User talk:C.Fred/Archive 15

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Regarding the Francis Howell North page

Perhaps you could add an image in the info box. All the other Francis Howell Schools have one. I don't know how to add an image yet. Northerner44 (talk) 18:54, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

@Northerner44: I'm not near the school to take a picture of it, so I can't readily add one of my own. (Also, it doesn't appear that there's an image in Central's article.)

If there's a logo or crest image at the school's website that you think might work, let me know, and I'll see if it meets the non-free content criteria so we can use it here. —C.Fred (talk) 19:04, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Re Silencer

Please undelete the page for silencer. although they may not have made tons of record sales, they were HUGE in Depressive Suicidal Black Metal (theyre the top band on last.fm's dsbm page http://www.last.fm/tag/dsbm) record sales/amount of albums doesnt determine the merit of the artist. The biggest dsbm band deserves a wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.103.100.233 (talk) 19:52, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

If there were a better source than last.fm, I'd consider the recreation. However, It's not clear that being listed first does equate to being the most popular or signature band of a genre. If, say, Rolling Stone called them the signature band of the genre, that would be another matter entirely. —C.Fred (talk) 19:56, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

EClerx Wikipedia Page

Hi, i was just wondering around Wikipedia when I stumbled upon the EClerx page, which seemed to me written like an advertisement, so I looked into its history and guess what I found IP 103.251.228.8 is associated with eClerx Services Limited, India. I don't know if it somehow breaking a rule or not, please take a look at it 117.254.53.147 (talk) 06:56, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

For this. Since she's the current TFA, I really hope KP doesn't end up being vandalized too much. As top contributor to the article, my goal was to have it be as perfect as possible for today, her 30th birthday. Do you mind helping keep a watch? Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:49, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

@SNUGGUMS: No problem. Her article in on my watchlist, so I see edits made to it. So, as much as I'm online today, I'll be keeping an eye on it. And, congratulations on getting it to be TFA! —C.Fred (talk) 14:18, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

MinecraftCheete

why are you trying to delete the MinecraftCheete page their is nothing wrong with it — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheWikiVoter (talk • contribs) 18:33, 25 October 2014‎ (UTC)

@TheWikiVoter: The article does not make any assertion of the significance of the subject that would meet WP:BIO. —C.Fred (talk) 18:37, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Logeion sockpuppetry

You blocked User:Logeion earlier this evening. Just a note that he made a sockpuppet edit with User:2.84.6.5 Special:Contributions/2.84.6.5. Safiel (talk) 05:54, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Investigation page is here Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Logeion. Safiel (talk) 05:56, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Do not make accusations without providing evidence. Doing so is a personal attack and will likely be summarily removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.146.23.38 (talk) 05:49, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

"If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck." If an account looks and acts like a blocked user, it probably is a blocked user, and most administrators (myself included) will deal with it as such. —C.Fred (talk) 14:42, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

probably?

'Do not make accusations without providing evidence'

Evidence: the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

Better to be sure before make any accusations! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.75.213.203 (talk) 20:56, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Elton Mayo

On the Elton Mayo article iss246 & psyc12 are vandalizing the article by removing up to 10 reliable sources, all stating Elton Mayo was a Psychologist. Iss246 cannot and has not produced one, single, reliable source clearly stating that he was not a psychologist. Elton Mayo is an Australian icon. Could you please follow up on this, for the integrity of Wikipedia and for readers?

It would be like some Aussie vandalizing the George Washington article and saying he was not the first President of the United States (1789–1797), the Commander-in-Chief of the Continental Army during the American Revolutionary War, and one of the Founding Fathers of the United States. And provide not one single, reliable source clearly stating George Washington was not the first President! Thanks for your integrity ahead of time.Truthbringer1 (talk) 03:53, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

@Truthbringer: I've been monitoring the discussion in all the places you have it spread out right now, as well as the sockpuppet investigation. —C.Fred (talk) 04:07, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Frankie Grande

I see you have protected Frankie Grande, so thank you for doing that. Unfortunately, those apparent SPA's seem to have done quite a lot of "creative editing" to the article which have resulted in quite a few WP:BLP violations. Would it be acceptable to return the page to last stable version before all of these edits took place? I believe that would be this version here. Can such a thing be done all at once or does each edit have to be undone one by one? Thanks in advance. -Marchjuly (talk) 04:34, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: I didn't roll back far enough, but Lithistman backed it up all the way to the last clean version from 23 October. —C.Fred (talk) 04:36, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes I saw that. Thanks again for double-checking. Would it have been acceptable to go back to that last clean version in one fell swoop, even though some of the individual edits had already been reverted by others? Just want to know for future reference. - Marchjuly (talk) 04:41, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Halloween cheer!

Happy Halloween!

Hello C.Fred:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!
– –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:20, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Halloween cheer!

Happy Halloween!

Hello C.Fred:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!
– Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:56, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

You're Crazy

Y'all need some Jesus, poor Andrew Witte had commercial aspirations for full time. Isn't Flo notable? Being on a commercial during the world series is the height of commercial notability. If Andrew Witte isn't notable, Vince the Shamwow guy isn't notable. Northerner44 (talk) 01:54, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

@Northerner44: Please see WP:BIO, and then show where Witte has been written about in multiple reliable sources (and the school newspaper is not a reliable source). —C.Fred (talk) 02:59, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Help request

Hi C.Fred, I was wondering if you could take a quick look at this book, to see if would be considered a reliable source for a date of birth? I've been trying to fill in the gaps of missing articles for former politicians and cabinet ministers from my province, but date of birth is hard to source, so most don't have them listed. I figured I would ask first, rather than cause problems if the source turns out to be unreliable. The pdf link for book is http://nslegislature.ca/pdfs/about/b10537582.pdf Even if it can't be used on Wikipedia, it's a rather interesting find that I didn't know was online. It would only a minute or so to check, so any help here would be appreciated. Thanks. Cmr08 (talk) 09:50, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

@Cmr08: Looking at the foreword of the book, it looks like it was produced by an archivist either working for or under supervision from the provincial government. In that regard, I would consider the source reliable. —C.Fred (talk) 12:06, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank C.Fred. Cmr08 (talk) 22:10, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry okay? But people seriously get right on my fucking nerves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Liam-dino (talk • contribs) 20:49, 4 November 2014‎ (UTC)

Hello C.Fred, I see that my page was deleted. Is their anyway to recover the information or view the page that I created? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bvojcek (talk • contribs) 19:12, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Inola, Oklahoma

Inola Mayor (talk) 21:36, 8 November 2014 (UTC)I am the Mayor of Inola Oklahoma, I intended to post the information from our Chamber of Commerce home page. Why did you remove it?

@Inola Mayor: I removed it because it was promotional material—I had a hunch it came from the Chamber of Commerce's page. —C.Fred (talk) 21:38, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

mike baggz

everytime i upload something you say coi, i don't know mike baggz, im deleting this user account, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swerrrdmedia (talk • contribs) 19:57, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

@Swerrrdmedia: It was a bad idea to have named your account after a company connected with Baggz, then. (For that matter, you were advised to change your name almost a month ago.) —C.Fred (talk) 20:27, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Bob's Burgers

Given the revert that just occurred, please see Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Bob.27s_Burgers_.28edit.C2.A0.7C_talk.C2.A0.7C_history.C2.A0.7C_protect.C2.A0.7C_delete.C2.A0.7C_links.C2.A0.7C_watch.C2.A0.7C_logs.C2.A0.7C_views.29. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:19, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Eddie Fowlkes

His birth year is given at Fowlkes article. GoodDay (talk) 20:46, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

@GoodDay: But it's unsourced there, too. However, it is sourced in the Eddie Fowlkes article; not sure how I missed the Allmusic ref at the end of the lede. —C.Fred (talk) 20:49, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

No prob. I missed the source aswell. I went by the disambiguation page. GoodDay (talk) 20:51, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Repeat vandal: 78.133.230.129

I just now repaired vandalism on the US MasterChef 1 article by a user with the IP address of 78.133.230.129

This is not the person's first offense. Far from it, in fact. I've reported 78.133.230.129 once before and they were subsequently blocked from editing for a month. The moment that block expired, the person went right back to vandalizing MasterChef articles, obviously unrepentant of their previous violations of Wikipedia's TOS.

Considering how many warnings, chances, and blocks 78.133.230.129 has received in the past, if you ask me, this person should be a candidate for a permanent ban from Wikipedia.

97.102.59.57 (talk) 14:46, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

It's unlikely that the community would ban an unregistered user just for run-of-the-mill vandalism. What will happen is that the IP will get progressively longer blocks. There are a few other remedial actions that could get taken if there are other problems from the user of the IP. I'll keep an eye on the situation, and I'm sure other admins are as well. —C.Fred (talk) 15:28, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

...And given the user's history, I did just block the IP for three months. —C.Fred (talk) 15:38, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I understand...while it's probable that the IP belongs entirely to the offending user, as no one on the IP has come forth to address / challenge the warnings, blocks, etc., we don't know for sure. Given the person's history of vandalism, willfully ignoring all the warnings and learning nothing from their blocks, it's unlikely that even their latest block will deter them from future vandalism -- but at the very least the person is out of our hair for the time being, and I can take solace in the fact that this offender will be summarily dealt with again (and with increased severity) when the time comes...I know I won't hesitate to report the IP again. Thank you for handling the situation. 97.102.59.57 (talk) 20:14, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Addition To Samuel Powel, my signature in the wrong place

I am sorry, my research goes slow, i will try harder not to make such erroneous inferences to an obviously easy oversightKevin Lajiness 18:59, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I explained it on the discussion page and got no response. I showed that the statements contradict various other wikipedia articles, and are made in a biased anti Catholic way. 83.128.72.82 (talk) 08:07, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I commented on the talk page and here and got no response. 83.128.72.82 (talk) 15:03, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Give it time. It's a weekend, and a lot of editors might not be back until Monday. —C.Fred (talk) 05:30, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Copyright checks when performing AfC reviews

Hello C.Fred. This message is part of a mass mailing to people who appear active in reviewing articles for creation submissions. First of all, thank you for taking part in this important work! I'm sorry this message is a form letter – it really was the only way I could think of to covey the issue economically. Of course, this also means that I have not looked to see whether the matter is applicable to you in particular.

The issue is in rather large numbers of copyright violations ("copyvios") making their way through AfC reviews without being detected (even when easy to check, and even when hallmarks of copyvios in the text that should have invited a check, were glaring). A second issue is the correct method of dealing with them when discovered.

If you don't do so already, I'd like to ask for your to help with this problem by taking on the practice of performing a copyvio check as the first step in any AfC review. The most basic method is to simply copy a unique but small portion of text from the draft body and run it through a search engine in quotation marks. Trying this from two different paragraphs is recommended. (If you have any question about whether the text was copied from the draft, rather than the other way around (a "backwards copyvio"), the Wayback Machine is very useful for sussing that out.)

If you do find a copyright violation, please do not decline the draft on that basis. Copyright violations need to be dealt with immediately as they may harm those whose content is being used and expose Wikipedia to potential legal liability. If the draft is substantially a copyvio, and there's no non-infringing version to revert to, please mark the page for speedy deletion right away using {{db-g12|url=URL of source}}. If there is an assertion of permission, please replace the draft article's content with {{subst:copyvio|url=URL of source}}.

Some of the more obvious indicia of a copyvio are use of the first person ("we/our/us..."), phrases like "this site", or apparent artifacts of content written for somewhere else ("top", "go to top", "next page", "click here", use of smartquotes, etc.); inappropriate tone of voice, such as an overly informal tone or a very slanted marketing voice with weasel words; including intellectual property symbols (™,®); and blocks of text being added all at once in a finished form with no misspellings or other errors.

I hope this message finds you well and thanks again you for your efforts in this area. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC).

Sent via--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Surefire Creative Studios

Thanks for the info. Working on making all of the necessary corrections for the Surefire Creative Studios page. Most of the changes are simply updates from the old surefire music group page since a lot of the information doesn't apply anymore. Not sure where the conflict of interest lies, but I am working on rectifying the situation(s) Thesclass01 (talk) 04:09, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

@Thesclass01: The conflict of interest is because you are claiming to be the creator of the logo for the company. That sort of design work constitutes a conflict of interest. —C.Fred (talk) 04:12, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Got it. Didn't realize that was the statement made when uploading it to the server. Just needed a place to get the image out so that the correct/current one could be loaded on to the page. I don't think that should affect the existence of the page overall though. It's just a replacement for the one that isn't applicable anymore Thesclass01 (talk) 04:36, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

@Thesclass01: Do you need to change the license tag, if it's a fair use image taken from their website rather than one you created yourself? —C.Fred (talk) 04:38, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes sir. How do I go about doing that? I took it from their facebook page. Appreciate your help as well Thesclass01 (talk) 04:40, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

@Thesclass01: At this point, I'd go back to the site, re-download the image, save it at a lower resolution, and upload it to the English Wikipedia as a non-free iamge. —C.Fred (talk) 04:43, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Ok, thank you. I changed everything, re-uploaded it and got the licensing info Thesclass01 (talk) 04:55, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

@Thesclass01: Where do you see that the logo was released under Creative Commons? —C.Fred (talk) 04:55, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Wait.. that wasn't the option I was supposed to choose? I thought it was available to public domain since I got it off their site. Or am I incorrect? Thesclass01 (talk) 04:57, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

As I said, it's a non-free image and you need to upload it as such to the English Wikipedia, not to Commons. —C.Fred (talk) 04:58, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Tomahawk333

[1] Block should probably copied to new account? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:52, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

@NeilN: Yes. I don't think it's abusive use of a second account, so I haven't called it a sockpuppet. What I have done is made clear that creating a new account is not a get-out-of-jail-free card, so the block carries forward to the new account. —C.Fred (talk) 19:34, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Joshua Bonehill

Please stop correcting the page on Joshua Bonehill with false information. He is not a politician, he is not a member of a political party and has never stood for office anywhere.He is convicted of commiting slander and harrasment on the internet and this is oublic record. He is not an internet personlaity as you claim, he had one account which he previoulsy bought followers for. He went to Merryhay Academy special needs school and is on record as confirming this, you are vandalising the article not I.

You have yet again made the false claim that Joshua Bnehill is apolitician with no sources and no evidence whatsoever. This is not objective and is inaccurate, he has zero political record. He stated himself the school he went to yet you presume to remove it, you are not adding truth to this article but unsourced suppostition and fabricaitions and you are blocking others from writing the truth with sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.146.40.52 (talk) 22:15, 19 November 2014‎ (UTC)

None of the sources that have been added to the article back up the claim that he is a "special needs schoolboy"; the cited source needs to tie all the loops together, both that he attended the school in question and that he was a special-needs student.

You may have a point about the politician label; however, "troll" is not an acceptable alternate. Really, you need to do things with regard to this article. First, discuss your concerns at the talk page to work toward consensus on how to present the material. Remember that changes have to be in accordance with Wikipedia policies, including the strict WP:BLP rules for information about living people. Second, please stay logged in while editing: I see the same edits being alternately made by this IP and by User:Myth~Buster~Yeovil (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). —C.Fred (talk) 22:19, 19 November 2014 (UTC) I have no account and resent the accusation. There are many people who would be unhappy with this inaccurate article lending credence to this habitual criminal as a politician.

I am Joshua Bonehill, I'd like to state that I never attended a 'merryhay academy', I attended taunton school in Somerset which is a public school as stated in the article. Furthermore I'd like to draw to attention that the people attempting to vandalise this article are the very people who have been my 'twitter rivals'. I suggest the article is made protected and watched over by sensible people to ensure that the truth is there for everybody to see. I can be contacted directly at [redacted] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jooner29 (talk • contribs) 02:28, 20 November 2014‎ (UTC)

Please remove the innacurat and unsourced information about Bonehill being a politician and internet personality. He has no record of ever being in a political party except as a youth hoping to win a nomination to run for a council seat which he never received and was then expelled. Since then he has held no political office and the only people that call him a politician are you and he.

In what way is he an internet personality? By that definitiion everyone is. Bonehill's a convicted criminal which is on record, he has continually lied to endanger peoples lives. If you want a description for him I suggest Joshua Bonehill is a convicted criminal from Yeovil, Somerset as everything else is without evidence or sources. I shall take this further and report the entire article if you do not allow the truth on the article.

Joshua Bonehill is typing above and is a known and convicted liar, he stated on his own national british resistance web page that he went to Merryhay Special needs school.

He had no twitter rivals and you typing that makes it appear that his victims were partially to blame for having information spread online that they were convicted paedophiles thus endagering their lives. You have no source for them being "twitter rivals" and as with the rest of the article it appears to be written from your own subjective point of view without sources or supporting info. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.146.40.52 (talk) 11:06, 20 November 2014‎ (UTC)

I have only restored the article to the status quo situation. If you think he is not a politician, explain that at the article's talk page. If you think he should be described as something other than an internet personality, discuss that at Talk:Joshua Bonehill. It's tricky to call somebody a criminal in the lede of an article, so that may not be the best description. Likewise, if there are unsupported statements, point them out at the article's talk page for further consideration.

All such content matters need to be discussed at the article's talk page; I will not discuss the article's content further at my personal talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 19:40, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Sean Michael Smith

Hi C.Fred! Sorry if this is the wrong place to contact you in regards to the picture on Sean Michael Smith. This is my first time talking via this method. At Hearing Damage Studios, we took the picture of Sean for use online and in press. We simply meant in the description that the picture was formatted and chosen with wikipedia in mind. Sorry for confusion. The picture is free for all usage. Thanks for the patience and help. I'm sure you have to deal with a lot of people like myself getting into the swing of all this lingo. I will also keep in mind the other suggestions you've sent me the next time I make an edit. Thank you! If you have any comments or instructions for me, feel free to let me know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LifeAquatic42 (talk • contribs) 22:43, 18 November 2014‎ (UTC)

Thank you for clearing that up. And, since you've declared you have a conflict of interest with Sean Michael Smith, I'll be leaving a notification at your talk page so others are aware of it. —C.Fred (talk) 02:43, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for helping me understand about the photo and the page itself. I'll refrain from making any major additions if it is a conflict of interest. I would like to ask your opinion/assistance on a simply cosmetic aspect of the page. The Sean Michael Smith page currently has a "This article has an unclear citation style" stamp attributed to it. I read the citation, footnoting, and eternal linking pages to further understand the process, but I'm struggling to see in the fine print what I can do to clean up the references. Would it be possible to ask for an example page that you find shows a quality representation of a references section? I put a lot of work into the page (my first as well) and I'd like it to fit as well in the guidelines as possible. Until then, I will be looking around unrelated articles and doing some research/cleaning in my area of expertise. Thanks again by the way, you're making my experience a lot easier seeing how daunting all the codes and what have you can be. LifeAquatic42 (talk) 13:00, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

@LifeAquatic42: My bad on the tag. I had put it up there before I realized what was going on with the references. Once I got the list sorted, the footnotes fell into place, so the style is fine.

I had put the tag up there when it looked like there was just a list of references with no footnotes. —C.Fred (talk) 20:47, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Awesome! Thanks! I've been getting the hang of everything. Loving it. LifeAquatic42 (talk) 21:25, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi again! I've been working on some smaller projects and creating missing album pages for lesser known artists, so I've been getting a hang of the site. I was wondering if it would be at all possible for you to check out the Sean Michael Smith page to see if I've written a neutral enough stance? Second opinions always help. Thanks! LifeAquatic42 (talk) 21:09, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Adding on to the above new message, I just checked the page and someone else already proofed the page, but could you still take a look? Thanks! LifeAquatic42 (talk) 21:13, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Disco-pop listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Disco-pop. Since you had some involvement with the Disco-pop redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:20, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

IRS Tax Forms

Thanks for the guidelines regarding links? Is it appropriate to link to directly to an IRS tax form itself? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrfray (talk • contribs) 19:45, 22 November 2014‎ (UTC)

@Jrfray: If an article were about an individual form, then it would be appropriate to link to the form in the article about that form. However, the separate forms are not notable, so there's no need. As far as the IRS tax forms article, it's probably more useful to link to the IRS front page than to the page for forms. —C.Fred (talk) 20:13, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Please remove the page back

to 8chan from ∞chan. It's obviously the common name and the way he did it only an administrator can do it. Tutelary (talk) 21:25, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

G6 absolutely applies

Deleting redirects or other pages blocking page moves. Administrators should be aware of the proper procedures where a redirect/page holding up a page move has a non-trivial page history. An administrator who deletes a page that is blocking a move should ensure that the move is completed after deleting it. WP:G6 This page is blocking the move back, and is in effect a copy and paste move. Delete the page, I'll create 8chan (disambiguation) and we move infinitesymbol chan back. Tutelary (talk) 21:31, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

@Tutelary: Hold tight for a second. I'm talking to Ranze about unwinding the move. The less you do right now, the less I have to undo later. —C.Fred (talk) 21:32, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

You don't need to talk to Ranze about it. It was a bold move and I contested it. He should go the route of requested move if he wants to move it. But I'll sit tight here then. Tutelary (talk) 21:33, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

8chan v infinitechan

I do object moving the page back, I created the page as a disambig and Tutelary removed the info about Robot 8-chan from the page without pursuing any consensus for that censorship.

The risk of an AfD is all the more reason that we should keep 8chan as a disambig and infinitechan (or ∞chan) as the article about 8chan.co.

Disambiguation allows a brief summary as it is without going into detail or entering into debates about whether or not the site is worthy of a full article.

By hijacking the disambig article and making it about the site, if the site article gets nominated for deletion then the initial form as a disambig would get deleted along with it. Ranze (talk) 21:42, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

We can just move the disambiguation page to 8chan (disambiguation) The website 8chan is a notable and primary topic and search term for the term, '8chan'. Additionally, there's been more than enough coverage for 8chan. You moving the 8chan material to ∞chan and then contesting a move back is outside of the normal page moval per WP:BRD and could be considered disruptive. Tutelary (talk) 21:47, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

He's at it again. Now 89.174.116.10

The user who was once 78.133.230.129 is at it once again, constantly vandalizing MasterChef articles.

He is now under the IP of 89.174.116.10 -- the "style" of vandalism matches 78.133.230.129 and the IP originates from the same place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.102.59.57 (talk) 19:17, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Manika Kaur updated

Thanks for your feedback. I thought the article was worth inclusion, if only because Manika Kaur has had 4.5 million views on Youtube for one of her songs. Just re-published the full article with references.Webkandi (talk) 15:08, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Can you tell me how to change my username?

Or if possible can you change it to WikiEditor101. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiEditorBot (talk • contribs) 19:28, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)I explained on the user's talk page that the message you left already had a link of where to go. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:32, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

@WikiEditorBot: You'll need to request the change yourself. The text "change of username" is linked in the message I left on your page. Follow that link and there are further instructions. —C.Fred (talk) 19:36, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

About My edited content !!

Sorry,I'm very new to editing wikipedia. but,Virat kohli is currenly captain of indian cricket team.he not has been listed in this list.so ...!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Urvishpatel15 (talk • contribs) 19:57, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

@Urvishpatel15: You need to cite a reliable source that he's been named captain before adding him to the list. Further, your edit stated that there are currently two captains for the Indian national team. —C.Fred (talk) 20:43, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

December 2014

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors. Thank you. Hafspajen (talk) 16:27, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

@Hafspaje: I did. I assumed your edits to Dachshund were an attempt to improve the article. The first revert was such grossly bad code that I reverted outright. The second time, I explained with an edit summary.

I've since opened a talk page discussion to ask why you're forcing the template code. I look forward to your reply there. —C.Fred (talk) 16:29, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Theta Alpha Lambda

I would like to know why you deleted our page. It says that the article was deleted because: (A7: Article about a company, corporation or organization, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject). we do not understand what you mean by we didnt talk about the importance. We had all the information about our organization and we had information about what other organization we help. We are a local organization that is trying to get its name out and we believe Wikipedia is a good first step. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.177.94.232 (talk) 02:03, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

The biggest problem with the article is what you said in your last sentence: "We are a local organization that is trying to get its name out." You've almost conceded that you're not yet notable, plus you've admitted that you're advertising for the organization. I see three problems with the article:

Articles may not blatantly advertise the subject.
Articles about organizations must assert that the organization is a notable organization. The rule of thumb is that local organizations are not notable; there was nothing in the article to suggest otherwise. (That's true in general but also with Greek letter organizations: one-chapter fraternities and sororities are rarely, if ever, notable, and individual chapters of national organizations are likewise not notable.)
Even if you can demonstrate the significance/importance of the sorority, you need to edit carefully because of your conflict of interest with the subject. You're not prohibited from editing the article; you just need to proceed carefully and, whenever possible, cite secondary sources independent of the sorority.

Remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Subjects of articles need to already be notable; Wikipedia is not a means to make the subjects notable. —C.Fred (talk) 02:20, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Andrewwikiedit

Not sure if you noticed, but Andrewwikiedit is now socking as well as breaching 3RR.[2] Do I need to raise two AN3 reports and an SPI? --AussieLegend (✉) 04:58, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

@AussieLegend: Nope, I got it. Thank you for pointing it out. —C.Fred (talk) 05:05, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

The Name of a country

Since when has the name of a country been determined by what sports team one of its citizens plays for? Or is it just a case of any excuse to avoid the words British or United Kingdom? Is it all about making it as inaccurate as possible to confuse people? 109.152.248.204 (talk) 22:46, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

There is no "Team United Kingdom" in the Davis Cup or Olympics. There is a "Team Great Britain". Thus, for sports purposes, Great Britain is the preferred listing to either the UK or Scotland. —C.Fred (talk) 04:45, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Since when has the country field in an info box referred to the sports team that the subject plays for? 109.152.248.204 (talk) 13:25, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Not sure how long, but it's the established consensus. Consider this note on the template documentation about the country field: "this is the country represented in international play, not citizenship". —C.Fred (talk) 16:57, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Mediation committee request status

I have raised an issue with the Mediation Committee.How do I check the status of it? Also,in the meantime,can I continue to edit the articles I find in poor taste in the page of disagreement under any circumstances? 07:20, 15 December 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ankisur2 (talk • contribs)

@Ankisur2: If you mean Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Sharabha, that request has been rejected by the mediation committee. Check the very bottom of the page.

As for your concern about your religious beliefs being hurt, Wikipedia is not censored. There is a lot of content on Wikipedia that offends members of certain religious group (images of the prophet Muhammad being the most well-known) that is included anyway, to make sure the encyclopedia gives as complete of coverage as possible. So, you'll need to make sure your edits to Sharabha are based on Wikipedia policy and not just your religious beliefs. —C.Fred (talk) 17:07, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Light

Perhaps it would be more relevant to add an image of a white light beam being separated into the different colors in a prism. There isn't that image in the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tetra quark (talk • contribs) 20:25, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

@Tetra quark: Perhaps. That'd be a good thing to discuss at Talk:Light. —C.Fred (talk) 20:28, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I believe a dispersion of light illustration would be more informative. I'll just add it. If for some unknown reason someone dislikes it, then they can simply undo. A prism picture is practically a must-have in an article about light. Cheers Tetra quark (talk) 20:45, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

@Tetra quark: It's not bad practice to be bold and add material. However, if another user challenges it, then you should discuss the matter at the article's talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 20:58, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Dear C.Fred,

I would like to bring for your attention that my edits regarding Lavash were reverted without any reason. Could you please ask the opponents not to ruin my amendments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fmelikov (talk • contribs) 23:02, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Episcopal Church in Minnesota

Thank you for supporting our name change from the Diocese of Minnesota, to Episcopal Church in Minnesota. I saw in your comment that you said "A Google news search showed that more of the recent usages of the term are for "Episcopal Diocese of Minnesota"." Did you mean "Episcopal Church in Minnesota"? I would hope that would be what is showing up since we have been called that for quite a long time now. Thank you again. Snide034 (talk) 15:35, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Danielle Smith

Sorry, I'm well aware of WP:AGF, but the edit being reverted contained:

"Prior to her traitorous defection to Diamond Jim's ruling PC party and her plum appointment to Deputy Premier, Danielle was leader of the Wildrose Party.. Before that Smith was the Director of Provincial Affairs for Alberta with the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. She has also worked as a journalist in print, radio and television."

Still think that IP user was not "editing in outright bad faith"? It's straight vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paleking (talk • contribs) 17:02, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

@Paleking: That was buried enough down the edit that I didn't see it readily. It's certainly a more egregious BLP violation than just alleging that she has crossed the aisle.

Part of the problem is also lack of warnings. If there'd been a warning or two from the uw-unsourced or uw-blp family given to the IP, it would have been clearer what the situation was. Without that, it wasn't immediately obvious that this was anything more than a content dispute. —C.Fred (talk) 17:08, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Vernon O Johnson -- request for help!

Dear C.Fred. I am new to this and not experienced in this type of formatting, so thank you for helping. I set up an abbreviated biography of Vernon Johnson to be linked to a webpage about a well-documented world trip during the Cold War that was covered in over 50 newspapers and magazines worldwide between March 1960 and November 1961. My intent was to create three (3) Wikipedia pages. The second one would be called “Home is Where the Bus Is”, which was published one week before the 9/11 World Trade Center bombings, and didn’t get traction (see http://www.danielpublishing.com/books/suppl/johnson.html and http://www.amazon.com/Home-Where-Anne-Beckwith-Johnson/dp/1880284472/ref=sr_1_1_twi_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1418228471&sr=8-1&keywords=home+is+where+the+bus+is).

The book is going to be re-published. C.Fred, this site isn’t meant to sell the book, which doesn’t concern me, but to share what was a very notable event which opened the Trans Siberian Railway. The company that is creating a web page for the trip and the documentary informed me that I needed to make a Wikipedia page for: 1) Vernon Johnson 2) book “home is Where the Bus Is” 3) author, Anne Beckwith Johnson.

I have documentation for everything on the page including the magazine and newspaper articles. Thank you again for helping. Jenda Johnson Geologist/Public Outreach science animator for IRIS (www.iris.edu) and the U.S. Geological Survey. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnsonFamilyTheTrip (talk • contribs) 17:46, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

@JohnsonFamilyTheTrip: The crux of the problem is the second paragraph: you're creating the articles at the request/direction of the book publisher. This means you have a conflict of interest with the book publisher; based on your username and the given name you signed this message with, it can be assumed that you have a conflict of interest with the subject. Thus, you need to tread carefully to make sure you keep neutral point of view and that you don't turn the article into blatant advertising.

What would help the article most would be citations of the newspaper articles. That would show that Vernon Johnson got coverage in the media (i.e., published, reliable sources) and shore up his notability. To show the notability, the sources need to write about Johnson and not other events or people involved. —C.Fred (talk) 17:52, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Further, if the event were notable, the Wikipedia article should be about the event. It doesn't follow that the people involved are notable for the event to be: notability is not inherited. There's a rule of thumb that says a person should be notable for more than one event to have an article, but WP:BLP1E is part of the biographies of living people guidelines. It's not clear, but from usage of past tense, it's suggested that Johnson is no longer alive. —C.Fred (talk) 17:56, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

C.Fred. Excellent point. That hadn’t occurred to me. I thought that by adding the link to the publisher that it added credibility, not sale-ability. Yes, I am Vernon’s daughter, and yes, the person who helped me set up the Wiki account suggested that I name it for family and trip for easy identification. So my intent, to share requested information, stumbled on my own input data. I have many original newspaper articles (Front page of 3/30/60 New York Tribune at start of trip; newspapers in every major city, Top front-page headline in San Francisco Chronicle 11/3/61 on returning) but have been unsuccessful at finding the copies online. I can write to each newspaper to see if I could get the links. The London Tmes required I subscribe, which i wasn’t ready to do. This is not meant to sell the book, but to give the back story to a remarkable trip. A screenwriter asked “what would compel a successful businessman to take such a journey????!!” Would it have made a difference if a Wiki Page of the book/trip had been first? It was historic. I seem to have a Catch 22 on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnsonFamilyTheTrip (talk • contribs) 18:06, 10 December 2014‎ (UTC)

C.Fred: I removed all links to the publisher of the book, PLUS added 3 references/citations to newspapers and a magazine that followed the story. If I may have a week until I get back to my parents archives to get at least another 20 newspaper references/citations from other countries. I will write to the news agencies for publication data, as we clipped pages without front-page reference material. Thank you for your consideration. And if we are completely respected, I truly understand the WIKI mission!!!! Good for you. Jenda — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnsonFamilyTheTrip (talk • contribs) 22:16, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

______________ Dear C.Fred,

I answered all issues, including

 1) User name change, which was accepted
 2) Removing commercial links
 3) Adding newspaper and magazine articles to support the story (over 40 included in citations)
Plus, I added photographs to give personal interest to story.

What else might I need to do to get removed from the deletion list?? Thanks a million. Jenda Johnson — Preceding unsigned comment added by JendaAJ (talk • contribs) 21:22, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Dear C.Fred, I’m not certain this is the right place for contacting…Sorry to keep bouncing back. Another editor suggested i “ping” you with questions. The intent of the Vernon O. Johnson site has been reconfigured to answer all the questions. There are just three bullet points in the opening page that need to be cleared up. I think I have addressed all. I added a 48-page pdf with news articles.

1.) close connection — I can’t avoid this, but I have had two outsiders give advice on what to cut. I think it is almost there, but it is difficult to judge one’s own writing.

2.) written like advertisement — I have dropped links to the book, as his story is the important issue here. By having his story accepted here, we have chosen to not pay to have the book republished. As Vernon said, that was her story. His is much more compelling. I will also drop the Anne B. Johnson and Home is Where the Bus Is sites. They were included based on research on what types of books are accepted.

3) orphan —I did write to the Military site that has letters about him and his service asking if they could link to this page. Also, I called the Santa Barbara High School and asked if it was ok to include Vernon’s name on their wikipedia page and received an OK, so put his name there.

JendaAJ (talk) 00:59, 6 January 2015 (UTC) Thanks for all your time.

Vani Hari

Hi C.Fred. I just wanted to say thanks for the reminder on 3RR over at the Vani Hari article. I completely forgot I had a more minor edit I reverted earlier today before trying to work with the most recent editor. Kingofaces43 (talk) 06:47, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Draft:Evan Thomas Schwartz

You may be interested in this MfD. I can't think of a valid speedy criteria that it applies to, otherwise I would have used that. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:41, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Please stop scaring

Am new here, so it may not be OK to make mistake on a site like Wikipedia. But I did it anyway. I am profoundly sorry for it. And I think, it was not fair of you, when you somewhat threatened me (look here). Come on, it wasn't cool. You could have told me in a much softer tone.
P.S. I did not disrupted the article. I was merely rearranging it. DTwipzB 17:13, 19 December 2014 (UTC) (talk)

@Dibyendutwipzbiswas: First, the message I left was a standard warning template. Since you'd been warned twice before for problematic edits, that particular message was in order.

Second, given the header at the top of your talk page, an appeal to tell you "in a much softer tone" doesn't carry much traction. —C.Fred (talk) 17:15, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

@C.Fred: Please, for the love of God, leave me alone. Got your message and please be content with this knowledge. I have my semester ahead, let me study. PLEASE. DTwipzB 17:26, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Umm, you're the one who left the message here. *shrug* —C.Fred (talk) 17:27, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

you're the one who started this.DTwipzB 17:30, 19 December 2014 (UTC) (talk)

In response to an inappropriate edit you made. —C.Fred (talk) 17:31, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

If that's what you think. Take a break and move on. DTwipzB 17:35, 19 December 2014 (UTC) (talk)

TheAmazingRaceFan7474

Hi C.Fred, TheAmazingRaceFan7474 doesn't seem interested in communicating on the issue of the bizarre running segment totals at the various Arthur articles. I went through each season and removed a bunch of these (along with other content) but the user is insistent upon restoring them. As somewhat of a compromise I added segment totals in parens in each of the season infoboxes (for example here). Doesn't appear to acknowledge consensus, hasn't discussed any aspect of these edits, etc. The content is not supported by MOS:TV and these edits aren't in line with WP:TVOVERVIEW. I'll open a perfunctory discussion at the LoE talk page, but otherwise, I am hoping you might intervene since I'm probably at my revert limit on that page, although these changes are disruptive. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:07, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Addendum: I have also noticed that in this unrelated edit they change an air date from May 16 2013 to May 20 2013. This contradicts this source, which indicates the episode of Motive in question aired in Canada on Thursday, May 16, 2013, which is consistent with the value in the S1 table. And here, the user removes {{death date and age}}, and changes the calculated death age from 55 to a false death age of 54. Has all the markings of subtle vandalism. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:31, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Andrewwikiedit

Just an FYI, although I expect you're aware already, 174.106.55.87 is another obvious sock of Andrewwikiedit. Two more IPs were blocked a few hours ago and Andrewwikiedit has been indef blocked, but the socks keep smelling, especially at Slednecks. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:35, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

User talk:Josh3580#Hunger Games: Mockinjay Jay Part 1

You are invited to join the discussion at User talk:Josh3580#Hunger Games: Mockinjay Jay Part 1. I used your name "in vain" in this discussion. Just wanted to let you know. Thanks for all of your work in RC patrolling! Thanks. —Josh3580_talk/hist 21:44, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Secondary Sources - Please help

@C.Fred: Hey there!

I'm currently writing an article on 2freehosting with a neutral, factual point of view (no promotional material involved). I noticed you put up a sources warning and I need some help on finding some secondary/tertiary sources, and maybe improving the article. Can you help me out? :) What is your opinion? I'm trying to get it approved.

Athertle (talk) 14:42, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi Fred,

Thankyou for sending your message. I am concerned regarding a contributor with an account Captain Stegge. The edits being done by this indiviual are piecemeal and one sided. The Stephen A. Corker page represents my GGGrandfather. I had added a picture to his site a while back. My efforts on this page have been to present historical facts that can be documented based on my 3 years of research and the book I am writing about Corker's letters. While some of the information posted by this Stegge person are factually correct...they serve the purpose of showing only one side of the story about my ancestor. This is being done to paint my ancestor in a bad light. I know this Stegge person is in the same town that a former professor is in who I had a conflict with. This former professor points out slave records and insinuates I might have a black ancestor due to the ownership of a mulatto slave.

Recently the US House of Representative Historian corrected information listed about my ancestor. He served in the US house in the 41st Congress. The information was one sided as this Stegge person has done. At the very least the opposing position should be stated in my ancestor's wikipedia site.

Let me know how to proceed. Thankyou.

CorkerCSA (talk) 15:27, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

@CorkerCSA: There a couple of issues in play here. Let's start with the fact that you're editing an ancestor's article. That means you have a conflict of interest, so you need to be very careful and make sure your edits are backed up with reliable sources that have already been published in other works. It's a slippery slope bringing in material from your own book, since that could be seen as using original research. Further, Corker's own letters are of limited value as a source because they're a primary source.

Regarding the material in the article, yes, it should be balanced, but the verifiability policy does give preference to secondary sources over primary. Yes, that could mean 1870s media bias is in play. If that's the case, you'll want to discuss the matter at the article's talk page (Talk:Stephen A. Corker) and work toward consensus on how to address the situation.

Finally, be very careful in allegations you make about another editor's off-Wiki actions or identity. Wikipedia policies take a very hard line against revealing personal details about another editor. If the editor has self-revealed on Wikipedia, it's okay to use that information. (E.g., I state in my user page that I'm from Georgia, so that's open knowledge. However, it would be outing for another user to make a statement about my street address, since that's personal information.) So, it's a slippery slope to link CaptainStegge to a particular community unless he's made a statement somewhere on Wikipedia about being from there.

(There's a lot of information here, and I'm going to mirror this message on your talk page so you have a record there—and so the other editors you've been communicating with are aware of this message.) —C.Fred (talk) 18:19, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

The Center Line: Fourth Quarter 2014


Volume 7, Issue 4 • Fourth Quarter 2014 • About the Newsletter
Departments Assessment roundup Maple Syrup Report Portal selected articles and pictures	Features The U.S. Roads Project Is Turning 10! 2014: The Year in Review Setting the bar for 2015	State and national updates CA, DE, MD, MI, MS, MP, OR Project news
Archives • Newsroom • Full Issue • Shortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS

—MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Imzadi1979 (talk · contribs) 10:38, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Joshua Bonehill

It looks like the ~~Bonehead~~Bonehill brigade is maybe back in force again, and the IP looks to maybe be one of Bonehill's socks. It might be time to request semiprotection again. John Carter (talk) 18:47, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy New Year C.Fred!

Happy New Year!

C.Fred,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:50, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2015}} to user talk pages.

Thank you...

...for watching out for me. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:55, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Dear C.Fred,
HAPPY NEW YEAR!!! A new year has come! How times flies! 2015 will be a new year, and it is also a chance for you to start afresh! Thank you for your contributions!
From a fellow editor,
--Nahnah4 (talk | contribs | guestbook) 09:31, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

This message promotes WikiLove. Created by Nahnah4 (talk | contribs | guestbook). To use this template, leave {{subst:User:Nahnah4/Happy New Year}} on someone else's talk page.

Interview for The Signpost

This is being sent to you as a member of WikiProject Articles for creation

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Articles for creation for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (announce) @ 20:44, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Arudoudebito and editing his own article

I noticed you agreed with him on this. Just so I'm clear, you are aware that he was caught (by a Wikipedia Sockpuppet investigation committee) using sockpuppets to edit his own article, correct? It wasn't just one tag. Eido INOUE | 井上エイド 14:09, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

@Eido.inoue: The sockpuppetry allegation wasn't immediately obvious. Once I saw the report and the two indefinite blocks laid down, I reversed my decision and restored the editedhere= parameter. Thank you for pointing that out. —C.Fred (talk) 20:39, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Hyperinflation

The wording you removed from the hyperinflation article is an exact repetition of what appears in the artile. If you remove it, then you must remove the wording in the article too, is that not correct? Why did you remove the text from the lede and not from the article. The text is referenced to a reliable source. 2A02:1811:80:6100:E0AC:D86E:EA28:3EC2 (talk) 09:32, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Information may be suitable for an article's body, but not for the lede. A lede has a different standard than that used for the body of the article. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:56, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Followup on Vernon O. Johnson entry--JendaAJ (talk) 20:46, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Query about the remaining caution bullets on personal connection and citations. I wonder if you could revisit this page, as I believe all of your concerns have been addressed. Thank you. JendaAJ (talk) 20:46, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

FYI SPI

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dhdhdhdffx Andy Dingley (talk) 02:06, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Warren Wilson (actor) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Warren Wilson (actor) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Warren Wilson (actor) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Λυδ α cιτγ 04:03, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Im The IP Guy - Oh Wait, Thats actually not me, thats some other dude, i didnt submit my edit after all, my ip starts with 178

I triedto undo the prev edit to eliminate that stupidity, in change i edited ur edit, so sry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Palantek (talk • contribs) 03:58, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not advertising

Hi Fred,

If you think I'm advertising to get more hits and probably get more revenue then you are definitely wrong. I wonder why "Competition permits" still listed there, I think it should also be removed from the sweepstakes page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yassifisovich (talk • contribs) 22:16, 15 January 2015‎ (UTC)

@Yassifisovich: The competition permits site is used as a reference for a point made in the article; it's not just an external link pointing to the site. There are different rules for references and external links. —C.Fred (talk) 02:18, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Pleasure (American Band) Edit

Greetings my friend, As an original member of the group, I greatly appreciate your efforts in posting Pleasure on wikipedia. Unfortunately, I found areas that were incorrect in when we formed, which players came from where and incorrect album release years. Please read my edits from Jan 11th. That happens to be the correct information. Thanks ♠♣♥♦ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Basmitty (talk • contribs) 14:27, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

{{subst:Basmitty}} You'll need to provide some published reliable sources to support your changes. In the current version (after reverting your edits), the release years now tie to the articles on the albums. —C.Fred (talk) 14:35, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Mark Paredes

The edit you just reverted at Mark Paredes was an attempt a compromise with a persistent editor (please see the edit history and talk page). However the sentence added is a direct quote from the controversial article, which is the subject of the paragraph, and is of course not NPOV. While I personally don't think that sentence is needed, I'm not sure how "over the top, plus "sadly" is not neutral" is proper reasoning for removing it. ^—^Asterisk*^Splat^→ 17:58, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

@AsteriskStarSplat: Because WP:NPOV is a fundamental pillar of Wikipedia editing, especially in biographies of living people. —C.Fred (talk) 17:59, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

We are directly quoting what was said in the controversial blog post, and doing so in a footnote at that. We are not in any way saying that what Paredes said is correct, especially not in WP's own voice. By including the sentence as part of the direct quote:

We are not stating opinions as facts. "Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. For example, an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action", but it may state that "genocide has been described by John X as the epitome of human evil."
It is not contested in any of the sources that that Paredes included this sentence as part of his controversial article. "If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements."
Including this sentence does not state facts as opinions, and again the sentence is not in WP's own voice.
It is difficult to prefer nonjudgmental language when one is directly quoting a source. What we describe in the paragraph, and the point of the response to the blog, is how Paredes is disparaging Reid. Only in this point is there any potential NPOV objection, but I would counter that it is understandable, given that it is a direct quote.

I agree that a summary is better in the article text, but to satisfy the IP editor, there isn't a NPOV reason to not included it. That's not to say that there isn't MOS, stylistic, or other reasons that sentence is less than useful; It's just that I don't see a NPOV objection to it. ^—^Asterisk*^Splat^→ 18:14, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

LHS Ultimate frisbee

Please stop editing the Lexington HS page about the Ultimate Frisbee Team. We are in fact accorded varsity status by the AD. Schools can make any team in any sport varsity (see: cheerleading, also not MIAA). Quite frankly, there's a lot of incorrect and outdated info on that page about a lot of other stuff (X block, new assistant principal, etc.), if you care so much about the school. Thanks.

VARSITY COACH Larry David — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrljdavid (talk • contribs) 03:09, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Shahrak-e Shakid Karimi

Hi Fred have some concerns regarding this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shahrak-e_Shahid_Karimi

My name is Shahid Karimi. In the above article is about a village which name is "Shark-e-Shaheed Karimi", means related to Martyred Karimi. The word "Shahid" here must be pronounced as "Shaheed" not "Shahid". Shahid is a name of man.

So please change the title of the page to "Shaheed Karimi". "Shahid" must be replaced with "Shaheed" in the entire article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shahidparvi (talk • contribs) 18:08, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

@Shahidparvi: I'm not sure all the subtleties of transliterating names from other languages. I'd suggest discussing the matter at the article's talk page to see what the other editors think about the spelling. —C.Fred (talk) 18:11, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Renaming article

how do you edit the name of an article such as capitalizing the last name of someone after an article has been posted? Jeremeypenn (talk) 23:26, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Asked and answered on user's talk page. Meters (talk) 23:52, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Our Lady of Victory Fort Erie

Hi, I noticed you posted a message on tmy talk page regarding the deletion nomintation of Our Lady Victory Fort Erie. I am not the author of that page - I just moved the page from Our lady victory fort erie to a page with the title in capital letters... I think the true author is GODNOTDEAD... Merci beaucoup! NHCLS (talk) 03:12, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

@NHCLS: I think you moved the page just before I tagged it, so Twinkle sent you the notification. I'll make sure it gets passed on to the right editor. —C.Fred (talk) 03:20, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Replaced your greeting

I hard blocked PagePink (talk · contribs) for spamming and username violation. To not send a mixed message on his/her talk page, I replaced your welcome and warnings with the {{uw-uhblock}} message. Feel free to add your greeting back if you wish. In my experience, this sort of editor is always 100% promotional. Cheers, —EncMstr (talk) 05:01, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Re-review this article about living person, J-Pimp

Hi, Wikipedian! Please re-review this article about living person and move to article main page. If meets guidelines on the notability of people and the golden rule. Referencing has been improve, so that the information is notable and worthy of an encyclopedia.

J-Pimp; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:J-Pimp — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CFBE:D540:F90F:2FDD:D1B3:F4D (talk) 17:15, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Reference hasn't really been improved. There are sources, but they don't back up what's asserted in the article. Further, most of the sources are self-published or related sources; there's not a lot of independent coverage. —C.Fred (talk) 17:50, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Land Of The Free by J-Pimp, has been nominated in Billboard (magazine) and is selling in Billboard music store.

J-Pimp; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:J-Pimp — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CFBE:D540:4CE9:A1B3:6FD1:254D (talk) 19:24, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Being offered for sale by their store isn't the same as being ranked in their charts. —C.Fred (talk) 19:38, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

David G. Hebert page

Can you help me to resolve concerns with this page? Should I have someone else edit it? Several other music scholars have pages of this kind: Michael Tenzer, Carolyn Abbate, even Hebert's student Ari Poutiainen. It seems that a Wikipedia page is useful for enabling people to know about innovative research in this area. Does any of the content appear to be unbalanced or insufficiently supported by evidence? What is necessary in order for the page to be considered acceptable? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HistoricalEthnomusicology (talk • contribs) 22:00, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Matt Bomer

Hi, in response to your revert of my c.e. here, I think my version gives a much better summary Bomer's of his career than the previous version. Instead of using phrases like "known for", I have summarised his television career in a much neater way. I have always separated his film and stage career to a new paragraph. Also, the information on his personal life is well-sourced in the article's body. As such I do not see any reason for you to have reverted me. I have restored my version now, and if you have some issue with it please discuss with me instead of another blind revert. Thanks! -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 02:32, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Carousell

I made a mistake in tagging this article for speedy deletion. I did not mean to tag the redirect but to tag the advertising edit previously posted by User:Gggggli. However, that was not the initial article; the redirect was, but I somehow missed that. In the meantime, User:Haminoon "undid revision 644201786 by Gggggli (talk) rv advertising." I should have reverted the edit as Haminoon did, rather than tag it for speedy deletion as I ended up tagging the initial, and apparently correct, redirect. I am sorry for the error and extra work this made for you. Donner60 (talk) 04:24, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

@Donner60: Yeah, sometimes it helps to check the page history and see what was there; good articles or redirects sometimes get overwritten with bad content. I did look at the revision in question, and it was spam; I deleted that revision. —C.Fred (talk) 04:26, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Donner60 (talk) 04:28, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Hard-to-use editing tools

I like Wikipedia but it is extremely difficult to edit articles. This difficulty discourages many users from contributing to articles. I think you should make some way that it is much easier for average users to edit. I mean the format tools are very "programming", not familiar to average users and the GUI is not very attractive either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pentapower (talk • contribs) 03:50, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Gene Abel

I was doing some research on this test that Doctor Abel developed and had gone to his web site and looked at the long list of states and lists of agencies that accepted the test as meeting the requirements in federal court and California courts. The information there refers to specific Legal cases and seems to be the exact opposite of what the person that post this information on this page says. In fact it proves that several statements posted are out right lies. I am not able to understand all the details of how to correct this or to try to edit, I was just doing research on the reliability of the test. From what Dr Abel has posted, and he cant just make up court cases, the test has been accepted in many states and even by the Federal Courts. The article as posted not only is slanted but incorrect in its statements if Dr Abels site is correct. I have nothing to do with Dr Abel or his work other than I was looking information up with regards to the reliability of the tests. I really wish I knew how to go in and edit and such, but I would hope that if you went to Dr Abel site and looked at the court cases he has listed and the states and agency's that he has listed that you would realize just how incorrect it is in this article. Just because there are a 1,000 hits talking about it doesn't make them true information. Court cases are factual , Court rulings are factual , this article is not factual ^[1] 75.111.30.246 (talk) 08:29, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

References

^ http://abelscreening.com/use-acceptance/

Court rulings are sometimes classified as primary sources: "Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. " It's better to use a news article about the ruling as a source rather than the ruling itself. —C.Fred (talk) 11:52, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Nikolaserbboy1995

what are you doing there live 6.596 greeks in France in 2011, why you changed it's true — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikolaserbboy1995 (talk • contribs) 21:35, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

@Nikolaserbboy1995: I don't know whether it's true or not; I do know that the source you cited did not state the population figure. You must provide a reliable source for changes like that. —C.Fred (talk) 21:37, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Nikolaserbboy1995

you have to find the good in french it is therefore difficult — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikolaserbboy1995 (talk • contribs) 21:38, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Ace Tetsu

Thx for the help C.Fred Soo can we upload video too — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ace Tetsu (talk • contribs) 16:17, 31 January 2015‎ (UTC)

Reply at your talk page. Please keep the discussion there, so it's in one place. —C.Fred (talk) 16:20, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Old Request

Thanks for being still around after 4.5 years. Time flies. I have thanked DMacks for giving me a week of protected work, and per his/her suggestion I have stopped posting in order to focus on updating the userified articles and projects. However, some editors have continued to post unfriendly comments and harassing posting, more of my userified pages have been tagged for deletion, I and my projects are attacked and tagged. May I ask for that ExpertScape be userified and the other two (Diabetes and Neovandalism) be protected from tags for the week? Also I have asked that these editors who have continued to post and tag my projects to leave us in peace for this period. Thank you S.Burntout123 (talk) 15:30, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

DMacks did not give you "a week of protected work", whatever that means. They said only that an XfD normally lasts a week.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:07, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

US presidential election, 2016

As an frequent contributor to the the article United States presidential election, 2016, your participation in this discussion would be helpful and appreciated. Thanks.--JayJasper (talk) 05:35, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Conduct of User:DaoXan

You may be interested in this discussion. Yoninah (talk) 21:11, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Elton Mayo

hi. I'm new to wikipedia. Just looking over the rules it seems that edit warring involves 2 people? Have you warned the other person too?? seems pretty biased to me? would appreciate a response. looks like the other person was much more experienced too?Barniecadd (talk) 05:56, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

have you warned the other person 2 for undoing all of my work? are you not s'posed to warn them too? why the bias Cfred??>Barniecadd (talk) 05:58, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

have worked out to add to talk page now fred. will add my points to the article. but yes, have you warned the other experienced person who undid my work 10 times???Barniecadd (talk) 06:03, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

@Barniecadd: Do not add your points to the article yet. You need to discuss to get support for the change before it's made. Until there's support, the article should stay as it was. I do see you've started discussion on the talk page, though. —C.Fred (talk) 17:39, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi CFred. I have not pressed the undo button on that article, after reading some further info on Wikipedia editing last night, and elected instead to leave some details and explanatory notes why I want to add the other information directly from the Trahair book. But it does seem now that the other person is not responding to these points but rather has chosen to pursue some unusual line of debate. Could u possibly look at what I wrote and see if it seems reasonable? appreciated.Barniecadd (talk) 21:56, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Another thought. Could u kindly ask this other person to just speak of relevance and address the points I carefully made on this talk page. That would help greatly I would assume, particularly given yesterday's fiasco.Barniecadd (talk) 21:59, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Frankie Grande

Hi, C.Fred. I confirmed that James Marchione is Grande's younger half-brother. Grande was raised by his mother (Joan Grande), while James was raised by their father and his second wife (James's mother), so the half-brothers never lived together. Grande stated that they are brothers on Big Brother on September 4, and, among other things, there are a couple of photos of them together on the internet. But I have not found a WP:RS. If you have any time to try a search, please do. All the best! -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:23, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

A note from Remoore24

Please forgive me if I am using the wrong format in contacting you. i tried to follow your suggestion on how to reach you, but ended up in the Wiki equivalent of voicemail hell. (Obviously I'm a newbie, so please be patient with me).

I was invited by Wiki to make changes in the references to the website I manage on Jonestown and Peoples Temple. That's all i'm doing, is updating URLs from dead links to the exact same articles/references in the new links. I am working in my capacity as the manager of the largest website on Jonestown and Peoples Temple at jonestown.sdsu.edu, and, the list of URLs was provided to me by Wiki itself.

Here is the text of the message:

Dear Fielding McGehee,

You can either forward the link changes here or, if you like, make the changes yourself.

Please note that if the addresses are left uncorrected, others may fix the problem using the Internet Archive. Most, if not all, of the pages on your site will be preserved in the archive to work around the ephemeral nature of the internet.

Yours sincerely, Matthew Godfrey

I have to say, I have made changes -- some extensive -- on about 80 pages already, and, other than clarifying my status with one other bot, I seem to be working within Wiki guidelines, even on archived material. please inform me if I am incorrect, and *how* I should update outdated links if you think I'm wrong. Thanks.

Fielding M. McGehee III — Preceding unsigned comment added by Remoore24 (talk • contribs) 05:24, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Since this is regarding a message I left on your talk page, my reply is there. —C.Fred (talk) 05:27, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your note. I'm still a touch unclear, so again, I ask for your forbearance in explaining stuff to me.

If an archive has a dead URL, would you prefer that the URL remain dead, where no one can find what the archive is talking about, rather than have me -- acting in good faith, with the imprimatur of Wiki, and in the interest of accuracy -- update it? I guess I did overstep when I deleted the reference to the fact that the citation was dead (since it was no longer dead), and couple pledge to do that. But if it's a matter of putting in a correct URL, wouldn't that be a good idea? And if it isn't, why haven't all my other changes on updating Archives been flagged?

I am asking out of the need for information to guide me as I move forward in the 285 corrections that Wiki tasked me to do. I do affirm, I'm not acting out of vandalism or malice, but in an effort to make Wiki better.

fielding — Preceding unsigned comment added by Remoore24 (talk • contribs) 05:34, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Ariana Grande

Do you think these edits are correct? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ariana_Grande&oldid=645819018&diff=prev

If not, would you kindly revert? Also, I think all these twitter refs make the article weak. All the best! -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:10, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

@Ssilvers: Frankly, I'm partial to MLA-style citing of tweets, where the entire text of the tweet acts as the title. I also think it's time for a {{Cite twitter}} template on Wikipedia, so I'm not feeling the need to jump into an article-specific edit war about this. —C.Fred (talk) 00:20, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

OK. It looks horrible to me, though. All the best! -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:26, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry about my error

I understand where you and Altamel are coming from on the edits to the Wiki references to Jonestown and Peoples Temple, and i apologize for any misunderstandings. I **assumed** when I got the list of pages from the Wiki bosses (=}) which listed all the pages with references to the SDSU website, that I was invited to make the clerical changes, even on the pages that were archived. As I say, this is my first -- and hopefully only -- extended editing on Wiki, because this reflects the only massive number of changes there will be on the Jonestown website. I will respect the Archival nature of the links I was provided, though.

Do you need a list of where I've been? I have it, and would be glad to provide it.

Remoore24 (talk) 17:03, 6 February 2015 (UTC)Remoore24

Copyright problems

Hi Fred, I apologize for the reinstatement of some old revision which was actually a copyrighted work. It was my first edit as a Wiki user. I will rectify this now. Thanks for the welcome and tutorial.

ScaLaWaG 39 (talk) 17:25, 7 February 2015 (UTC)ScaLawaG_39

Thanks

Thanks for reverting what was supposed to be a dummy edit. I picked a really terrible place to make it. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:56, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

AmerAsian School in Okinawa

Hello C. Just out of technical curiosity I wanted to ask you: in AmerAsian School in Okinawa did you do the rd out of courtesy to the new user instead of rolling back to the speedy tag? Best, -- Sam ^Sing! 01:31, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

@Sam Sailor: Yes. It seemed that the user was having trouble getting used to Wikipedia and might not be finding the Draft: page easily. So, the redirect is to help them. One more edit or a few more quiet minutes and I'll delete the redirect (R2 or G6). —C.Fred (talk) 01:32, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, they have done 1 edit, and I thanked them hoping they will see the notification. But what you did there is very thoughtful. I will keep that in mind. -- Sam ^Sing! 01:35, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Baba Hari Dass

A gentle revdel in Baba Hari Dass? -- Sam ^Sing! 01:41, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Viral D

If you get any more about this 14-year-old "rapper", see WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Dao2k. Cheers, JohnCD (talk) 21:51, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Teodor Atanasiu - incident

I'm realy sorry for revert/warring on Teodor Atanasiu' article.

Problem started on 11:33, 5 February 2015‎ - when a I made a small modification... all I done was modified/undone... and I got the feeling that articole is protected... and I have no right to edit that article.

On 18 February 2015 at 18:29, I will try to make a small correction...and that will be reverted - If I'm wrong.. I will never edit any article on wiki.. if not ... pls. verify!!

Thank you for your assistance and understanding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boricua78 (talk • contribs) 11:53, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

@Boricua78: What's the "small correction" you want to make? If it's really small, tell me what it is, and I can go ahead and make it. If it's not really small, you should discuss the change at Talk:Teodor Atanasiu and see if there's broad support for the change—then, once a consensus is reached, the change can be made.

Wikipedia does really work on a collaborative basis, not adversarial. Please discuss the changes you want to make, so we can get to where the majority of people support the changes you want (or at least you can see why they have an issue with them). —C.Fred (talk) 14:05, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry man but i'm not English! I'll revise the page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alebera (talk • contribs) 18:25, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for patrolling CitizenGO, if there are more redlink recently created editors who only edit that article I'll ask for it to be semi-protected. Cheers. -- Aronzak (talk) 05:43, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Cleary Gottlieb page

Hi Fred,

I'm a legal reporter and found something preposterous today. I noticed that out of all the major law firms, only cleary gottlieb has skewed and unfair accusations on its wiki page, highlighting arguments by all of its critics. Why is this published on wikipedia? I urge you to please make a comparison between the Cleary page and that of other law firms. You will see that something has gone terribly wrong. Can we please fix this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charliepickny (talk • contribs) 04:33, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

@Charliepickny: The material about CG was backed up by reliable sources, so it's appropriate to mention in the article. Neutral point of view requires presenting well-sourced material that is both positive and negative.

If you really think the coverage is skewed, can you give specific examples of other firms that you don't think have had similar issues covered in their articles? Make sure to provide links to the sources covering the controversies with those firms, so I can weigh why they haven't been listed there. —C.Fred (talk) 04:37, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Fred,

Thanks for the response. I checked Cleary's peer firms and they don't cover any controversies. Please review the following Wikies: Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, Davis Polk & Wardwell, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, Cravath, Swaine & Moore, Simpson Thacher & Bartlett, etc. NONE of these other firms have any sort of besmirching criticism or highlighting of critics the way the Cleary wiki does. The Cleary wiki is dominated by criticism and bad coverage, especially a long section on the Argentina case (if anything that should be its own page covering controversies regarding that case, but not a skewed expose on the Cleary website). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charliepickny (talk • contribs) 15:23, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Mike Shinoda Wikipedia Page

Hello C.Fred, I'm new to this and I don't mean to be rude, I really don't understand, how aren't YouTube videos of a person speaking what is written in the article reliable? I saw a lot of pages that said "N announced on their Twitter account" and the like. I know that looked like nonsense, but that was no vandalism, all of the information I put there was 100% true and the sources were actual proof. So please explain, why do you say it's unreliable? So that I never break this rule again. Thanks!Panika ts (talk) 17:20, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Reply on your talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 17:21, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Aisha Sharma

Actuallyl that was not the starter of the page but another person that was trying to delete the AFD. Wgolf (talk) 04:29, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

@Wgolf: Jashafi24 did finally come back to the page and try to blank it. Since that was the only account with substantive contributions, I went ahead and speedied the article. —C.Fred (talk) 04:31, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I was wondering what happened there too. Meters (talk) 04:49, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I opened the page as I saw there's no page on wikipedia. But then a celebrity(her sister) contacted me to remove the page so I did blanked(I thought this is the only option to delete) that, as I'm still new on wikipedia so I don't know how to delete or post on talk page(as I'm currently learning from Help pages). My apologies and will contact you through talk page for any help. Thanks. (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 06:50, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

i am malia keo and i dont agree with you

im credible — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maliakeo (talk • contribs) 21:19, 21 February 2015 (UTC) i have a sugar daddy and he wants to sign me. i sing like a raunchy angel, im serious — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maliakeo (talk • contribs) 21:25, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Ayman Mohyeldin

The Chris Kyle issue was a comment attributed to Kyles own book and sources close to him. Ayman had received numerous death threats and hateful rhetoric on his page. This section if his Wiki page is highlight his career achievements-NOT to feed the masses who continue to spew hate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hokiechicklet (talk • contribs) 23:29, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

@Hokiechicklet: The article on Ayman Mohyeldin needs to have comprehensive coverage. If there's been a controversy involving him, and if it's been documented in reliable sources, then it needs to be covered in the article—whether it's favourable to him or not. —C.Fred (talk) 23:49, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

…And it appears that there are at least two reliable sources reporting the same sequence of events. —C.Fred (talk) 23:58, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

The relevance of this controversy is? It seems like CFred just wants to add it to this page to continue the hate being directed at Mr Mohyeldin. Please look at his social media pages to see what he has endured the last few weeks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hokiechicklet (talk • contribs) 01:04, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

@Hokiechicklet: As I said at AN/I, there is a case for this incident not being relevant to his career. If he gets sacked by MSNBC over it, then it is relevant, but the case may be it's too early to say yet that it is. As I also said, that's a matter for discussion at the article's talk page so we can get a broad consensus. —C.Fred (talk) 01:07, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I have submitted my request for review. In the meantime leave it off. The examiner is not exactly a reliable source, along the lines of Fox news. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hokiechicklet (talk • contribs) 01:15, 16 February 2015‎ (UTC)

@Hokiechicklet: The likely reply at AN/I will be that it's a content dispute and you should discuss it at the article talk page. Which you really should: you've made three reverts to the page within the past 24 hours. —C.Fred (talk) 01:17, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I wi continue to edit as much as I want to you don't own Aymans Wiki page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hokiechicklet (talk • contribs) 01:22, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

@Hokiechicklet: And that's why you just got reported at WP:AN3. —C.Fred (talk) 01:26, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

@Hokiechicklet:Just jumping in here. Firstly, I undid your changes for edit warring and blanking without explanation. Secondly Wikipedia is not only for highlighting achievements, it is for any notable information. The information you are attempting to censor has been covered by multiple reliable sources. Even if this information is negative towards the subject of the article, it is true and notable, and has a place in the article. Deunanknute (talk) 01:32, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I left the crap about Chris Kyke alone and added content. I have been editing this page for over a year when no one else gad interest until this CK debacle. You said the death threats could be added and I added them. You seem to have a personal vendetta against Ayman — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hokiechicklet (talk • contribs) 00:22, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

@Hokiechicklet: The death threats, like everything else in the article, require citation of a reliable source. You have not provided one. —C.Fred (talk) 00:30, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Funny how I've been editing the page Ayman Mohyeldin for well over a year, and yet since the Chris Kyle issue came up I'm being lectured every time I add/delete something. No one took an interest in this page prior. What gives? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hokiechicklet (talk • contribs) 22:46, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

@Hokiechicklet: What happened? The Chris Kyle controversy. A lot of articles will spend years in relative anonymity until some event happens related to the subject of the article. Once the event happens the article starts to get lots more eyes on it—and lots more editors taking an interest in the article and its content.

Additionally, when an article is edited like that, a lot of new accounts may start editing it. Some of us, myself included, look in a lot on edits made by new accounts. So, when a suspect edit shows up there, we take a look—and we may dig even deeper into the article.

All things considered, it's not a bad thing for the article, when more editors are involved and working to improve it. —C.Fred (talk) 23:27, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Spitalfields Mathematical Society

I wish to contest the speedy deletion of Spitalfields Mathematical Society, which I believe to be notable. Please restore it, in order that I and its creator can continue to work on it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:32, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: I've restored it to the Draft namespace; you can continue to work on it at Talk:Spitalfields Mathematical Society. —C.Fred (talk) 16:50, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

That was kind of a too-hasty WP:DONOTDEMOLISH situation, C.Fred, usually you don't do stuff like that. Trout slap! Montanabw ^(talk) 22:23, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Plip!

An organization that had been dead for 150 years after merging into another organization sure didn't seem like there was any notability asserted. I suppose I could've just redirected it to the absorbing organization. —C.Fred (talk) 22:25, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

AN/I

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:C.Fred is abusing his editoral powers on Wikipedia to advance his own personal point of view.. Thank you. Sam Walton (talk) 19:09, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

@Samwalton9: Thanks for the heads-up. I've replied to the AN/I posting. Let me know if you think I need to initiate a sockpuppet investigation against the new account that filed the report. —C.Fred (talk) 19:12, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

On the other hand, this one was a good call. Montanabw ^(talk) 22:24, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Crunch, crunch!

Here are some chips to go with your fish!

@Montanabw: Thank you! I've got curling on the TV right now; any chance of getting some cheese curds and gravy to go with those? :) —C.Fred (talk) 22:26, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Ewwww! Montanabw ^(talk) 22:32, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I am the School's Custodian of Records. I have the transcripts for former students.

There currently is NO website for students to obtain this information. We need to have a contact point where they can find me.

I need that information back up please.

Thanks, Angela Schill

SpeedRacer80286 (talk) 00:07, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

@SpeedRacer80286: ~~Then they should be calling the school directly for that information.~~ —C.Fred (talk) 00:09, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh, that's right, this is the school that closed. Then we come back to a verifiability issue: what published source confirms that you are the custodian of records? —C.Fred (talk) 00:12, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I have a letter of authority signed by the School before it was closed. I also possess ALL of the remaining School transcripts. I am the only one still active trying to help students who need their records. I've put a mention on my LinkedIn page hoping a keyword search will help. https://www.linkedin.com/in/angelaschill SpeedRacer80286 (talk) 00:17, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Speed/Angela, even if you are who you say you are and do what you say you do, such contact information is not appropriate content for an encyclopedia article: see WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. You should set up a Facebook or MySpace page for the school, not attempt to piggyback on our encyclopedia article.Wikipedia is not here to serve your cause, however noble it may be. --Orange Mike | Talk 05:34, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Cúram Software

Hi C.Fred, this is Phedbl. I'm totally new to Wikipedia so I have no idea if this message will get through to you. My apologies in advance if I'm messing up. When I made the changes to the Curam entry, I thought I had included an explanation for why I made the changes. I did one for the Minnesota entry and one for the Ontario entry. In both instances I explained that all of the issues mentioned had been resolved and that each customer was now happy with the solution. The Minn Governor wrote a second letter to the IBM CEO praising the solution and the Ontario customer has presented at IBM conferences and serves as a reference. I'm not sure why those explanations didn't show up. Phedbl (talk) 19:40, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

@Phedbl: A couple of things. First, if the situations were resolved, you should have added the resolution to the bottom of the section, not just delete it. Second, a letter from the governor of Minnesota to IBM cannot be cited as a reliable source—although media coverage of the letter could be. Finally, the citations would need added into the text of the article, not just in the edit summary. —C.Fred (talk) 19:47, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Bounded rationality

I knew I was forgetting a point... — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:53, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: That's why the project is built on collaboration. :) —C.Fred (talk) 01:55, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Good job

Thank you for blocking Fuckinsuperflashieboy for harrasing me and User:ToonLucas22 I realy appreciate that. Thank you Superflashieboy123 (talk) 12:21, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

The Center Line: Winter 2015


Volume 8, Issue 1 • Winter 2015 • About the Newsletter
Departments Assessment roundup Portal selected articles and pictures	Features Be part of the turnaround... now become part of the solution Raising the speed limit on KML creation RCS coming for the Texas FM/RM routes The bar is set for 2015	State and national updates CA, DE, MI In other project news...
Archives • Newsroom • Full Issue • Shortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS

—MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Imzadi1979 (talk · contribs) 18:37, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Spot Fish

Would you please explain your reasons for reinstating this heavily plagiarised and inappropriate article. --Epipelagic (talk) 23:55, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

@Epipelagic: See the talk page. Another user pointed out that there is non-duplicated material that should be merged back into a single article about the fish. Which non-Wikipedia sites were plagiarized? —C.Fred (talk) 23:56, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

There have been many exchanges since the ones you mention. See here, here and here. --Epipelagic (talk) 00:11, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

@Epipelagic: I see the copyvio template from a Smithsonian site. See Talk:Spot Fish#Copyright issues, which I just opened. —C.Fred (talk) 00:36, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Copyright violation claim

Spot Fish article.

If my article is in violation so is that of spot croaker which references most of the information I did aswell except edited it to suite their definition of the species.

Also the ToS on Smithsonian allows for NON COMMERCIAL PUBLIC USE - So long as it is credited. Which it is. Cheatspace (talk) 00:43, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

@Cheatspace: So, you affirm that the material is not under a free license? For Wikipedia purposes, a free license must include free commercial use. —C.Fred (talk) 00:44, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

See TOS http://www.si.edu/Termsofuse - Section Permitted use - http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html

Cheatspace (talk) 00:52, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

@Cheatspace: The use in the article is too extensive to pass the non-free content criteria. It sounds like you agree that this material is not free and cannot be used in current form on Wikipedia. Shall I go ahead and delete? —C.Fred (talk) 00:54, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I will rewrite this article 100% from experience and use no external information posted on any website. If I see 1 more edit in a negative way by this community, Both my wallet and my time will be closed to wikipedia forever. \ Cheatspace (talk) 01:07, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

@Cheatspace: You should use information from external sources; you can't copy their exact text. You also can't base an article on yoru own original research; independent reliable sources must be used. —C.Fred (talk) 01:09, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Charley Steiner

Hello. I edited the page for Charley Steiner, and I've seen that all my edits were deleted. All of my information came from reliable sources and was factual, so I'm wondering why all my contributions were removed. Can we work together to edit the page for the utmost accuracy? Knobrien (talk) 18:44, 27 February 2015 (UTC)knobrien

@Knobrien: As I said at the time, my revert was to "Restore references and links; undo major clear-out of article by editor with admitted COI."

In other words:

Your edits removed references from the article; articles need references to reliable sources so that we can verify the content.
Your edits removed internal links to other Wikipedia articles that are part of the navigation system of Wikipedia.
You removed almost a third of the article.
You admitted that you were editing at the request of the subject. Wikipedia articles should be neutral; when an editor has a conflict of interest, it can be difficult for that user to keep a neutral point of view in the article.

Because of your conflict of interest, it is probably better if you do not edit the article directly. Instead, request changes at Talk:Charley Steiner, and other editors will review them. If there is support, an editor who is independent of Steiner will make the change. Make sure that you cite reliable sources in your request—and preferably secondary sources published by agencies that are independent of Steiner. —C.Fred (talk) 01:06, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! I will consider your suggestions. 50.244.4.179 (talk) 20:06, 1 March 2015 (UTC)knobrien

Federal Republic of Four

Proof: https://thefourgov.wordpress.com/ The Federal Republic of Four is a valid sovereign micro-nation state and is NOT obviously invented. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.167.213.109 (talk) 02:56, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but all it proves is that the people who invented it got a blog. —C.Fred (talk) 03:05, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

You said "Made up by article creator or an associate, and no indication of importance/significance: or A7, or even G11, since the creator is holding himself out as the government of this (alleged) micronation)". The Four Government is made up of more than 10 citizens and as for indication of significance, that is impossible as Four is a micronation. Micronations typically don't have significance. However, I am a representative of the Government and am simply TRYING to make a wikipedia page to publicise Four so that MAYBE we can get some SECONDARY sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.167.213.109 (talk) 03:39, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

So, you admit that the page is blatant promotion? That's grounds for speedy deletion in and of itself.

All subjects need to wait until they become notable before they may have an article here. Micronations are no exception. —C.Fred (talk) 03:41, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

199.167.213.109 (talk) 03:42, 2 March 2015 (UTC) Representative of the Four National Government

Which means you also need to review WP:Conflict of interest, since you have one. —C.Fred (talk) 03:43, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Final reply from the Four Government

To the musher of minds and irker of ideas.

The Four Government will officially halt all advances of wikipedia pages till we have the "precious secondary sources" in a few months and it will attempt to make the requirments of "non-promotionalism etc". We. Will. Be. Back

Vro'ia trematyor ulashtri lita Four kalypros. Wyrniv rizher viandzhentz.

Vro'ia Ulashtrioryktop

Osik!

Kroshnya lita Fyodrel Revuryk!

Four Novre Aya!

Nwarnya, vri lita mourosh sydezanerzh ulashtri lita Fyodrel Revuryk ulashtri Four.

199.167.213.109 (talk) 04:03, 2 March 2015 (UTC) - Vroto Osalynsia, revurykia ulashtri lita uryk

Please make sure that you read the relevant Wikipedia guidelines in the interim:

Speaking of the last, the Republic of Four (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) account has been blocked because it represents a group of people. —C.Fred (talk) 04:10, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Problems at Lavash

Hello C.Fred,

I noticed that you edit frequently at Lavash. There seems to be concerns that need some immediate oversight. I have already briefly described them here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Edit-warring_over_an_unexplained_POV_tag. As you can see, Esc2003 has placed the POV tag in the article four times, and still doesn't provide a rationale at the talk page. The article is now highly unstable. I think there needs to be some sort of care for this user in the way you seem fit. Étienne Dolet (talk) 22:29, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Abandoned Shipwreck Act

Dear Fred: I have watched for years as our Marketing and Media Department has respectfully tried to correct and edit the falsehoods put out by anonymous sources. Constant updates and explanations are deleted and simply replaced by the same slanderous wording about our Company. This issue has been turned over to our Legal Department for action if our Company names is used in a "factual" area of content as Wikipedia has intentionally done for years regarding the ASA. I will hold off on pursuit of legal action if the wording is not moved to the opinions section, or totally removed as false. Just read the wording from Congress on the provisions of the Act, then you will understand our position. It was not passed due to looting and pirating by the Mel Fisher Organization. This is false, but it keeps being posted as fact by anonymous sources and those with "agendas". — Preceding unsigned comment added by JOE SWEENEY 1961 (talk • contribs) 17:58, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

@JOE SWEENEY 1961: This message is ambiguous. You've turned the issue over to the legal department but are holding off on legal action? You should really remove any mention of turning the matter over to legal because of the chilling effect that has on discussion. I suggest you strike through that text in the message above and in this message you left WikiDan61. That will clearly and unabmiguously say you're taking the possibility of legal action off the table—because as long as the threat is there, you could be subject to having your account blocked until the threat is withdrawn.

There is a further issue with your mentions of "our Marketing and Media Department." This suggest you work for a company that is involved in this area (I'm guessing somehow connected to Mel Fisher Organization). That means you have a conflict of interest and need to edit carefully in any topics related to the organization and its activities—or any time it's mentioned in an article. —C.Fred (talk) 18:41, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Kashyap Rajput Sub Castes

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Kashyap Rajput Sub Castes requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, images, a rephrasing of the title, a question that should have been asked at the help or reference desks, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Amortias (T)(C) 21:23, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Ignore this someones screwing around with a userpage you tagged as a sockpuppet. See WP:ANI#Moved userpage. Amortias (T)(C) 21:30, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Kashyap Rajput Sub Castes

Okay this article that you started out as a user it appears has a really odd page now, look: Kashyap Rajput Sub Castes. Wgolf (talk) 21:44, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:ANI#Moved userpage. Amortias (T)(C) 21:53, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Carolina Munhóz page

Hi C. Fred! I notice that you deleted the talk about the page from Brazilian best-seller writer Carolina Munhóz. By what I read they said that I added only blogs but that is not true. ABOUT THE LINKS: - There is a link about an interview that she gave to Uol - An article about Brazil's last book fair where she sold more than John Green, Cassandra Clare and Veronica Roth. This was by Veja Magazine, Brazil’s biggest magazine and the best-selling weekly newsmagazine outside of the United States, with a circulation of over 1 million. Source: http://www.forbes.com/sites/andersonant - An article about her success on the largest newspaper in Brazil called Folha de São Paulo. This Brazilian newspaper has the highest print and circulation among the national dailies of general interest. - Another link is from Capricho Magazine the main teen magazine from the country naming her one of the top 5 writes to check out. - Another link is from O Globo Journal. Globo is the largest media group in Brazil. Controls, among other businesses, the leading broadcast television network in Brazil, the leading pay-TV programmer in Brazil, as well as Internet content and service provider, music label and magazine publishing companies. Globo also holds a minority interest in each of the leading Brazilian cable television operator and the leading Brazilian satellite direct to home television distributor. http://globoir.globo.com/static/enu/organizacao.asp - There is a link from a major soap opera from Globo where one of the main character talked about her book. - Two American websites talking about why the mega seller writer Paulo Coelho refused to go to Frankfurt Fair and showing her name as one of the motives. - And the list goes on. ABOUT THE AWARDS: - She won a major award in Brazil as the best young writer. In this link you can see her name on the year 2011 - http://www.premiojovem.com.br/#/quem-ganhou. - She just won the American Award "Shorty Award" in the Author category by Vox Populi. http://shortyawards.com/category/7th/author. - Her latest book won book of the year by the second major teen magazine in Brazil, Atrevida. This best-seller author has more than 500 thousand mentions on Google. More than 80 thousand followers on social media. There are two another wikipedia links where her name is mentioned https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophia_Abrah%C3%A3o and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O_Reino_das_Vozes_Que_N%C3%A3o_Se_Calam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yaramar Barbosa (talk • contribs) 08:39, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

@Yaramar Barbosa: I deleted Talk:Carolina Munhóz at the same time I deleted the Carolina Munhóz article, and I deleted the article because it was a copyright violation. We can't just take the text from Munhoz's website and copy that to the Wikipedia article. ~~If the article has been rewritten, then there's no longer a copyright problem—there's just the issue of her notability being addressed by the AfD discussion.~~ —C.Fred (talk) 13:33, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

The article has not been rewritten—it's still copied wholesale from http://www.carolinamunhoz.com/blog/english/. I didn't delete the article this time; I did blank the bulk of the text. We cannot copy text from other websites; text on Wikipedia must be under a free license, and there is no statement on Munhoz's website to say the text is in the public domain or under Creative Commons license. —C.Fred (talk) 13:42, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello! I just talked with the writer and she added on the English page that the infos can be copied. Is in the bottom. You can check that please? And yesterday she was on the Hollywood Reporter page - www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/shorty-awards-2015-nominees-include-778517. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yaramar Barbosa (talk • contribs) 03:08, 4 March 2015‎ (UTC)

@Yaramar Barbosa: The notice on the page says "Informations can be shared in other pages like Wikipedia." That's not the same as clearly licensing the text of the page under a free license. We could already use the information from the page; we just couldn't copy the exact text. —C.Fred (talk) 03:33, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Teodor Atanasiu

Hi, I was blocked for one week and I accepted the punishment. I want you to see something. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Justin_Capr%C4%83&action=history same abuse... I did made a slightly correction... pls. verify... https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Teodor_Atanasiu&action=history Thank you for cooperation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boricua78 (talk • contribs) 13:07, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I had the same problem... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Justin_Capr%C4%83 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boricua78 (talk • contribs) 15:36, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

@Boricua78: I don't see where you edited that page at all. —C.Fred (talk) 18:45, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry for my editing to 108.234.36.176 (Talk)

Sorry for doing unconstructive editing to that talk page. I'll try to do useful edits in the future! If you want to contact me, goto my talk page Συντάκτης 03:46, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

The Fish Article

Hi, I would like to bring this to your attention & get your input on it.(Link Below) With this in mind. I would like to look forward to collaberating and creating accurate content and building this article up.

Link below

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Spot_croaker#Response_to_Reliable_Sources

I do not feel that we should argue over the article and not make progress to correct it.

Cheatspace (talk) 21:09, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Mass attack (regarding 1O8.25.61.171)

Please disable talk page. DivineAlpha (talk) 04:24, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

@DivineAlpha: The user hasn't edited since the block. Can you point to a diff on the talk page that justifies revoking access? —C.Fred (talk) 04:27, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Based on the other accounts/IP's. DivineAlpha (talk) 04:29, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

@DivineAlpha: Yeah, I'm starting to see the pattern but not who the original master is. —C.Fred (talk) 04:30, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess that would be the only problem I presume the actual IP address], but not 100%. DivineAlpha (talk) 04:37, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

@DivineAlpha: Well, now he's made an abusive unblock request, so there goes his talk page access. —C.Fred (talk) 04:39, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, and here. DivineAlpha (talk) 04:45, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

BeBee

Dear C. Fred:

beBee is a registered company in Spain, UK, Europe, USA, Brazil and Mexico. The name beBee Affinity Social Network is trademarked. The proof can be found with the governing trademark bodies. beBee is not promoting through the use of Wikipedia but they would like to be a referance.

I have noticed that you have deleted the beBee post from Wikipedia. I would like to verify that the content in the post is legitimate and accurate.

I am not the person who published the post, that person was Benjamin Morett.

The post is unbiased.

I hope you understand and that this article can be posted.

Thanks and have a lovely day!

Kind regards, Netta Helena Virtanen

Netta Virtanen (talk) 15:42, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

@Netta Virtanen: Assuming the article(s) were written neutrally—and it looks like there have been at least three of them, based on the sequence of warnings at User talk:Benjamin S. Morett, the issue was not promotional tone but the failure to assert that the company is yet a notable company. The key issue would be the lack of reliable sources to demonstrate the company's notability.

In particular, the version of BeBee Affinity Social Network I deleted on 16 Feb contained zero references to independent sources.

So, that's the big reason the article was deleted for failing to assert significance or importance: lack of sources. The secondary issue is that, without a released product yet, the company well and truly hasn't done anything.

Long story short, until there are outside references to independent articles about the company, it may not have an article. —C.Fred (talk) 15:49, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

CampClaire

Hi C.Fred, How is it an exact duplicate if I rewrote it in my own words? thank you! Campclaire (talk) 04:04, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

@Campclaire: You had started a separate draft, but the Camp Claire article itself was unchanged. —C.Fred (talk) 11:51, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

The Shout Out UK page

Hi C.Fred,

The page Shout Out UK has been attacked by an organisation call Civitatis International, I believe they are blaming Shout Out UK for the guardian article that exposed them on charging for references. Could you please restore all edits done yesterday to the one you last did, which was by farthe most accurate. ~Helloski. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Helloskiable (talk • contribs) 12:20, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Userpage protection

Any reason your userpage isn't semi-protected? From a glance into its history, I see a ridiculous amount of vandalism. Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:29, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

@SNUGGUMS: It probably could be. The one thing leaving it unprotected is that if anybody does vandalize it, it makes clear that vandalism is their intention. —C.Fred (talk) 14:50, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Interesting..... Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:35, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Chaldean Catholic Church page

According to my paid version of Bitdefender AV Plus 2015, the site kaldu.org is blocked, since it comes up as infested with malware. You might want to scan kaldu.org and check that the site is indeed safe. If it's infected, you might want to consider removing any linkages to it. Mwidunn (talk) 09:16, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I did not create a page article Alonda Shevette

Alonda Shevette (talk) 06:21, 18 March 2015 (UTC)Hello, I would like to know why my name is on this site other than than my page. This is false information linked to my name, my name is Alonda Shevette and I would like all other page articles to be remove. I am in fact the only Alonda Shevette you will find online and I did not create or give permission to anyone else to create a page for me. This is misrepresentation of my name and could cause harm to my career opportunities. Thanks!Alonda Shevette

@Alonda Shevette: There was an article created a few days ago by BobbyTGarcia. That article, Alonda Shevette, has already been deleted, so I'm not sure what else needs done. —C.Fred (talk) 10:41, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

As for the attempt to start a user page with your own bio, if you want that deleted entirely, we can do that. Reply to let me know what you want done with that. —C.Fred (talk) 10:44, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Or there's the draft article you have going in User:Alonda Shevette/sandbox. It's not searchable yet, but you created that today as well. —C.Fred (talk) 10:45, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Sarah Bird

Hi, I noticed you reverted something before on the Sarah Bird page and I have seen some changes to it that I am not sure if legitimate or not. The editor claims they are changing it in compliance with the subject's request, but hasn't indicated the reason. Should I leave it alone or pursue it? (The citations about the author's pseudonymous romance novels as Tory Cates that she discussed in several print publications, as well as online interviews) ^[1] ^[2] ^[3] and some pdfs of print that you can find with a Google search for _Sarah Bird Tory Cates_ Felisse (talk) 17:33, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

References

Thank you for putting in the higher scrutiny on the Sarah Bird page, but I still am not sure what I should do about including or not including information about the author's romance novels that were written pseudonymously. The page that has guidelines for biographies of living subjects says to respect the changes by the subject or their representatives if they are correcting incorrect information. It doesn't say much about if they are removing sourced, correct information that they are stated to not want in the article. Thanks for any advice or suggestions you can give. Felisse (talk) 15:38, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Possible snow close

I saw your edit at 2015 ACC Men's Basketball Tournament to "rm link to indiscriminate stats". Can you look at the related bulk AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2015 Big East Men's Basketball Tournament - Media timeout, and possibly delete them per WP:SNOW. I usually don't worry about AfD running until completion, but the article creator has not discussed at the AfD, yet keeps reinserting the articles as "See also"s, and has curiously cut-and-pasted the contested content into new (not moved) articles, like at 2015 Big East Men's Basketball Tournament - Media Timeout, which I CSD A10ed. I'd close the AfD myself, but am involved having !voted already early on. Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 21:24, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

@Bagumba: I was going to loop back to that sooner or later. I guess it was sooner. AfD closed, and I'm watching the user's talk page to see if anything further happens. :) —C.Fred (talk) 23:45, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I Would Like To Keep The User Bio I Created Yesterday For Review Because I Did It Because Of The Fake One

I created my own to prevent fakes. My bio is in review to get approval before posting. Yes, I would like to keep the one I created all others I'd like removed and off google if possible, Thanks!Alonda Shevette (talk) 05:16, 19 March 2015 (UTC)Alonda Shevette

@Alonda Shevette: We have no control over Google's schedule for revisiting pages and possibly removing the old version from their search engine.

Though I do find it curious that this "fake" bio was by somebody who was at an event that you attended and took a picture of you: File:Alonda Shevette at GCFC Road To The Red Carpet.jpg. If that image is a copyrighted press image, please let me know, so I can have it taken down for copyright infringement. —C.Fred (talk) 13:19, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Vortex Ring State

Hi C.Fred. You removed my amendment in its entirety, even though the original one was both very poorly written and inaccurate.

Why did you do that please?

I don't understand your comments about the introduction being 'too long'??

Many thanks for your time O Glyndwr. — Preceding unsigned comment added by O Glyndwr (talk • contribs) 14:02, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

@O Glyndwr: The major reason was the broken formatting: you removed the section headings from the document, replacing them with bolded text to set the sections apart. You also removed the references from the detection and reaction sections. Finally, the addition of the "It is also worth noting" paragraph seemed beyond the scope of an introduction; the introduction should summarize the article. —C.Fred (talk) 15:53, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of Article

Hello, I was wondering why my article was deleted, I could not add sources as you did not let me finish adding them in time. The article is Jean Alejandro Di San. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raul Cortez999 (talk • contribs) 13:26, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

@Raul Cortez999: The article had sat with no updates and was speedy-deletable. Feel free to try creating it again as a draft (Draft:Alejandro Di San). Make sure not only that you provide sources, but also that you show how he is notable. —C.Fred (talk) 15:55, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Article "Wikipedia is dumb"

Citations? I don't need no stinking citations! The source of the essay is MY PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE. I talked about a joke they told when I was in graduate school, that's my personal experience, and i dont need to cite it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fredebal (talk • contribs) 17:16, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

@Fredebal: In other words, it's original research and should be removed. —C.Fred (talk) 17:18, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

But, that's my point, C.Fred. Yes, its original research. But, Wikipedia doesn't need to ban original research, and make a big to-do about maintaining its credibility, because Wikipedia doesn't have any crediibility anyway.Fredebal (talk) 17:20, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

@Fredebal: Oh, so you're just trying to make a point. I see, and I've handled accordingly. —C.Fred (talk) 17:23, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

ANI report without notification

Hey, I don't know if you were telling me about AdamDeanHall but I did in fact tell him i was contacting administration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkseid 77 (talk • contribs) 00:19, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

@Darkseid 77: But you did not notify him after you filed the ANI. That's what policy requires. —C.Fred (talk) 00:21, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Your redirect

Looks like this was a botched attempt by a newbie to create an article on this book: The Internment of Japanese Americans During World War II: Detention of American Citizens. I was debating making it a redirect, but it might be worth talking to the newbie. I can;t see that the book is notable, but haven;t really done any research. Cheers. --Gaff (talk) 02:57, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Sumedh Mudgalkar

I read on Wikipedia that you deleted SUMEDH MUDGALKAR'S web page. So can you please bring it back???? I really want to read it.

Thank You. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Divya Deshmukh (talk • contribs) 13:45, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

@Divya Deshmukh: No, sorry. Even though he participated in a reality show, that's not enough for him to have an article. See WP:BIO. —C.Fred (talk) 01:36, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

The Image Is Fine

the image is fine. There are lots of images of me online and on random web pages. There were many pictures taken that night by many different people. I just think the info on the site especially personal and on this website in particular should be accurate.The key words are false information. I have been here since 2010 and haven't made any changes since my first time on. but the pic is fine, I have shared similar pics publicly, thanks!Alonda Shevette (talk) 05:23, 20 March 2015 (UTC)Alonda Shevette

@Alonda Shevette: So that picture is free, then? Not that I'm planning to, but a person could print t-shirts and sell them using that image? —C.Fred (talk) 13:37, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

(Was headed: The pic isn't mine)

I really don't want to get into that on Wikipedia. If I have an issue with something, I will complain and try and contact you myself. The information on the photo seems to be accurate even sounds a little like me, so no complaint there. It's actually a nice gesture. Thanks for the advice though, I sincerely appreciate it, thanks! Alonda Shevette (talk) 08:56, 21 March 2015 (UTC)Alonda Shevette

@Alonda Shevette: The description wasn't the issue. I was making sure you agreed with the uploader's claim to have been a fan in attendance at the event. —C.Fred (talk) 12:07, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of Article

I re-worked the article that you deleted for PROSOCO. My apologies I hadn't built a Wiki page in a year, while I was refreshing my skills I was getting bombarded with editor no-no's from editors.

Changes Include:

Additonal relevent sources added credibility: Yahoo Finance profile, Huffington Post article, copy of Process Solvent Company patent from United States Patent Office.

Company categories reduced to 2

Work reviewed by journalism professional for grammar and proper source citing.Desbien (talk) 19:58, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Reviewed similar organizations live Wiki pages to insure information is notable.Desbien (talk) 20:07, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

I will cite more direct mentions of sources. Thanks for input.Desbien (talk) 21:33, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

jill kelley

Thanks I will add all the sources that tarc said the undo would require let me know what else you need

much appreciated

harvardclub — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harvardclub (talk • contribs) 20:02, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Jill kelley

Thank you for this page, Fred I believe that the "status quo" is actually what Baublor originally undid (it was VictheVampire that erroneously disrupted it with unnecessary changes) Therefore agree with the reasonable edits of Baublor and Harvardclub Thank you Kennsington — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kennsington (talk • contribs) 00:18, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

FYI. Always a good sign when you agree with yourself I suppose. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:02, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Halsey (singer)

As you can see in the history of Halsey (singer) [3] it was created by Halseymusic17. An auto biography is a big no no. WP:AB --MessiahDark (talk) 14:20, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

@MessiahDark: While the username screams conflict of interest, it doesn't automatically mean autobiography. —C.Fred (talk) 15:15, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I've asked the user for clarification. —C.Fred (talk) 15:28, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Revert

I didn't look at the timestamps. My bad. :P -WarthogDemon 16:48, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

David Coburn

Hi C.Fred. I thought I'd come to you directly as you're an admin and online and just made a revert. The user is about to pass 3RR yet again and shows absolutely no inclination to take things first to talk page or edit in a way appropriate given their WP:COI. They were previously blocked for edit warring – see their talk page and are straight back at it again. Your intervention would be much appreciated. Cheers. --Jay _{Σεβαστός}^discuss 13:04, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for seeming to over-ride you on this one - I had gone away to think about what to do, drafted my block comment, and only then saw your note. However, his immediate return to edit-warring, and complete lack of any response to advice except angry edit-summaries, plus the fact that (though I don't doubt he is who he says) we really need OTRS confirmation, persuaded me that an indef was inevitable sooner or later and we might as well get it over with. JohnCD (talk) 14:05, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you both very much for intervening. Fred was kind to try yet again to reason with Mr. Coburn, but I'm afraid it was a lost cause, and those of us who saw his previous editing war spree were only too aware. I hope you will understand my breaking of 3RR too as I think it's fair under WP:3RRBLP. Thanks again to both of you. --Jay _{Σεβαστός}^discuss 14:17, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

@JohnCD: I wasn't surprised that a block was coming. If nothing else, I figured my message was a caution about why what was about to happen was going to happen and an attempt to engage in positive discussion. I also figured that I sat just close enough with my prior involvement that a block would look better if it came from an admin who was much more independent/not-involved with the situation. In other words, while I'd still like to work with the editor for positive results, I endorse the block. —C.Fred (talk) 15:29, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Need assistance from users who know well the MOS:LEAD policy

Extra opinions are necessary at Talk:Székely_Land#The_name_in_the_Old_Hungarian_alphabet regarding the inclusion of the name . Thanks in advance for your help. 178.143.92.15 (talk) 08:39, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

The Witch's Dungeon

I would like permission to make changes to the listing for The Witch's Dungeon. The Founder and current owner, Cortlandt Hull would like many updates done and many photos updated or removed. He was not contacted for any of the information listed here and would definitely like it brought up to date and standards of the organization.

Could you kindly tell me how I can get this done without it being rejected by moderators? Every image associated with The Witch's Dungeon is owned or licensed by Cortlandt Hull himself through Universal Studios.

I appreciate any advice you can give me to help this process.

Bobford (talk) 16:26, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

@Bobford: First off, if you're editing at the request of the owner of Witch's Dungeon Classic Movie Museum, then you have a conflict of interest and need to follow those guidelines for editing.

The big key: request your changes at the article's talk page.

The photos currently in the article appear to be under free licenses. I don't see anything that immediately raises a red flag about the images. Of course, if Hull would like to take some updated images and release them under a free license (like CC BY-SA 3.0), we can certainly consider replacing them.

As far as outdated information, your best bet is to point to published sources of updated information. The article is currently based on three news stories, one of which was by CNN. —C.Fred (talk) 23:07, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	. Kushal467 (talk) 20:09, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Indeffed sock puppeteer Mriduls.sharma

Hello. Just thought I'd let you know that user "Sher Singh 111", the name that Mriduls.sharma's user pages were moved to in yesterday's move circus, has just been created, blanking the user talk page as their first edit. The user page is semi-protected and still redirects to Mriduls.karma though, which might cause some confusion. My instinct tells me that it's Mriduls.karma who is at it again. Thomas.W ^talk 17:54, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

He's now obviously testing what he can and cannot do: Sher Singh 111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log); also showing that it's not someone who is new to WP. Thomas.W ^talk 17:58, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Katrina Mukti D'Souza Kapoor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), another of the names used yesterday, has also been created, within minutes of the other one. Thomas.W ^talk 20:36, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Carl Fischer

Hello,

I just wanted to thank you for editing the first article I tried adding to. You highlighted a portion and in the box you said the source wasn't cited. This is true. If I know that it isn't well known that he was buried in an unmarked grave but is 100% true, any suggestions on how I could get something like that verified? I went to the cemetery and the caretaker told me that he was buried next to his parents but didn't have a gravestone.

I also posted another portion that I did cite the source.^[1] You didn't have that highlighted or any comments but it's not on the page. I did this for an assignment on wikipedia and how it works, so I'm new to all this. Any feedback would be much appreciated.

Jaytoddimages (talk) 03:01, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

References

^ http://www.startribune.com/lifestyle/11488526.html

IP vandal at CBS

Hello! The IP vandal you blocked on April 7 (e.g. see here) for vandalism has been back to both CBS and its Talk page continuing the same pattern of inappropriately adding material (and effectively edit warring to do it). I got the Talk page semi-protected a few days back to prevent their shenanigans, so now this IP vandal has turned their attention back to the CBS article proper. As their IP address keeps shifting, I was wondering if you could do anything about this with perhaps another (range?) block here? Thanks in advance! --IJBall (talk) 04:34, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Donald Nally Page

Hi Ted. Thank you for your message regarding the revert on page Donald Nally, and I apologize for not fully acquainting myself with Wikipedia's extensive editing rules before making the changes. I understand my WP:COI, and am curious how I might work with you and/or other editors to edit this page to a reasonable state. We'd like to address the issues that have been sitting at the header of the article since 2013, primarily by significantly reducing the breadth of information, much of which is either redundant in the article or simply has no significant bearing on Donald Nally's career. Additionally, we would like to reopen the discussion about the racism accusations, whose inclusion was controversial from the beginning. If there is a way to continue this discussion in a more private venue than your talk page that would be ideal. Thank you very much for your time, and I hope you're able to help me out. Cheers! KevinKrasinski (talk) 22:21, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for your willingness to re-evaluate the the University at Buffalo Rugby Football Club article, and for resisting the temptation to dig in to your initial position as new material was added. Barryjjoyce (talk) 22:02, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

@Barryjjoyce: You're welcome! Thank you for presenting a solid rationale to keep the article based on guidelines and for showing that it got additional secondary-sourced coverage. —C.Fred (talk) 22:07, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Jewan Tiwari

22:32, 21 April 2015 (UTC)22:32, 21 April 2015 (UTC)22:32, 21 April 2015 (UTC)22:32, 21 April 2015 (UTC)22:32, 21 April 2015 (UTC)22:32, 21 April 2015 (UTC)~~I've added independent links and references for Jewan Tiwari. Mr. Tiwari is a Democratic Candidate of Virginia 87th district. I do not see why he is not a credible. He is a politician and people want to know more about him before voting in Nov. 3. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bkpoudel (talk • contribs) 22:32, 21 April 2015‎ (UTC)

@Bkpoudel: Candidates for subnational assemblies, like the House of Delegates, are not inherently notable. WP:POLITICIAN is very clear that running for office does not make a person automatically notable (although if elected, he would be presumed to be notable). As was noted at Draft:Jewan ‘Jack’ Tiwari before you created the full article, Tiwari is not a notable person. Until he gets significant coverage, he also won't pass the general notability guidelines. Two of the articles cited in the draft are mirror images, so the simple count of sources isn't representative of how much coverage he's gotten. —C.Fred (talk) 01:55, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I've to disagree. Google search for "Jewan Tiwari Democratic Candidate" generates 189,000 hits! Here is an article from The Washington Post about him..^[1] There are plenty of articles and references about him in national and local newspapers. I think Wikipedia should a platform for rising stars and aspiring politicians/leaders; not just rich and famous. Bkpoudel (talk) 01:02, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

References

^ Del. David Ramadan, vocal critic of Dulles Greenway tolls, calls it quits: http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/virginia-politics/del-david-ramadan-vocal-critic-of-dulles-greenway-tolls-to-call-it-quits/2015/04/15/f6b526d0-e2d4-11e4-905f-cc896d379a32_story.html

That's a wonderful article for Ramadan. For Tiwari, not so much: being a real estate broker does not make a person notable, and that's about all the article says in the one sentence about him. —C.Fred (talk) 01:07, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Talk page access

I guess TPA should be revoked [4] Mlpearc (open channel) 21:39, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

‎Superman3076

You've been an administrator for eight years, and you're still astonishingly patient. That said, in addition to their other problems, my guess is this user has competence issues.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:44, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

@Bbb23: I don't think he had intent as malicious as it sounded with some of his threats. So, I was trying to divert him to more positive contributions. That doesn't seem to be working. Or, your analysis may be spot on. —C.Fred (talk) 22:00, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Ariana

Hey, recon you could chime in on the Ariana Grande discussion? I'd really appreciate it. Thanks, --Azealia911 _talk 00:48, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Page move

Hi there. DylanMcKaneWiki is at it again... any chance you could have a look at Ben Dunne (entrepreneur) when you get a chance - two page moves in rapid succession from our jumpy contributor means I can't move the page back. Thanks, Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 08:45, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

@Bastun: And then there's the move of The Square Shopping Centre. I agree that this user needs counseled about page moves. —C.Fred (talk) 14:23, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Prime Asia TV

Hi there, I just wanted to ask if User:Раціональне анархіст had opposed the deletion of Prime Asia TV? This concerns the proposed topic ban and various allegations and disputes here ThanksAusLondonder (talk) 16:01, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

No, I don't see any edits by that user in the history of the deleted article. —C.Fred (talk) 16:04, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I thought they added a link to digital motion. AusLondonder (talk) 16:36, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Although it did exist in at least two incarnations in one day. AusLondonder (talk) 16:36, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

SMITHOPSIS

Hello. I noticed your warning on their talk page, after immediately resuming the same disruptive edits, so I thought I'd point you to this SPI naming SMITHOPSIS as a probable sock of indefinitely blocked Najaf ali bhayo/Farhad Uddin, continuing the same "work" as the master(s) and their socks have been doing for quite a while. So there isn't much point in trying to discuss things with him. Thomas.W ^talk 15:09, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Seraphim Rose issues

This article has been subjected to constant removal of properly sourced information and edit warring by one particular editor, previously using several IP addresses and now with a user name, against consensus and with many highly uncivil edit summary and talk page comments. Apart from reporting what else can be done? Enough is enough. Anglicanus (talk) 02:53, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

At the very least the article needs to be restored to the version before the current editing warring and protected for a reasonable period of time. Anglicanus (talk) 03:00, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Please be advised that this user Anglicanus has blatantly pursued an unethical pattern of aggressive activity in attempting to impose his personal ideological views on the content of said article Seraphim Rose, which include repeated acts of malicious edit warring, gratuitous reverts (note several instances of his reverting back to an obviously inferior photo which obscures half the subject's face), as well as leaving multiple harassing, threatening, and otherwise uncivil personal messages at talk pages, all while eschewing proper consensus through discussion and mediation. In this way, Anglicanus continually abuses WP by frivolously and disingenuously invoking protocol to enforce his own narrow agenda, and by lodging user complaint without pursuing proper redress via discussion of the clearly substantive issues raised in talk, which he has dismissed with insults and hand-waiving rhetoric and innuendo, as is clearly evident from a perusal of the remarks he's published to date in connection with this dispute. Additionally, user makes false allegations regarding multiple IP addresses in an attempt to subvert consensus and discussion vis-à-vis the disputed passages by prejudicing WP admins. There was one IP address change and it was due to the fact that my internet service was recently switched from Optimum to Verizon, subsequently causing an automatic change in IP address, which could not have been avoided and is no evidence of any untoward editorial activity or intent. I further submit that reverting obvious attempts at unjustified edit warring by Anglicanus in violation of WP:NPOV, such as was done in this case, constitutes an valid exemption of the 3R rule.Classical library (talk) 03:38, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

@Classical library: It sounds, though, like you're conceding that you are the 96.* IP that was editing earlier on the 5th (today or yesterday, depending on your time zone). I don't think there's malicious intent in the change of IP; however, it sounds like you, the IP from earlier today, and another IP preceding that are all the same user. —C.Fred (talk) 03:44, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello sir and thank you for your remarks. By no means have I employed any other IP addresses in performing edits to the article in question than the ones I specifically disclosed in my previous comment, and then only due to the unavoidable change in service. There is nothing malicious afoot on my part. Anglicanus is egregiously pursuing a literal "holy war" to impose his own views on the content of this article in the teeth of the complete and conspicuous absence of any rhyme or reason to do so, as is evident in the frivolous and harassing comments he's left at my user page and at the talk page for the article. Observe in one place how he responds to the catalogue of meticulously articulated concerns regarding the disputed material posted for the purpose of conducting a substantive discussion at the talk page: "Please desist from your constant sinful words and actions. Anglicanus (talk) 15:28, 30 April 2015 (UTC"

Does this sound to you like someone who's seeking to exercise objectivity in zealous compliance with standards set forth under WP:COI and WP:NPOV? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Classical library (talk • contribs) 05:28, 6 May 2015‎ (UTC)

@Classical library: My immediate concern is compliance with behavioural guidelines like WP:3RR; counting your IP edits, you broke it yesterday as well as on 30 April. Are the comments alleged to have been made by Anglicanus also a concern? Yes, but a little less of an immediate concern.

Really, I think this is something that needs to be settled on the talk page, including making a request for comment if it needs broader consideration. It's not a cut-and-dried case about whether it's a reliable source with due weight; or some/all of an unreliable source, undue weight, or a BLP violation to mention other names. That's why discussion helps: it gets a broader consensus of editors, and their collective views on WP policy help to set a course for how to deal with the material in question. —C.Fred (talk) 11:26, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Reverts were made in good faith after pursuing proper redress through Talk, which has been studiously ignored by several users there (Anglicanus, Afterwriting, and Ecjmartin) who are engaging in a one sided edit-war in violation of WP:NPOV, and who have worked to block consensus by attempting to impose their own editorial preferences on the article without first providing any reasonable critical basis to do so in talk. Please be advised as to the true nature of the situation, therefore.Classical library (talk) 16:43, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

@Classical library: Which other editors support your side of the argument? Three to one isn't a high participation number, but when it's a number of users against a single user, that lone voice has to carry a little more of the burden of proof. Otherwise, the discussion starts to look like an outcome is taking shape, but that one voice is on the opposition side. —C.Fred (talk) 19:09, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

User:KileBogart500

Hey C.Fred, I saw you blocked KileBogart500 for disprutive editing but I was wondering if you could see if the user is a sock of User:Klbogart55. The name is pretty darn similar and they are editing the same articles. The user has been known to create many socks, too. I was reverting their edits at first because they were adding non-notable people to the articles and then I got tired of reverting their edits. Thanks, Corky | Chat? 21:39, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Also, since you blocked KileBogart500, you might want to see User:Kilebogart10000. He's editing the same articles again. I've reverted his edits. Corky | Chat? 16:05, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

@Corkythehornetfan: Looks like these were two more socks. Both indeffed. Thank you for pointing this out! —C.Fred (talk) 17:34, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Hey, there. There is now another one, Kilelbogart123, that is up and running. This guy just will not stop. I didn't see it until another user reverted this guy's edits. Thanks, Corky | Chat? 03:12, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

@Corkythehornetfan: Was another one. Indef block as sockpuppet. —C.Fred (talk) 03:16, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

@C.Fred Another sock to report...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Klbogart55 (Klb6744). Can we stop this guy!? ACMEWikiNet (talk) 21:11, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Edit conflict

Sorry about the ec on User talk:Daniel John Avati. I don't know if you saw the warnings he'd received before he blanked his talk page. If you want to give him another chance (assuming more good faith than I did), then I won't object if you unblock or shorten the block. —SMALL JIM 14:55, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

@Smalljim: I saw a level-4 for removing CSD but not for creating. Of course, my giving him a warning might have just prolonged the inevitable. Or, if he wants to contribute constructively to another area, he'll request unblock, and then we can engage in discussion. Either way, ball is in his court now to see if he wants to play by the rules. —C.Fred (talk) 14:57, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Sounds good, thanks. I see he's blanked the page again. —SMALL JIM 14:59, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Invitation to WikiProject TAFI


	Hello, C.Fred. You're invited to join WikiProject Today's articles for improvement. Feel free to nominate an article for improvement at the project's Nominated articles page. Also feel free to contribute to !voting for new weekly selections at the project's talk page. If interested in joining, please add your name to the list of members. --Bananasoldier (talk) 18:31, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Can we talk?

When I did a google search on Jake Epstein, it says that he was born on January 16, 1987. Gamerman1990 (talk) 00:06, 9 May 2015 (UTC) Jake Epstein was not born in 1986, it's 1987. Gamerman1990 (talk) 00:06, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

@Gamerman1990: You need to cite the specific place you found that information in your edit. It isn't enough to say you found it searching Google; you have to state what site you found it at, so we can verify the information and the reliability of the source. —C.Fred (talk) 23:57, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

You want a specific site on the actual birthdate for Jake Epstein? Well, check the internet movie database website www.imdb.com. And Jake Epstein was born as Jacob Lee Epstein Gamerman1990 (talk) 00:08, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

@Gamerman1990: You need to cite a reliable source; IMDB, per long-standing consensus among Wikipedia editors, is not reliable for biographical information on people, other than roles/cast positions they've had. —C.Fred (talk) 00:31, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Randy Lamont

Hey, Fred. You removed an article I FREAKYTICKLE because you said "it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant", which I don't understand what that has to do with you, but I really think that article should be place back up. I would like advice on where to explain how the article is important, because it is. It is important because the musician "Randy Lamont" needs an Wikipedia article about him so his fans can get educated on him and view his discography, which I plan to make after the article is done." — Preceding unsigned comment added by FREAKYTICKLE (talk • contribs) 21:26, 9 May 2015 FREAKYTICKLE (talk) 21:31, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

@FREAKYTICKLE: WP:BIO has the notability requirements for people generally; WP:NMUSIC has requirements for musicians specifically. Lamont did not meet either set of criteria.

Notability of a subject must exist before the article can be created; the article cannot be created to make the subject notable. If his fans want to learn about him, he should create a website; Wikipedia is not a free webhost. —C.Fred (talk) 21:48, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

More page moves...

Dylan is at it again. Some moves seem random, some to move articles to a preferred title. Is it time for AN/I? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:13, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

@Bastun: I left a level 4 immediate warning. After the move to Gerry Kelly, I'm ready to block if he does another disruptive move. —C.Fred (talk) 18:40, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Just giving you thanks, for the link you offered me, which allowed me to retrieve the page as I had changed. I appreciate it. Have a good day! John Xuna (talk) 04:44, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

[1] ttp://abelscreening.com/use-acceptance/

[2] ttp://www.writerstv.org/bird.htm

[3] ttp://www.thewittliffcollections.txstate.edu/research/a-z/bird.html

[4] ttp://www.writerspace.com/chat/chat102401sb.html

[5] ttp://www.startribune.com/lifestyle/11488526.html

[6] Del. David Ramadan, vocal critic of Dulles Greenway tolls, calls it quits: http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/virginia-politics/del-david-ramadan-vocal-critic-of-dulles-greenway-tolls-to-call-it-quits/2015/04/15/f6b526d0-e2d4-11e4-905f-cc896d379a32_story.html

[1]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[1]

[1]