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.
Your comments about my posts on Truehope
The people who want the Truehope post deleted are greatly mistaken.
The links that I posted were accurate. I tried posting links to government hearings, Supreme Court decisions, scholarly articles and more. It is really interesting that this site was restarted the very week when the Supreme Court in British Columbia decided that a 27 year-old man who murdered his father and severely injured his mother was taken off his psych. meds and started on Empowerplus.
There have been other people who have suffered. There have been no double-blinded scientific studies ever. The whole story can be seen here. I challenge you to read the book. If you want I can send one to you via an attachment.
I can send you the book via attachment. There is no charge.
Let me know via email where you want me to send it.
Thanks,
Terry Polevoy, MD
drpolevoy@yahoo.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.172.67.204 (talk) 13:36, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
July 2012 Study of authors of health-related Wikipedia pages
Dear Author/ C.Fred
My name is Nuša Farič and I am a Health Psychology MSc student at University College London (UCL). I am currently running a quantitative study entitled Who edits health-related Wikipedia pages and why? I am interested in the editorial experience of people who edit health-related Wikipedia pages. I am interested to learn more about the authors of health-related pages on Wikipedia and what motivations they have for doing so. I am currently contacting the authors of randomly selected articles and I noticed that someone at this address edited an article on Epidermolysis bullosa.
I would like to ask you a few questions about you and your experience of editing the above mentioned article. If you would like more information about the project, please visit my user page http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Hydra_Rain and if interested, please visit my Talk page or e-mail me on nusa.faric.11@ucl.ac.uk. Also, others interested in the study may contact me! If I do not hear back from you I will not contact this account again. Thank you very much in advance.
Hydra Rain (talk) 09:41, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Brian Piercey
User:Pierceybrian22 is back, although technically he has never gone away, frequently making edits with a dynamic IP address. We talked about him previously here. He's created a new account User:Pierceybrian25, and I was hoping you can keep an eye on him. His edits are mostly minor but annoying and usually have to be reverted. He doesn't have any grasp of wikipedia policies, and messages never get through to him. Yet if he's going to edit, I'd rather have him logged on rather than editing with a different IP every month or so. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 20:44, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Dear Fred:
You deleted my additions re the Psalms page before they were even completed as I was having difficulty getting it to read the way I desired. Your basis is that it doesn't read like an encyclopedia article, but you do not claim to be an expert on the psalms so how would you know what an encylcopdeia article should resd like. Indeed, you and others who admittedly are very pleasant with your communications are in my opinion, abusing your power by placing certain topics on your watch list and for reasons only you know consistently deleting those additions of certain contributora. I spent over a year researching and writing a book about the psalms yet you deem yourself more qualified to judge what the text should state. If you were truly fair and in keeping with the supposed purpose of Wikipedia you and other administrators would be very specific as to what was objectionable in an article and give the contributor the option--if he/she agreed there was a valid point--to modify their addition. Anyway, I will soon add a short addition; I am curious what reason you will come up with this time.
Hi C.Fred. The correct title for the article is "Pretty Fly (For a White Guy)" or "Pretty Fly (for a White Guy)"? All other interwikis has the name of the article Pretty Fly (for a White Guy), except the Italian. For is a preposition, should be used with lowercase letter, right? But because of "For" is the first word after the parentheses, must be used with capital letter?
My other doubt is on the article "Cruising California (Bumpin' In My Trunk)". Would the correct move be to "Cruising California (Bumpin' in My Trunk)"? "In" is a preposition, so I think that the correct title is Cruising California (Bumpin' in My Trunk), right? All other interwikis has the name of the article with "Bumpin' in My Trunk" and not with "Bumpin' In My Trunk". The IP 130.65.109.35 moved automatically "Cruising California (Bumpin' In My Trunk)" to "Cruising California (Bumpin' in My Trunk)", but I reverted to preserve the historic of the article.
You are an experienced editor and also an administrator. Can you solve this problem? Thank you. OffsBlink (talk) 20:04, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Sue Pyo redirect deletion
I would like to request for "Sue Pyo" redirect to be deleted because the redirect makes no sense, such as redirecting Apple to Orange. Please delete this redirect, as it may confuse readers as to why there is an association to "Jang Yeong-sil". There is no such association between the two names and I therefore request for an immediate deletion of the redirect.Wog65 (talk) 03:39, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Have I nominated the deletion properly now?Wog65 (talk) 03:51, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Delete page
Please help me to have the name "Sue Pyo" deleted from Wikipedia. There is no content under the name, other than a confusing redirect and no source for this biography.Wog65 (talk) 04:07, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
I've already commented on the RfD. —C.Fred (talk) 04:11, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Costco
I think he meant that Costco benefit from people wanting to pay trade prices rather than that this outfit sold to Costco. Deleted now anyway. Peridon (talk) 23:14, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Dolma
Why did you remove Greece from the lead? Greek cuisine is discussed in the article, and dolma feature in every Greek restaurant I've eaten in. I replaced it. Dougweller (talk) 07:31, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, that was a baby that went out with the bathwater. I was dealing with an editor who was editing the lead of many articles, adding Greece and/or removing Turkey, before he got blocked for defamatory content in a BLP of a person of Turkish origin. That was all that brought me to the article; however, since other editor(s) feel that it's redundant to have Greece double-listed in the lead (it was part of the Ottoman Empire, per Alessandro57 [1]), this is probably something to hash out at Talk:Dolma. —C.Fred (talk) 12:13, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Cockburn
He called me an anti-Semite and said I am in favor of seeing the Jews exterminated. He has lost all credibility and any notion of being treated fairly. The talk page is not a forum for posting his noxious views, as he has been told numerous times. He can go post that garbage on the comments section of frontpage.com if he likes, but not here. ---RepublicanJacobiteTheFortyFive 22:56, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
I lost that in the kerfuffle. Checking talk page history. I saw where another editor was accused of such in an edit summary, but I'll look at messages closer. —C.Fred (talk) 22:58, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Sorry. I saw where he accused Cockburn of anti-Semitism but not you. If you can provide a diff for the comment you're referring to, I'll look again. —C.Fred (talk) 23:04, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
It's right there on his talk page Message for RepublicanJacobite: "I believe that you, along with most Arabs and Caucasians, are an anti-Semite who wishes for all of us Jews to be exterminated." That is a repugnant comment. ---RepublicanJacobiteTheFortyFive 23:10, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
I agree. That's why I gave him a non-templated warning about it. —C.Fred (talk) 23:18, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
I am having trouble with a user that keeps adding elimination tables to the article, after we already decided on a consensus that elimination tables are to no longer be added onto the season articles. However, this user does not understand that and keeps adding the tables back. I reverted the user's edit twice now and I'm afraid that if I revert the user's edit one more time, I might break the three-revert rule. Please help, and see what you can do with this user. I even did some constructive edits on that article by adding more content to the "Production" section, but this user keeps reverting my edits. The user is 72.73.85.88. Giggett (talk) 00:44, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
I believe that IP pushing 3RR themselves—I've reverted two or three times today. I've warned them for 3RR, so you can report to WP:ANEW if they violate after the warning. —C.Fred (talk) 01:13, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Yup, the user is back, and this time he is ignoring my advice of discussing the situation and is just adding back the tables like nothing is happening. It still has not been 24 hours so I cannot revert his edit again since I already reverted his edit three times already, so it seems that I cannot do anything about it. Giggett (talk) 17:24, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Where's the talk page discussion where the tables were moved? I can't find it to link for an ANEW report. —C.Fred (talk) 17:40, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
I honestly don't know. This all started last year, but I do remember the discussion starting in the Talk:Total Drama page and then moving onto the Talk:List of Total Drama characters and the Talk:Total Drama: Revenge of the Island pages and I can even see a section about it on your talk page as well. Ask, Lucia Black, she was the one who started this whole discussion about cleaning the articles and removing the elimination tables and stuff. I just helped her along the way.
Here's one. Giggett (talk) 18:19, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Looks like the editor 72.73.85.88 is back and this time he has migrated to the List of Total Drama characters article where he has reverted over three weeks of constructive editing back to an old revision from late June and replaced new content with old elimination tables that are already located in the List of Total Drama episodes article. I don't know if this is vandalism, but it looks like the user might be doing the same activity as he did with the Total Drama Wolrd Tour article last week. Giggett (talk) 16:51, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Poor Behavior
Hi...There has been a recent discussion on formatting an elimination table here: Talk:MasterChef_(US_season_3). One of the users (Heyhello1234567) has shown some incredibly rude and out of line behavior with the user named Worstcook and I figured to report it to an administrator. Please read the whole discussion page to see multiple examples. I also discovered that a few days prior, the former user made some harsh and uncivil comments towards the latter here: User_talk:Worstcook. I hope there is a way to sort this out or provide repercussions towards Heyhello1234567. Thank you. 96.32.2.97 (talk) 20:37, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
You are absolutely right. Please remove all of my edits on the Star Gazers page. I need to let it go. The truth is the truth, but there is no use in getting into a big public debate.
Hi, I saw that you are working on my page. I createt that page, I dont want to delete it. It was a mistake. I Placed an order to the page MohammEd Radvand, because i had a spelling mistake. Before that I made a redirection from mohammed radvand to mohammad radvand. when i placed the deletion to mohammed radvand it also said the second one will be deleted. but i dont want that it will be deleted. i CREATED THAT PAGE !!! Theone20 (talk) 22:37, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
As I already noted on Talk:Mohammad Radvand, that article is subject to deletion because there's no assertion he's a significant painter. —C.Fred (talk) 22:39, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Brothers M.C
hey my name is Dwayne west founder and current president of brothers MC Sydney Australia and you tried to delete my page could you help me to make it better? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dwizy2037 (talk • contribs) 22:38, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Two key starting points: show that it's a notable organization and show that it's been covered in reliable sources independent of the organization. —C.Fred (talk) 22:41, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
there are no sources for this article yet we have not stepped in the spotlight yet but we are well known in australia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dwizy2037 (talk • contribs) 22:47, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
but its my club you cant delete it can you just leave it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dwizy2037 (talk • contribs) 22:55, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
No, the article should be deleted: it's not a notable club, so it shouldn't have an article. Further, Wikipedia is not a webhost for you to put up information about your club. —C.Fred (talk) 22:57, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
You are correct Fred. I was out of line. So was the guy who deleted every single contribution I made without justification.
Sorry that my info was not "neutral". It is extremely difficult to be neutral when expressing an opinion which differs radically from prior contributors on this subject. Many of the references , for example the gospels etc have been used as source documents to defend positions regarding the existence of a Judean christ. As I know and many other scholars know for a certainty that the so called gospels are not history, but alegory, myth and legend beginning in ancient Egypt, but found in India, and Syria and the Jewish texts predating the so called christian era by hundreds and in many cases thousands of years, it is ridiculous to exclude my comments. But if you are going to exclude them because they are not "neutral" then surely you must exclude all postings using the 'gospels"as a reference since it is plainly material from older sources and the story is patently impossible for anyone of more than limited intellect to accept. Can one select only the material that supports his or her point and dismiss other relevant info from the same source because it conflicts with a
point of view held by someone else? I have much more to say on the subject and yes I can support my position with indisputable references. Thank you Kuhnalvin (talk) 04:54, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
You said it yourself: your opinion differs radically from the majority of editors. That moves into the territory of WP:FRINGE: the more radical the position, the greater the quantity and strength-of-reliability the sources must be.
That said, scanning the notes and references sections of the Historical Jesus article, I see far more independent/scholarly sources than I do citations of the Bible. —C.Fred (talk) 03:39, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
As a quick note: It's actually the majority of sources rather than the majority of editors that determines the article. It's an important distinction WhisperToMe (talk) 07:02, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Although reviewing the available sources is part of reaching consensus, Wikipedia policy also comes into play. Consensus isn't a first-past-the-post vote, but ultimately it requires agreement from a significant number of involved editors that the sources present the most accurate picture and best comply with policy. —C.Fred (talk) 12:16, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
The thing is, when talking about places in big cities, one must always identify the neighborhoods, as recognized by reliable sources or by concrete maps of neighborhoods. This Chronicle article states "What's more, classes will begin this fall at the new $13 million Jewish high school, located in Link Valley where crime-ridden apartments once stood. The sprawling campus will include two gymnasiums, soccer fields, computer center and 500-seat theater-style auditorium." - The "Jewish high school" is Emery Weiner.
Hello, I recently wrote a wikipedia article about a delivery service company servicing and delivering food for all food places near my school (UCLA) that don't deliver, you deleted it because you didn't know why they (Food 4 Bruinz) are significant, well its because THEY DELIVER FOOD FOR PLACES THAT DONT DELIVERRR!!!!!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imthegayestguy (talk • contribs) 02:53, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
RevDelete
Could you do a RevDelete on this edit? It's degrading and defamatory. Thanks. – Confession0791talk 21:20, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your assistance on the JordanFrancis situation, and for all the good efforts you do in general. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:33, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Fast question
Hi. I wanted to ask about something that I'm a bit unclear on. If I got an article to GA status, can I request that it be delisted without presenting an argument? Or can I simply delist it myself? -- James26 (talk) 23:54, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm not an expert on the GA process. I'd have to read through, but my guess is that you don't "own" the GA status, so you couldn't just delist it without explanation. —C.Fred (talk) 23:56, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll take another look at the delist details. -- James26 (talk) 00:03, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Political metaphors
Dear C.Fred,
'Chosen' sounds neutral and democratic when he is not a local to Somerset (where I live). It is well known that he was brought in to Somerset get a 'safe seat'. Parachuted in is an everyday political term that would apply to Mr Browne.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_metaphors
-parachute candidate / carpetbagger: a candidate who runs for election in an area which he or she is not a native resident or has no ties. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GeorgeHouse19 (talk • contribs) 09:16, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
While "parachuted in" makes sense to me, it might've benefited from at least a link to explain the term; "put up for election in the safe seat" might have been clearer and more neutral in tone.
And speaking of tone and denotation, "carpetbagger" might not be the best choice of words here: while neutral in the British usage, it would imply a negative tone to American readers, implying a very outside presence. —C.Fred (talk) 10:56, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Monica Sone
I got these info from author Monica Sone shorty before she passed away.
Monica Sone told me she had been interviewed.
These interviews are very interesting.
Monica Sone met author Betty MacDonald in 1938 and describes her friendship in detail.
That would mean the information is original research by you—you got the information first-hand from Sone—and is not usable on Wikipedia. —C.Fred (talk) 03:25, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Dear Fred,
Don't you think it's a bit too complicated?
We are talking about famous author Monica Sone who told me she had been interviewed.
I'd like to share this info because these interviews are really very interesting.
If they're so interesting, please provide a link to a newspaper article, magazine story, or book that has written about them. —C.Fred (talk) 03:41, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Dear Fred,
This is much more complicated than I thought.
May I ask you: Do you know these interviews?
There are many Monica Sone fans who enjoy it very much.
It doesn't matter whether I know them or not. What matters is whether a reliable secondary source says they exist. —C.Fred (talk) 03:58, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Dear C. Fred.
I don't understand it.
I got these info directly from author Monica Sone.
Author Monica Sone told me about this. So what's wrong to mention this info?
Monica said: You'll enjoy it very much which I did.
Monica describes in detail her friendship with Betty MacDonald.
It's a very good interview with lots of new facts I've never heard before.
You say it's trivial, unsourced and probably overstated.
Do you know this interview with Monica Sone?
Author Monica Sone said it was one of her best interviews.
She knew what she was talking about.
Stella, click on this link to go to your Talk page. There, you will find a welcome message with a lot of other links to important Wikipedia pages that will help you understand why your own personal knowledge is not a basis for including material in the encyclopedia. The "five pillars" link is especially important. Until you read that material you are not really going to understand the concerns that C.Fred and I are expressing, and why including the material just because you know it, is inappropriate. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 10:54, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
John, thank you so much.
I'll read the info.
You wrote: It's trivial, unsourched and probably overstated.
Author Monica said it was one of her best interviews.
I am saying that under Wikipedia's basic policies, it doesn't matter what Monica Sone might have related to you in person about an interview that appears on a DVD compiled by a member of a fan club. Your information is well-suited to a posting one of the many interrelated fan clubs devoted to Betty MacDonald and people she knew (including one for Monica Sone herself) but not for Wikipedia. JohnInDC (talk) 11:18, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Dear John,
I'm sorry but I don't understand the resaon why you say it's trivial, unsourched and probably overstatet if author Monica Sone says the opposite. Stellamosley (talk) 11:41, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm very sorry but I can't understand it.
Do you know the interview?
Thank you,
Stella
I have not listened to the interview. It would not matter if I had. I say it is "trivial" because it is just - an interview, one that appears to have garnered no particular interest among anyone but some of her fans. It is "unsourced" because there is no reliable, third party source to indicate that the interview is of encyclopedic significance. And it is "overstated" because the "award" in "award-winning Wolfgang Hampel" was not bestowed by any recognized award-granting authority but rather by a group of fans, maybe even one of the dozens of fan clubs he himself has founded. I am sorry that you don't understand any of this, but all of what C.Fred and I have been telling you reflect very basic Wikipedia policies and I don't know how to articulate them any more clearly. JohnInDC (talk) 11:57, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Dear John,
thank you so much for your info.
Author Monica Sone said it was one of her best interviews and you say it's trivial, unsourched and probably overstated. I guess author Monica Sone knew what she was talking about.
If you post comments do you know the stuff you are talking about?
It doesn't matter how long it was there. JohnInDC saw the link, reviewed it, and removed it for failing to comply with WP:External links. There's no grandfather clause to let a link stay based on how long it had gone unchallenged/undetected. —C.Fred (talk) 13:25, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
So it is for you really important that someone put his name in the list of shame??? We Syrians support him and his is a great actor.Johnswk (talk) 03:25, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
longer protection at talk:cladistics?
What do you think about a longer semi protection of talk:cladistics? The page gets very little traffic from IPs other than Consist. deBivort 18:58, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm reluctant to protect talk pages, but you're right: there's not much traffic from IPs, so we may need longer-term protection to keep him away. —C.Fred (talk) 19:13, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps 48 hours would be enough to let him cool down? deBivort 19:16, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
What about an IP range block? 94.234.170.* I see that it wouldn't get him all the time (80.216.133.188) so maybe it's not worth the risk. deBivort 20:16, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
It might be worth floating that idea, since he seems to be back full force. It almost makes me wonder if a range block just expired. —C.Fred (talk) 20:20, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
I've flirted with WP:AIV so I have a bit of context, but don't know the ins and outs of that decision. Is the fact that he's edited from 4 different IPs in the last 4 hours evidence that he's refreshing his IP address, and if so, is that evidence that he's actively working to get around potential single IP blocks? I guess it's probably suspicious but speculative. deBivort 20:29, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
And then the question is, which is less damaging to the project overall: a rangeblock or protection of the talk pages? —C.Fred (talk) 20:31, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Is it possible to search for other contributions from that IP range? I mean, he's annoying but I don't think his vandalism is going to escape notice and removal. deBivort 20:55, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Well, at this point I've protected both Talk:Clade and Talk:Cladistics, at least for the next few days. —C.Fred (talk) 21:03, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Destinee & Paris
Hello C.Fred,
I wanted to restart a discussion on the Destinee & Paris wiki page. There are new sources that justify them having their own wiki page. The page they are redirected to is a defunct group that no longer exists. They have legally been "Destinee & Paris" for some time now, and are legally signed to Interscope Records as "Destinee & Paris", made an appearance on American Idol, released a new single and currently on tour with Brittany Spears. Can I get the protection lifted to update the page? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destinee_%26_Paris)
Hello C.Fred, I posted some new sources on Destinee & Paris's talk page. Will you reconsider and open the page for editing? I believe there is enough evidence to get this page up and running and make it accurate. They deserve their own page and it is not accurate to continue to redirect them to the Clique Girlz page. Thanks Jasmith1990 (talk) 21:23, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
I've put a notice at Talk:Clique Girlz about the proposed re-split of D&P to their own article. If there are no objections in the next couple of days, I'll unprotect the article. —C.Fred (talk) 21:37, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi C.Fred - I wanted to follow up about Destinee & Paris - looks like there were no objections or other comments. Can you unprotect the article? Thanks Jasmith1990 (talk) 22:29, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Johnswk (talk·contribs) who you posted to, and Syrianview (talk·contribs). POV, copyvio, etc. Going offline now but thought you should know. I've deleted 2 or 3 articles created by these 2 accounts as copyvio. Dougweller (talk) 20:05, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Make Friends
I wanna make friends here but I don't know how. --Sonicandknuckles2.0 (talk) 01:14, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Fulanito
I want to thank you for the reverts made on the Fulanito page. I do want to seek protection for this page and artist. The User you just blocked is deliberately altering the page for the ske of omitting information after 2002.--***Verdugo27***talk 00:23, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
I've added the article to my watchlist, so I'll be keeping an eye on it, to see if there's a continuation in the deletions after the block expires. —C.Fred (talk) 00:25, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Once again, thank you. I will posting more recent material, cited of course, to be reviewed and discussed on the "talk page"--***Verdugo27***talk 00:27, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
C.Fred, This is going to get quite ugly as it goes along. The user FulanitoReal is also User:740Boyz. I do agree that it will be a conflict of interest in my input as well, FUll disclosure; I am the Fulanito's manager. But, as you may notice, the information inserted by me has sources along with a more accurate chronology, which the user is deliberately deleting. He to has a conflict of interest in the matter, for he is the person stated in the article (Former partner to Rafael Vargas) I hope that this gets reviewed and you will see, through the actions of both parties, just who holds integrity and has the facts straight. I will, from now, take it to the Talk page and leave it up to you and the rest of your colleagues in placing what is solid. Thank you once again for your insight.--***Verdugo27***talk 17:04, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
I have the article watchlisted as well. We will see where it goes. Please keep in mind WP:COI when editing the article, though it is extremely appreciated when people with a potential conflict of interest do declare it openly. I checked out that other editor and if I see any more questionable edits, I will go to the trouble of opening a sockpuppet investigation... but if no further problems occur, we will just leave it as it is. Trusilver 17:37, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Hey C.Fred, Can you please review and place a cleaner version of the article. I really don't want to continue on with this edit war, for I believe that it's best to keep it going through an impartial forum and consensus. However, this other editor will not stop, He continues to go about this in an unethical manner, not to mention his libel comments throughout talk pages as well as his very own pages about myself, and the artist, Thank you --***Verdugo27***talk 19:32, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
I'd like to, but at this point, I may not/should not do it. Because it's not outright vandalism, I'm bound by the three revert rule just like you all are. I've asked another editor to switch it back, but they haven't. I'd put a request on the talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 20:18, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
C. Fred,
I am having trouble identifying the way in which to correctly copyright and license the photo attached to the page on Richard Move. I work for Richard and this photograph was taken of and given to him, it is public domain (he has given the permission to use it as his wiki photo). Is there any way you could help me add the correct code so that the photo does not get deleted? Thank you for your help. - S — Preceding unsigned comment added by VirtualFriend1 (talk • contribs) 02:18, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
The easiest thing would be for the photographer to upload it on his website with a notice that that image is in the public domain or otherwise under free license. Otherwise, we may need the photographer to contact Wikipedia directly to confirm that yes, he has donated the image into the public domain, so anybody may use the image for any purpose. Because that sort of license is irrevocable, we need to make sure that the party who does truly hold the rights is giving them away. —C.Fred (talk) 02:22, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Pop Culture References
A large number of university and law school wikipedia pages contain sections on popular culture references. Please explain the deletion made to Stanford in light of this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ninotwenty11 (talk • contribs) 22:24, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Other stuff exists. There were some sourced additions in the list, but far more that weren't sourced. Further, a number of the mentions had such minor details that it was sliding down the slope of "indiscriminate collections of trivia or cruft" (see WP:POPCULTURE). Plus, given the amount of stuff that you deleted, an undo was the easiest way to repair it. —C.Fred (talk) 22:33, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Y La Bamba (band)
Hello,
I was attempting to create an entry for the american folk band Y La Bamba when I found that an earlier entry had already been deleted by you. I would like permission to attempt to create the page again. The last entry was deleted due to "does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject". I believe that my entry will satisfy this condition and that Y La Bamba is a band of large enough significance to deserve its own entry. Y La Bamba currently appears as a dead link on several important wiki entry pages such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Funk, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tender_Loving_Empire, and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Sierra_Music_Festival.
You are free to recreate the article. However, I suggest you make sure that you have secondary sources that are reliable to cite in the article. Showing that the band has gotten substantial coverage in independent sources doesn't guarantee that they're notable, but it will prevent another speedy deletion. Also, if you do recreate, make sure you use the article title Y La Bamba. —C.Fred (talk) 03:15, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
I did not mean to delete the info on the talk page.MDSanker 03:50, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Some baklava for you!
Thanks for the restore MDSanker 03:54, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Talk:cladistics
Consist is back. I assume his attempts to evade the block will continue. His current IP would be covered by the same range that would have gotten his last burst of edits. deBivort 23:14, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Well yes, it seems that for the fourth season, the American winner is once again different to the original Canadian winner, but it's still better to treat this season as we have for the third season, by only displaying the Canadian winner. For now, the Total Drama, the Total Drama: Revenge of the Island and any other related acticle display Cameron as the winner, the way it should be. Giggett (talk) 02:21, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi, CF. 12ashley (talk·contribs) has recreated their articles, this time including an assertion of significance. I don't know if the assertion is credible, so I've requested help at the anime Wikiproject. If you have sufficient knowledge of the subject, or are of the opinion that I am being overly cautious, please step in as you see fit. See ya 'round Tiderolls 18:56, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
I've asked her to provide a reliable source and pointed her to WP:NFT, since I'm not convinced that these are characters from the Digimon canon and not things she's making up. —C.Fred (talk) 19:42, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Eric B. Hughes article. I fail to understand why this was deleted. There are SO MANY more articles on here that should be nominated for speedy deletion. People began adding hyperlinks and sources to this article. Hughes is a very well know director on the NY indie scene. He's an award-winner, his new film Turnabout is sought after by distribution companies already. I fail to see the logic in the deletion of this page. Wiki baffles me, they want people top contribute, yet when they do- these hyper aggressive people end up deleting such articles....it makes no sense. People were building on that page.....why delete it? Please answer. Bellatarr (talk) 16:28, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)
Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.
Steven Zhang's Fellowship Slideshow
In this issue:
Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
Research: The most recent DR data
Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
Eric B. Hughes article. I fail to understand why this was deleted. There are SO MANY more articles on here that should be nominated for speedy deletion. People began adding hyperlinks and sources to this article. Hughes is a very well know director on the NY indie scene. He's an award-winner, his new film Turnabout is sought after by distribution companies already. I fail to see the logic in the deletion of this page. Wiki baffles me, they want people top contribute, yet when they do- these hyper aggressive people end up deleting such articles....it makes no sense. People were building on that page.....why delete it? Please answer. Bellatarr (talk) 16:28, 4 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bellatarr (talk • contribs)
It was deleted because a consensus of editors felt that the article did not meet the standards of notability and/or verifiability. A deletion discussion was held, and the outcome—determined by a to-that-point uninvolved administrator—was that the article should be deleted. —C.Fred (talk) 00:18, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Fred, the last I saw was more than 4 people contributing to my article- with hyperlinks and outside sources trying to improve the article. I just don't understand why admins zeroed in on an article that happened to be the one that I created, and Hughes is hardly a director of little or no nobility. He has sold 3 screenplays- his one screenplay won Best Screenplay last year at the Beverly Hills Film Festival. The deletion discussion didn't remain open long- seems like a quick trigger on deleting what was turning into a really good article about a very promising filmmaker. I simply fail to see the logic here. I stumble across many articles on here all the time and is states "being considered for deletion", and they're still here a year later. Give me a break. Your points aren't really that valid. I would like to recreate the article again, and not be targeted. Is this okay? Bellatarr (talk) 05:37, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
It was a long discussion—running about three weeks and relisted twice. Further, the editor who listed the article for deletion was not an administrator; Mark Arsten (talk·contribs), who closed the deletion debate, is an administrator. He considered the merits of the positions given in the discussion and felt consensus was to delete.
Probably the best route forward from here is to work on a draft of the article. I can restore the content from the prior article into an incubator space, rather than you starting from scratch. After you work on it a while—and I suggest finding multiple reliable sources that provide significant coverage of Hughes, not just passing mentions of his awards and films—let me know and I'll take a look. If it's clearly improved, I'll move it back to mainspace straightaway. If it's borderline, I'll ask Mark Arsten if he feels it's changed enough that it's no longer the same article (which would make it subject to speedy deletion as recreation of an article deleted via a deletion discussion).
Finally, remember that other articles exist. It's not likely that your article was singled out; it's likely it was stumbled across and nominated for deletion because of how short and lacking in sources it was. Many articles get tagged as needing improvement: some get speedy deleted, some get nominated for deletion and deleted, some get nominated but kept, and some get improved enough that the maintenance tags are taken off. Each article is different.
Yes, that would be great guys. He's a phenomenal talent, and someone who I feel should be getting more exposure. Thanks for your insight and input. Let me know where I can find it so I can work on it. Thanks again guys. Bellatarr (talk) 00:17, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Created. See the link above. —C.Fred (talk) 00:33, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
I blocked him. He's got a WP:CIR issue that stems from not understanding that this site doesn't follow the same rules as other sites. Just made another copyvio after I warned him and also the edit warring.--v/r - TP 03:23, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Photo is derivative work of statue, works of art are not covered by FOP in USA (see Freedom_of_panorama#United_States) (maybe statues are work of federal government or so old that copyright expired or for some other reason. But it was not mentioned in description, and still is not mentioned). Can you reply on Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Statues? (sorry for ANI, but somebody started discussion there and it would be better to keep it in one place) Bulwersator (talk) 18:00, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
When closing discussions at WP:PUF, please remember to place {{puf top}} after the section header, not before it as is done at AFD. This tends to work better on discussion pages organized as a daily page for all discussions, as otherwise the closing header is actually located at the end of the previous discussion section (see this, for example). It also confuses the bot that clerks the discussion pages. Thanks! Anomie⚔ 18:05, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
I'll keep that in mind for the future. Also, any idea why there aren't (obvious) closing instructions at PUF, like there are for AFD? If I could've found the instructions, I would have closed it per them. —C.Fred (talk) 18:19, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
They're in the edit notice; I don't know why they're not on the WP:PUF page itself. I added a link to them from WP:PUF#Holding cell, feel free to adjust if necessary. Anomie⚔ 18:38, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Ivan Rusilko
Thank you for your help.
The photo is the photo that he chose for his page. Do i need to do something different? Any help would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks for the info on conflicts of interests. I believe that the page is now free of any of that. Any suggestions would be great!
Replied at her talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 00:27, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Ivan Rusilko
Hi again. This picture is his own and is on the internet for the public. Does that help? i certainly don't want to cause any problems. Should i have loaded it differently? I did this page as a favor to him. As you can see i am a newbie and welcome all help but do not want to break any rules etc. So i do appreciate any guidance and help you can offer me. We just need to make sure that he has a shirt on in his picture!
Thanks again.
Again, keeping thread at her talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 00:28, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
ivan Rusilko
I'm so sorry about all of this. The last thing I want is drama. He emailed me the photo. Ive just sent him a message. What about if tomorrow I use one that is on the public site when he gives me the okay. Can you help me load it properly at that time? I appreciate your patience. Thank you again. Its all a work and learning process and i appreciate it as his publishing company also needs a wiki page as well.
Hi, I have expressed my desire to add a new subsection to the La Luz Del Mundo article. But due to the nature of the subsection and the history of the article itself, I felt that discussion was warranted before taking any action. I would like to invite you to provide you opinion on the discussion on this subject (there are currently only opinions voiced). Here is the link on the talk page
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:La_Luz_del_Mundo#Dr._Jorge_Erdely
If you'd prefer to not give any opinions, is there a way for me to invite more editors? This article could be expanded further and more information provided. There is currently only one other editor contributing to the article, and they have been very helpful.
Thanks Fordx12 (talk) 18:24, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
hello
hello c fred how dare you erase my ex-wiki page titled E&S Writing Co. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sergioandernesto (talk • contribs) 02:59, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Because 1) it wasn't a clearly notable company, or at least not one with a valid/supported claim to significance, 2) it was an ad, and 3) you conceded it was an ad. —C.Fred (talk) 03:02, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
perfect timing guys! — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Toven (talk • contribs) 06:00, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
article regarding The Toven
user cfred and sionk wrote
Comment: Please provide additional reliable sources. It's difficult to assess the San-Hop interview because there is no contact/masthead data at the sanhop.com website. Without that, we can't gauge what their editorial staff looks like and whether the source is reliable. —C.Fred (talk) 00:26, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
response
editorial staff are D.Brown and J.Little their contact info is below you have not they informed us that attempted to contact them we don't what the way they have to do with this.
the source is reliable.dont be like user melanieN (whom probably reffered this article to you) and compare them to statute of tmz.this is a light weight notable article about a musician you have what you need yet your prying for more. we can point out a million articles that have been created yet need all kinds of sources and updating. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Toven (talk • contribs) 06:10, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Comment: Agree with what C.Fred just said. The one independent source does not seem to be a reliable news source, but a free website. It is also 90% The Toven talking about himself. See Wikipedia's 'golden rule' for what is needs to prove a subject is widely known and suitable
for Wikipedia. Note sources plural, mean more than one is normally required. Sionk (talk)
01:43, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
ignorant comment on user c.fred talk page sionk what happen to the politness nonsense you mentioned on your talk page? we knew you were bias and your commentabove prooves that.an interview about someone is about someone get it?you talk page is 100% about you! the toven isn't talking about himself san hop asked the questions pal in the interview the toven just answered.more than one is not normally required your incorrect and once again bias the golden rule you mentioned is a bogus smokescreen as for your "free website" comment..you work for wiki free right? isn't wiki a free website cant users write articles for free? and your point was?
we located contact info for j.Little who edited the interview and is infact a san hop editor you can see her name at the bottom of the interview contact her at [redacted] im sure she will simply verify this. any further verification would then be unfair scrutany. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Toven (talk • contribs) 03:05, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, but it's not clear who D.Brown and J.Little are, nor that they do fact-checking for their publication, so there's nothing here that tells me the website is notable. And no, they can't really vouch for themselves in that regard. —C.Fred (talk) 23:55, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
response
yes,they really can.its very clear who they are D.Brown conducted the interview and J.Little is the co Owner and chief editor of the website it is clearly noted at the top of the website and at the bottom of the article who are you to say they cant vouch for themself? your desperately trying to deny and delete our article by making up rules as we go.we will take legal action if you continue to badger and scrutinize our article in this way.not clear who they are?its not clear who you are for that matter?nor is it clear to some who God is.Thats why their called refrences.as for reliability...the evidence show that they are.your threading a thin line judging people,and their reputation the way you are!!!!!!!!!
This is what you preveously stated
Comment: Please provide additional reliable sources. It's difficult to assess the San-Hop interview because there is no contact/masthead data at the sanhop.com website. Without that, we can't gauge what their editorial staff looks like and whether the source is reliable. —C.Fred (talk) 00:26, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
the info you asked for was provided and the source is reliable based on overall information you have to date regarding this article. dont wikiboink like user sionk you might be decorated around wiki for hitting the delete buttom.It would be a mistake to do so with this article! — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Toven (talk • contribs) 17:02, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Wikipedia isn't the home for everything. Specifically, they must be backed up by reliable and verifiable sources. This music article, and the linked source, both seem to be below the bar for this information. These used to be called "myspace bands" on Wikipedia, as everyone in the US (Southern California especially) seems to be in one or more bands. Here's an essay on it. The notability guidelines are summarized very simply here. Please read it. tedder (talk) 17:23, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
response
myspace band?ha first of all the only thing that seperates a talented myspace band from some over exposed mainstream artist is a lucritive record deal with a major label.is this a popularity contest on wiki or a notability issue anwser that?
below the bar for this article?dont think so when you get down to the basic of what the article is all about it boils down to The Million Dollar Mixtape period.Thats one of the most notable thing done by this musician and a page for that has been submitted and denied(by a self admitted newcomer named wywin) because The Toven article has not been accepted.please see link below
we will read what you suggested momentarily however we dont believe it applies to our article
WE WOULD LIKE to see someone edit a seperate better version asisde from our article on The Toven or The Million Dollar Mixtpe as a example that would be acceptable by wiki editors.and create a seperate link not affiliated with our preveuos contributions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Toven (talk • contribs) 19:00, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Ivan Rusilko
|Hi there,
|Can you help me again.
|An email was sent to permissions-en@wikimedia.org on 9/21/12 giving me permission to own this photo and use it on this wiki page. It keeps |getting deleted, and I've put up others that have all been given to me for ownership.
|What do I need to do to keep this page up and not have the photo deleted any longer. I'm getting very confused.
|Thanks as always for your help!
Angelinagirl317
Angelinagirl317 21:11, 25 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Angelinagirl317 (talk • contribs)
Whoever sent the email will need to follow up with the permissions people. I'm guessing there's a problem with the grant of license. —C.Fred (talk) 23:39, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Special Barnstar
For helping a newbie get started! Grandtourist42 (talk) 04:44, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Civility Barnstar
I have seen several of your interactions with problematic users, and I've noticed that you always seem to maintain civility even with the most hostile of editors. Keep up the good work! Ducknish (talk) 02:38, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
You just readded a ref that, when you go to the link provided, will display the message "FILE NOT FOUND", which means the content that the deleted section was citing to is non-existant, thus is unverifiable. Check again, and go to the link and see for yourself. Nguyen1310 (talk) 04:53, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
I checked, and I got a valid web page. —C.Fred (talk) 04:55, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Douglas Anthony Cooper
Thanks for the warm greeting. I imagine there are new editors creating accounts all the time. Do you spend your time flagging their initial contributions as well? That must keep you busy. If you have an issue with my contributions, send me a message. If you have a suggestion, share it. If you can't or won't do that, you are biased and you are abusing the system.Atelantix (talk) 04:20, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Replying to your talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 17:12, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Replying to your comment. --Atelantix (talk) 17:40, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for helping to make MMA articles on wikipedia better! In September 168 people made a total of 956 edits to MMA articles. I noticed you havn't listed yourself on the WikiProject Mixed martial artsParticipants page. Take a look, sign up, and don't forget to say hi on the talk page.
The reviews of the dress are present; you must have missed them. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 18:10, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
kamal akhtar
i am writing regarding Kamal Akhtar page please revert the changes as done by me previously. as it was done by the permission of person — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asjadullah Sarosh (talk • contribs) 18:28, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
The permission of the person does not trump Wikipedia guidelines for capitalization, references, privacy, etc. —C.Fred (talk) 18:29, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
can you explain how did i violated that page with the templete and information i posted regarding the brothers and kids information — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asjadullah Sarosh (talk • contribs) 18:31, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
First, the maintenance template {{blp unreferenced}} needs to remain at the top of the article until multiple reliable sources are cited in the article.
Second, it is common practice not to list children's names in articles, unless the children are themselves notable, as a matter of privacy. In that regard, it's unclear what a "cousin brother" is: without some references to explain what they are and who those people are, they shouldn't be listed. —C.Fred (talk) 18:34, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
WP:BLPNAME is the relevant policy on not listing those names, at least not until they are sourced reliably. —C.Fred (talk) 18:35, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
They are their chief operative of his political wing and moreover i am having main issues with his infobox alteration because present template lacks complete information such as his ministries etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asjadullah Sarosh (talk • contribs) 18:39, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
If they are operatives of his political wing, then they are not family members and should not be listed as such.
As for the infobox, not every bit of information can get jammed in there, though I thought there was a parameter for portfolios. Work it into the text of the article first; it can get added to the infobox later. —C.Fred (talk) 18:44, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
I stand corrected: not even {{Infobox officeholder}} has a spot for portfolios (ministries). —C.Fred (talk) 18:46, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
Also, I'm concerned by your statements that your edits are done with the "permisison" of Akhtar. You should probably read through WP:Conflict of interest, as it sounds like you have some connection with Akhtar. —C.Fred (talk) 18:51, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
Well i am saying that i am a neutral person but have got his consent for editing his page as he is reputed person. by the way i expect it wont effect the wiki policies. And i expect its not the issue of ego clash--Asjadullah Sarosh (talk) 18:56, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
My concern is, how did you get his consent, and are you taking any suggestions from him in your editing? —C.Fred (talk) 19:27, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
You Deleted My Post
CFred,
I am an entirely new Wikipedia user and you deleted my post. Why?
You did not even give me the option to edit it. Why?
You're going to need some more fuel for all the articles you're getting rid of through CSD. Keep up the good work. Go Phightins! (talk) 02:37, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Stargate (production team)
Hi. You've either edited Stargate (production team) or edited an article recently related to it. The article is currently up for a Good Article Review at Talk:Stargate (production team)/GA2. If you have time to assist in making changes so it can keep its GA status, that would be appreciated. :) --LauraHale (talk) 08:41, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Brad Schneider
The reason I removed those parts from Brad Schneider's page is because those are based on attacks from his opponent Robert Dold not actual hard facts. One of those sections removed was about Brad's business record claiming he received no income, where it was cited from a non-credible biased source. A baseless attack, not a proven fact. Same goes with the sentence about J-Street, where it says Brad is a member and a supporter. He is not a member and he is not endorsed by them. I simply removed them because those are not proven facts, and the citations do not back those claims up. Those sentences on Brad's page were added by someone from his opponent's campaign, and I removed them because they are simply not true.
Regarding the business record: It's hard to vet Breitbart as a source, since they don't have any kind of masthead or about page. However, they cite their source, the FEC filed by the candidate, so that information should likely stay, even if they have to come back from a better source later. (But not the FEC directly: better to leave the analysis to the source we're citing than the editor making the inference about the absence of income from Cadence.) —C.Fred (talk) 00:18, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
one's job is to...
Hi,
I apologize in advance for asking something that has nothing to do with the topic of this article. I am a student of English grammar. Your page got my attention for the many occurrences of similar expressions like "their job is to", all the variations of which I have listed here:
whose primary job is to
their function is to
their main job is to
the object of the defensive team is to
their job is to
their primary role is to
In 1, 3, and 6, you used the qualifying adjective 'main' and 'primary' for the noun; in other cases you did not. But I have an observation: when you say "one's job/function/role/object is to X", you very likely intend for it to mean "one's main/primary job/function/role/object is to X", i.e. the above 6 variations are roughly equivalent in meaning, with or without 'main/primary'. This would mean that if we remove 'main/primary' from 1, 3, and 6 and attach them to 2, 4, and 5, the meaning of the whole article would be intact. In other words, expressions like "one's job is" carries the implication of "one's main/primary job is", if not "one's only/sole job is". The implication can be strong or slight; different people have different perception about its strength. Based on your intuition and intention while writing the article, could you either confirm or deny the existence of such an implication? That'll be much appreciated. Thank you!
L10nusel (talk) 02:07, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure where you see any of that on my user page; which article did you see these constructions on? —C.Fred (talk) 02:11, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Hello
I see you posted to me and my 'disruptive' editing. Did you happen to notice where I suggested that there be both a basic plot outline summary AND a detailed page for all the other information?
as it is done here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enemies_%28Stargate_SG-1%29
This way there is both types of information available. Lots and lots for those who have already seen it and want to know more AND basic plot summaries for those who don't want there show ruined.
I am not randomly vandalizing the articles, I am trying to make both sides happy. AussieLegend does not appear to want to listen to any other solutions, other than quoting policy to me. I hope that you can see the difference in what I'm proposing.
I have proposed this policy change in mediation and have found that more than a few people have this complaint as well. I do not see why it can't be both.
Thanks for your time Hua89 (talk) 03:20, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
I see the difference in what you're proposing. However, at this point, it's a proposal. You made a few bold changes, and they were reverted. At that point, it's time to discuss the situation—and not keep making the same changes that go against both current policy and current consensus. —C.Fred (talk) 03:24, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
I will stop for now as I am waiting to hear from wiki management on the situation. I think it is a decent suggestion and I appreciate you at least listening to what I have to say instead of just a No, and quoting policy. Thank you for that:)
cheers Hua89 (talk) 03:35, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
Hmmmmmm
This seems a rather peculiar post, especially as there seems no link between the two editors at all. Interesting too that a 20 edit user knew all about DRN. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:06, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
Lynda Parham - deleted page
Hello,
You recently deleted a page, Lynda Parham. This is a real person. Matter of fact, it is me and about my life. I am a published author and blog owner currently working on more books to publish. My son, Tyler Parham was writing the page. Is there anyway of getting it reposted without him having to retype.
Please let me know. Thank you! Lynda Parham 10/26/2012 12:30 AM
(you can also visit my website to see for your self. lyndaparham.com) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.57.219.86 (talk) 04:30, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
I'll go ahead and restore it to his user space. There are a couple of things to be aware of.
First, all subjects of biographical articles must meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability of people. If there is no assertion of significance or importance per those standards—as was the case here—the article is subject to speedy deletion. Just having books published does not make a person notable. If the author and her works have been written about in secondary sources (typically newspapers and magazines; some but not all blogs are reliable sources), then that's a sign that she's notable.
Second, writing about subjects related to you is strongly discouraged. Any time an editor has a conflict of interest with a subject, that editor must be very careful to write from a neutral point of view and must bring in sources independent of himself and the subject to support assertions. —C.Fred (talk) 12:34, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Why are external fan links related to certain bands and artists being removed from their Wikipedia Page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.30.236.116 (talk) 15:55, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi. Thanks for removing the personal attack from that user talk page. But I won't be commenting again on that user talk page, as I have no wish to interact again with that editor due to their use of personal attacks. I've already clearly pointed the editor to the AFC Help desk where they can receive help with their AFC submission from experienced editors, perhaps you could re-emphasize that to the user? Thanks! -- Eclipsed(talk)(COI) 07:31, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
If, like me, you're in an area that was affected by Hurricane Sandy, and are unable to reply, I hope that you have not suffered too greatly, and my best wishes go out to you. Nightscream (talk) 22:44, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Can you look at this and see if an independent eye would semiprotect it? I'm too embroiled in it to protect with a clear conscience. The IPs involved are only grudgingly willing to discuss anything, and that only through edit summaries after they've put stuff back in the article.—Kww(talk) 16:55, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm not quite ready to semiprotect it. However, I've added it to my watchlist. If the IPs continue to add back the same content and refuse to discuss the matter on the talk page, then I'd be willing to semiprotect. —C.Fred (talk) 18:00, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
there is evidence if you go to his verified twitter account, www.twitter.com/keeganallen, where he updates constantly about his keek account. keegan allen is not 23 years old. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timebomb486 (talk • contribs) 03:07, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
A cup of tea for you!
Thank you for your notice. I am not arguing with Demiurge 1000, i am just putting true statements of the subjects and apparently for some reason he or she refuses to accept the truth, anyways, i am here just to add historical facts. If you have any questions, lets talk --(talk)-- Slurpy121 (talk) 03:36, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
A cookie for you!
apparently i didn't make myself clear with you or (talk) but can we eventually come to an agreement?? can we discuss this on the separation of powers talk page where we left off and settle the problem say this friday noon?? sincerely --> --User:Slurpy121 (talk) Slurpy121 (talk) 05:09, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
There's no guarantee that a consensus will be reached on a given timeline. It may get done in a day; it may not get done for over a week. It's all according to how the discussion goes. —C.Fred (talk) 00:30, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm not saying that the discussion is to be started and finished on the specific day, I'm asking if we can begin on Friday but its up to you really. —User:Slurpy121 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:43, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Why wait? Why not start the discussion now? Remember that discussion is not real-time; a discussion thread usually takes place over several days. (Besides which, at noon UTC Friday, I won't be awake yet.) —C.Fred (talk) 02:56, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
(At a guess, Slurpy121 is not thinking of UTC. I might be wrong.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 07:32, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Check the separation of powers talk page
I have replied to you in the talk page of the article.—(Slurpy121 (talk) 22:12, 17 November 2012 (UTC))
Not since my last reply. —C.Fred (talk) 22:13, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm having a good time!
I'm having a good time being a part of Wikipedia! Thank you!
--Shandre12 (talk) 00:02, 18 November 2012 (UTC)Shandre12--Shandre12 (talk) 00:02, 18 November 2012 (UTC)5:03 p.m. Sat., Nov. 17, 2012
Waste of time
It's a waste of time to attempt to get concensus from a group of mormons about romney. Since a mormon attorney runs wikipedia's board now (or did) and the LDS church pours money hand over fist into the wikimedia foundation, attempting to gain concensus is waste. They will just kibbitz through the LDS church chat room and send legions of meatpuppets to revert. Their articles are like their teachings -- works of fiction. So I won't waste the time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.228.136.172 (talk • contribs) 15:57, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Users may remove warnings from their own talk pages
Sorry about my actions, but I have tried to search in the guidelines and I didn't find anything about it, so I think that he could delete it... Thanks for the link to the correct guidelines, now I have understood it. 07:21, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
RE: Andrea Bargnani
I have heard Don Cherry say that on CBC's Hockey Night in Canada. It's the truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shark223 (talk • contribs) 21:39, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
You'll need to provide a specific reference to when he said it (i.e., what date of the show), so that other users may verify it. —C.Fred (talk) 22:15, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Category:North Cyprus Country Page
Dear C.Fred,
You very kindly agreed with my request to amend the North Cyprus page to include a section on the economy and most importantly to notify readers of a highly sensitive 'test' case called Kulaksiz 5, which will determine the fate of thousands of Expats and foreign homebuyers there.
Your agreement, along with one or two other editors, is only in principle, and the request was denied in relation to the current form of my recommendations ″undue weight".
May I make a new suggestion therefore. How about I reduce the impact of the property abuses on the economy to one short paragraph citing the Kulaksiz case, and then have a seperate page on the Kulaksiz 5 case, as did the "orams" case which also was a landmark case there.
That is suggestion 1.
Suggestion 2 would be one short paragraph on the economy part of my recommendation, and one seperate short section on Kulaksiz 5 case. You see, to get agreement from yourself and the other editors, I really need to know what kind of "weight" I should be aiming for. If I not I could see there being a lot of suggested amendments and requests, before anything is actually added. There is a highly important court case on the 29th November (3 days time) which is the opening of the Main Case Kulaksiz 5 residents vs Akfinans Bank, and it would be timely to have some information keeping people up to date on the case and it's proceedings (even if abbreviated updates, ie once sentence)
I'd suggest discussing that at Talk:Northern Cyprus. You'll get a broader discussion there and a better gauge for whether there is consensus among other editors to support the change. —C.Fred (talk) 01:19, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Destinee & Paris
Hello C. Fred - wanted to let you know that the proper emails have been sent to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org to lift any copyrights of the Destinee & Paris image and to make it freely available to the public. Permission has been granted by Destinee & Paris management and we fully expect that image to be freely available in the next few days
Once the donation is verified, there's still the question of whether the image is appropriate. Personally, I think if it can be cropped to remove the text, it might be usable. —C.Fred (talk) 04:45, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Re this edit; what am I missing? Ironholds (talk) 14:25, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
elten town
apologies C.Fred i did not leave a citation. will do if i have time to re edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hadzi3000 (talk • contribs) 05:38, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Chris Jones (Singer)'s article
Hello C.Fred,
I'm ok with all that you said, but I'm not close to him, just here to help a little bit. Otherwise I know how Wikipedia works now (about the official sources and the other things)and I won't be subjective, I knew that having a neutral point of view would be obligatory even before I created my account. I'm sorry for my basic language I'm actually french and I didn't really know wikipedia before tonight. That's a lot of informations to understand and I'll get them. I already started to put sources on this article, I just hope it won't be deleted when I'll wake up tomorrow morning. I'm sorry if I seemed incorrect in my first answer, I'm just a little stressed. --Cha Lucy (talk) 01:53, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
There's enough of a claim of notability that I've declined the request to speedy delete the article. It should be around in the morning, though I can't guarantee that an editor won't start deletion discussion on it (which would last a week). —C.Fred (talk) 01:59, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Thank you very much, I didn't know that writing a wikipedia article would be so hard. I'll finish it as soon as possible. Thank you again for your help. --Cha Lucy (talk) 02:05, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Hello C.Fred,
I just proved that Chris Jones had a single on Lebanon national music chart, had another in Dutch national music chart, and has placed in a major music competition, and I have 20 references for this article. Could you please tell me why I still have the "not reliable" messages at the top of this page? I admit I don't really understand...--Cha Lucy (talk) 09:06, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
While there are a lot of references in the article, a lot of them are not reliable. References should be to secondary sources like newspaper and magazine articles. Until an independent editor (myself or any other established editor) has vetted the references to make sure the sources are reliable and support the claims in the article, the page will stay tagged.
The other concern is, even if the sources check out, whether Jones is a notable musician. Being a featured singer may not be enough, if he hasn't charted in his own right.
To make clear, the two tags on the article are maintenance tags. They don't necessarily mean the page will be deleted. They mean that other editors have concerns and are seeking help to fix the problems. Best case, another editor comes up with several good references, and the maintenance tags will get removed soon. —C.Fred (talk) 14:45, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Ok thanks. Fact is he wanted to create an article on wikipedia because it's so hard to find reliable informations on him on the internet. It seems to be a little paradoxal I guess... I'll be sad if this article were deleted, cause I care a lot, but I guess that if it was the case, you just would do your job very well. If you know some oher place in the internet where we could make Chris Jones more "known", please give me some ideas. Wikipedia seems the better place to be. --Cha Lucy (talk) 15:27, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Edits on Magic Realism page
Hi C.Fred!
You recently reverted my edits on the Magic Realism page. I added a factoid about Lisa Donoho of Agoura High School who spent her entire last summer reading magical realism books. I do not believe these edits should be reverted. Thanks! Lisadonohoagourahighschool2 (talk) 04:29, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Hello, I am VERY new to Wikipedia. (surprise!) Master Grossman, at the headquarters for Grand Master Dong's dojang, asked me to include Grand Master Dong in the list of Grand Masters of Tae Kwon Do (in Kukkiwon) after I pointed out that he was not on the list. I have his permission to include him and create his page. If I have his permission, how is that a copyright infringement? Is there some kind of statement I need to add to prove I have permission? Please help me... as you can tell, I am very new to this. And, it took me a LOOONNGG time to figure out (with the help of my husband) how to include the reference link to his website.
Thank you! Oh, and I will be watching your page for your reply since I don't know how to get to mine. :-) Thanks again for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.4.22.158 (talk) 02:18, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Yes. The problem is, the page you copied from, bears a notice that it's copyrighted by him with all rights reserved. Wikipedia can only use text that is freely licensed: that we're free to use as we see fit and all downstream users are also free to use. That's a big hang-up with pictures, because it means somebody could make t-shirts with free images they found on Wikipedia.
So, to be able to use the text, he'd have to email that he's giving away the text or change the license terms of his bio to note that the text is under a free license (such as Creative Commons or GFDL). —C.Fred (talk) 03:04, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Who would Grand Master Dong need to email for his bio to be included on wikipedia? Thank you for all of your help. It is very much appreciated.
108.4.22.158 (talk) 03:16, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
This scandal was erroneously marketed by the media, initially, as a "Penn State" scandal. It has since been corrected in the media as the Jerry Sandusky/Second Mile scandal. The fact that some of the incidents allegedly took place at Penn State (note that the JS was not indicted on any of those charges), but that the majority took place elsewhere and the fact that JS was a FORMER coach at Penn State, but worked at the Second Mile during the entire time period, makes your Topic erroneous, and sensationalized.
Please update all titles and references to the correct topic line ("Jerry Sandusky / Second Mile Child Sex Abuse Scandal"). — Preceding unsigned comment added by PHD77 (talk • contribs) 16:07, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Florida climate
Hey C. Fred,
I made those changes to the Florida pages because no part of Florida is truly tropical, since it sits above the tropics (the tropics lie between the Tropic of Cancer and the Tropic of Capricorn), with Key West, its southernmost point, at just a few miles north of the Tropic of Cancer. Plus, even South Florida experiences cold snaps as low as 27F with two incidents of snow flurries. This never happens in places that are truly tropical, unless it is on a mountain. I hope you understand.
-MiamiHawaii — Preceding unsigned comment added by MiamiHawaii (talk • contribs) 04:55, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Jay Westervelt
Thanks for reverting the addition again at Jay Westervelt. For now, I'm still forcing myself to assume good faith; but there are multiple accounts whose shared goal appears to be that of a user who is determined to force an identifier of "amateur", or in this case an equivalent word they scraped out of a thesaurus. I've only been watching the page for a few weeks; but from the page history, there appears to be enough quacking that a CU won't be needed - although I haven't done or requested blocks thus far. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:29, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Social Promotion re message
Hi Fred,
Thanks for your msg. I want to propose a solution that I think should address the concerns you and a couple of others have referred to. The article www.writingachievement.com/Retention.htm contains pertinent and useful content. If that page were to be recast as a stand alone PDF w no links to the website (or its associated pages) on which it currently appears would that solve the issue? Betsaari (talk) 17:32, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
No, it wouldn't. The piece appears to be the school's position on holding students back a grade. It's not a broad, scholarly piece on the subject. Accordingly, it doesn't appear that it would pass either the WP:Reliable sources guideline for using it as a source or the WP:External links guideline for linking to it in articles. —C.Fred (talk) 17:41, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
reply re pdf
Re "not a broad scholarly piece" on the subject. The piece actually does more than describe how one program deals with retention; true, that is how the piece begins. Most of it offers experience based solutions for dealing with the larger problem. Specific things programs can do to avoid the retention/promotion dilemma. The "research" the "scholarship" comes fro the real world; from actual programs and actual experience. Does wikipedia have a policy that de-privileges that sort of content, that kind of contribution? Are we talking about policy or about your opinion of its worth? That's not a sarcastic question; it's an honest one. I can see your issue w links and understand the policy about that now. It seems the pdf w/out links would meet the policy. No? Betsaari (talk) 22:07, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
The policy in question is self-published sources. Since it is self-published (by the school's website, not in a journal or the like), it can be used as a reference in a very limited fashion.
As for using it as an external link, I'd suggest discussing the matter at the talk page of the article in question—Talk:Social promotion—to gauge what other editors think about including it. If they think it's a valuable resource, then it can be added. —C.Fred (talk) 22:10, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
This discussion does belong on the article talk page at talk:Social promotion rather than spread over multiple user talk pages which makes for a very disjointed and inconsistent discussion. That said, if you do start the discussion on the article talk page, can you clarify the ownership of the source website? C.Fred made a comment above that it was self-published by a school website; but when I reviewed the site it appeared to be a personal narrative of your own experiences posted to your personal website, not of a specific school. That clarification would be useful in any discussion. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:47, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Note
Hi C.Fred, thank you for blocking this account. Could you please have there email/talk page access revoked, since the account is clearly WP:LTA.
I saw you deleted the PAs from Nableezy's account. This should be deleted too, from Huldra (talk·contribs). Many thanks. Yazan (talk) 06:04, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Have left a lengthy response to Barek which followed just below yours; would like you to read it as I cannot reproduce it here. I need guidance as to how to further the conversation; you suggested social promotion talk page but when I went there it seemed like it might be defunct or inactive? Not sure. Betsaari (talk) 01:06, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Activity on Talk:Social promotion is about right for an article talk page. Any editors who are interested in the topic and/or have the article on their watchlist will see the post. —C.Fred (talk) 05:17, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
dead link on marysville arts and technology high school
Fred,
It appears that you have created the "dead link" for ref #1 on the above page. That's a start, but the problem is that the link itself is not "dead." The new owner of topschools has kept the original htm page name "/InternationalModel.htm". Click on the link itself; you will see that it is "live." But you will also see that the content is in NO way related to the school or to the page. This is because after selling the domain name last June, I moved the content (InternationalModel.,htm) over to my new domain.
Two things have to be done re the link: either it links to writingachievement.com/InternationalModel.htm, or it goes away (becomes invisible) entirely. I put the link there a number of years ago when I owned topschools; now that link needs to be updated or removed, one or the other.
About a week ago I added new external links as you know. Barek deleted all of those w no advance heads up or discussion, but in doing so, reverted the ref #1 to a link that is now incorrect.
I would like you to do this asap, please. I will check again tonight and if necessary, I will delete ref. #1 myself. I am a little gun shy about doing this because of the nature of some wiki emails communicated to me; but I will do it because it is not "harming" wiki but correcting it. I placed the original link there; I should be able to remove it without fuss. I will "remove" it and not "update" it because it has become clear to me that even though I am the founder of that school, I am not considered a reliable source. Betsaari (talk) 20:11, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
That was my point: the link itself isn't dead, but the content itself is no longer there. But it was there, and a source isn't invalidated just because the link expires. Had you mentioned it moved in your earlier message, I'd have just updated the link; not knowing that, all I could do was flag the link as invalid.
I vetted the Writing Achievement link, found it met the purpose, and updated the link accordingly. Had it not passed muster, I would have left the link in the reference, still flagged as dead, since another user would have been able to go through internet archives to try to find it. (This is one reason why citation templates are better for references than bare URLs: they keep information about the title of the website and, if the piece is credited, the author. You'll see I've added that template to the reference now.
One other note: you do not own your edits. Just because you added the link doesn't mean you can remove it if other editors feel it add to the article. Editing is collaborative, and when there's disagreement, we look to the established guidelines for Wikipedia (like WP:EL and WP:RS) or determine what the consensus is of involved editors. Strictly speaking, when you add text to an article, you put it under a free license that allows Wikipedia and its editors to use it any way they see fit—even if you think the text should be deleted while everybody else thinks it should stay. —C.Fred (talk) 22:37, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
C.Fred; can you clarify your interpretation of the link meeting the threshold of being a reliable source]]? I presume you are basing it on WP:SELFSOURCE, is that correct?
I can copy the following to the article talk page if you prefer. My problem is that the history section is entirely either unsourced, or sourced to this self published statement - with the exception of the last sentence which has a source for the school location. At the very least, I would like to see a third-party source that at least can verify that Dr. Bruce Saari was affiliated with the school in the time-period in question. I'm not stating he wasn't, only that there's no verifiability at this time, with only his own word that he was. In this case, it appears the risk is low; but as a matter of principle, what would stop anyone from creating a website journal claiming to be the founder of one school or another and creating a narrative of its history?
On a secondary issue, much of the history section appears to be written as a narrative with colorful commentary dropped throughout - not written in an appropriate encyclopedic tone. Much of this narrative should be purged to what is actually supportable. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:24, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
To the extent that the status quo is maintained, I've updated the link. It is a self-published source, but that was what was there before. It should probably be flagged as such, and the whole section overhauled, but that's a bigger project. —C.Fred (talk) 23:33, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Edits for Kavhe Farrokh page
Hi There and Thanks for the Welcome and Heads up :-)
First my apologies for erasing so abruptly - I meant no disrespect.
Second, I am no "pro" Farrokh, but it is not good to be so biased and narrow. I have taken cpurses with Kaveh Farrokh at UBC-Continuing Studies, and UBC does cite him as a historian (Farrokh never said that himself). He is a historian, as well as a clinical counsellor. Also he is affiliated with WAALM whic got a Nobel Peace Prize nomination. All I say is fine, you say "counsellor" but why the silence with this?
Also, no mention of his awards, which is unbalanced. I think the issue is this: whu such emphasis on "counsellor" when even the UBC website cites him as a member of Continuing Studies - ad I was one of his students in 2009 I recall.
Anyhow, many thans for being understanding and so welcoming :-)
I look forward to your response :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Faranak888 (talk • contribs) 01:35, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
I haven't read the talk page that closely, but it's clear from the comments embedded in the text and the discussion at the talk page that this isn't a simple issue. Hence my recommendation that you discuss the issue at the talk page. Be prepared to provide links or other bibliographic information to support your claims about WAALM and UBC. —C.Fred (talk) 01:45, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
The awards aren't notable - a clue might be the claim that WAALM (World Academy of Arts, Literature, and Media) was nominated for a Nobel Peace since the official site makes it clear that "Information about the nominations, investigations, and opinions concerning the award is kept secret for fifty years." WAALM is an offshoot of the Hungarian diploma mill the International Further Studies Institute http://www.degreediscussion.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=2773]. Dougweller (talk) 08:19, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
marysville arts and technology hs links that are third party for you
Hi Fred,
Did some research today looking for 2004 news articles that address the question barek raised re third party validation of Bruce S involvement in this school. Of the four, three have been archived by zoom info; but as you open those you will see the verifiability of the source, either Everett Herald or Seattle Times. Scrolling through each you will see the principal named.
Given the links I have shared re marysville a&t, and the refs to the principal's work at other schools, is it time to consider re-adding www.writingachievement.com/InternationalModel.htm to this page as an external link? It's the history of the founding of the school told from a founder's perspective. It is not the article itself, it is a link.
If you read this article, it also describes involvement in Bellevue International, Lake Washington International and Marysville Arts and Technology. Furthermore, it describes the retention policy at the international schools, which was the subject of the page www.writingachievement.com/Retention.htm that barek deleted from the Wiki Social Promotion page.
Given these third party sources, I am asking you to consider reverting Barek's deletions because the reliable sources (news articles) exist. That means we would reinstate those pages that were deleted, specifically InternationalModel.htm for LW and Bellevue and Retention.htm for the wiki page Social Promotion.
Again, these would be links, not the body of the page. I would think that the body of the page would be encyclopedic in style, but that links from first hand participants, founders or principals would be a useful addendum to an encyclopedia article. For ex., if we found a personal letter from Fredrick Douglass to his wife, would we not include it if it described his exp w slavery, even though, technically he is not a "reliable source" by wp standards? I am reminded of the recent Philip Roth flap.
Betsaari (talk) 22:42, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
I will be glad to join in the discussion(s) you start about adding these links on the talk pages related to the articles where you want to add them; I will not go through the merits of the links here.
However, you probably want to read through WP:EL again. I'm not entirely clear how the history of a specific school, or a group of schools, is a general resource to readers looking into social promotion.
Finally, given the name of the founder of the schools, and given your username, it's pretty clear you have a conflict of interest in this matter. Expect that to get brought up in discussion about adding the links. —C.Fred (talk) 00:47, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Young editors
I'm composing an essay on issues relating to young editors in my userspace, to try to address certain common problems that frustrate editors and admins who try to engage kids, particularly with respect to deletions and content-related issues. Your views are welcome: Kww suggested that you in particular might have some insights to offer as a result of your experience in minding articles on Disney, Nickelodeon and similar areas, places I fear to tread. A very incomplete and unfocused draft is at User:Acroterion/Dealing with the young. Please feel free to contribute as you see fit. Acroterion(talk) 19:06, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
conflict of interest
Fred,
I don't even know where to begin. I have made a request to you; I have recvd a threat from Jim that if I post and continue to "damage wikipedia" I will be banned. I'm not falling for that one, and reissue my original request to you. This is getting a little weird. Maybe more than a little. Betsaari (talk) 23:26, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
The warning you refer to from Jim1138 is a valid warning about adding links to articles inappropriately. It's what we've been discussing the last four days—you did notice that the warning has a date stamp that's four days old, right? —C.Fred (talk) 01:03, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Even more bizarre
Fred,
A former student of mine created the History of Bellevue International School video which is referenced on the Bellevue International School page. It's a great video. But according to your standards it should not be listed on the page. Why? First, because the questions were created by, and filming done by a student at the school--obviously one too close to the subject; second, it is entirely self-published; third, and most damning, the video interviews teachers who actually founded and worked at the school. They are obviously not reliable sources. Obviously. They definitely have a conflict of interest. Don't you see how silly this is getting? Betsaari (talk) 00:03, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
As a reference, it's a self-published source and usable for only very limited purposes. It is generally preferable to cite secondary sources, because the editorial process at the newspaper, magazine, etc. will* have fact-checked the article.
* Okay, should have fact-checked the article. The New York Times had a slip-up within the past year or so. But as a general rule, fact-checking is better at the secondary source than at the primary source.
Again, there are exceptions. Self-published sources may be used for information about the subject itself. So, the video would generally be useful as a source about the school, although it should be supplemented with or superseded by secondary sources wherever possible. This preference for secondary sources is strong enough that many editors, when referring to reliable sources, really are talking about reliable secondary sources only, and not reliable primary sources. —C.Fred (talk) 01:10, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Stuttering Foundation
Fred,
I'm trying to clean up the Stuttering Foundation's wikipedia page. But you took down what I did. I tried to add more information and sources to address concerns. I am NOT a sock puppet (or whatever it says). Please help. The Stuttering Foundation is a great organization and is nonprofit.
Thanks,
Scot Squires — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scotsquires (talk • contribs) 15:33, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Reply at your talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 15:54, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
new testament christian church
I have made several deletes due to dead links [4] [5] & [6] in this article. What is wrong with that??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Travelin shuz (talk • contribs) 19:40, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Reply at your talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 19:42, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Al-Farabi
Ip identifies himself as Jean Francois Monteil, and he is adding copyvio work from websites written by Monteil. I've posted a warning to him. Good faith but doesn't understand how we work. Dougweller (talk) 10:50, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Malaysia largest lost are by eight and six goal margins as seen on rsssf website, so, the biggest win for this team should be fifteen, eleven and ten goal margins as seen here. — иz нίpнόpʜᴇʟᴘ! 03:06, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
No, given as there's a 14-goal margin on the list. —C.Fred (talk) 03:19, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
I didn't see 14 there, I only see 15 with a match vs. Philippines. — иz нίpнόpʜᴇʟᴘ! 03:22, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
I don't see a 15. I see 14 vs. the Philippines, on 27 Aug 1962 (15–1 final score). —C.Fred (talk) 03:23, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Oh, so why biggest defeat should be determinded by 6 ? Isn't the match with New Zealand are the largest defeat?. :) — иz нίpнόpʜᴇʟᴘ! 03:28, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
You mean the match they lost by six? —C.Fred (talk) 03:54, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
And it's one of the many six-goal defeats listed. —C.Fred (talk) 04:16, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Oh, now I understand. Thanks Fred! :) — иz нίpнόpʜᴇʟᴘ! 04:20, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Jerry Speziale biography
It appears that you are one of the main contributors to the Jerry Speziale biography so I thought you should know that a user has recently taken it upon him/herself to delete about 80% of the contents without bothering to discuss it with the contributing editors, or anyone. The reason? "This is an encyclopedia not a biography" which doesn't really make sense because Wikipedia is filled with biographies and many of them are filled with extensive coverage of the person's accomplishments, work history and so forth. I have restored the page to its prior setting, however I thought you might want to keep an eye on the page. The photo gallery section IMO should be placed near the end of the bio. Other than things like that it looks like a well researched and well sourced piece of writing. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:22, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
I removed the BLPPROD from the article as there were three sources in the article when the tag was placed. However, I did add a regular PROD. I also added a PROD to Joseph Darcey-Alden. Bgwhite (talk) 01:02, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
German Doppelgänger, from doppel- double + -gänger goer"
BUT THIS DOESN'T MEAN "DOUBLE-GOER" WAS THE RIGHT TRANSLATION!!
The dictionary also gives an example for the usage of Doppelgänger:
"<at the mall today I saw someone who could be your doppelgänger>"
This example is very good, because Doppelgänger is really used in such a context. Of course you will end up with double-goer, if you try to translate it word by word, but languages are far to complicated to do it that way. The German word "Doppelgänger" is only comparable to the English "look-alike" and in some cases "Alter Ego".
Please don't feel attacked - I just wanted to give you some friendly advice... I apologize in advance in case it doesn't sound as friendly as I wanted it to.
Hi C.Fred, Happy New Year 2013. You reverted me that I had reverted an IP address. It is OK, no problem. A link just for your reading.Please take a look at...Thanks.Justice007 (talk) 23:26, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Moshe Friemdan
My changes all have multiple sources. And the current article is wrong (including even source #1 which doesnt even say he is a rabbi as they falsely claim). Appreciate your assistance in getting it cleaned up Tellyuer1 (talk) 04:18, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Gave my suggested changes there. On Netureia Karta they dont even have sources. What should i do on a page sans sources? Why leave it there?Tellyuer1 (talk) 04:37, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Allison Dine Photo
Hi Fred. You asked me to verify the photograph posted on the 'Terrance Clark' page of Allison Dine. The photograph was scanned from the book "Underbelly: Tale of Two Cities" John Silvester, Andrew Rule Publisher: Floradale Press
ISBN: 0977544095
EAN: 9780977544097.
The photo is at least 25 years old, originally taken by an unknown source and is not copyrighted to the Authors of the book. Sarah Delatour (talk) 09:19, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
That certainly doesn't make it your work, and I'm not convinced that it puts it into the public domain. I've tagged the image as a copyvio on Commons. —C.Fred (talk) 14:56, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
My apologies. I have never claimed it as my work. I have uploaded the photo without citing source and with incorrect details. I will be correcting this shortly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarah Delatour (talk • contribs) 21:40, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Curious about the welcome
I'm not sure why you would be welcoming an Anon with the following edit history of vandalism? Do you see some redeeming aspect of widespread removal of cited data? Just curious. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:12, 4 January 2013 (UTC).
The major reason is that there's no {{welcomevandal}} variant for anonymous users. I do not see redeeming value from the user's edits; I do think the user should be pointed toward the guidelines so that they can learn about how to edit within the rules. —C.Fred (talk) 18:16, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
... and best of the New Year! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:20, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
BTW, I like that {{welcomevandal}} idea especially if it is a content dispute, which is sometimes the case, not just someone buttering around for fun. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:24, 4 January 2013 (UTC).
Moshe Friedman
Keep discussing BLP. The guy is noteable for something wacky - and there are plenty of noteable sources for it. Its not a violation of BLP to use multiple sources to say so. Have laid out ample sources showing it but the one user just keeps pushing back. Even the lead - who says he's from NY? There is NO source. and if i change it I am wrong? Seems like an odd catch 22. Help. Tellyuer1 (talk) 16:25, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
At this point, yes, you're "wrong" if you change it. Edit warring is disruptive to harmonious editing; users who persist in edit wars and/or violate the three revert rule are subject to being blocked. You've already been blocked once for edit warring, so a second block is likely to run at least four days.
That's why I've said you need to have a dialogue with people on the talk page and work toward common ground with the changes. You can't just dump a new version of the article into the talk page and expect buy-in. Try going point-by-point. And don't expect immediate change; a meaningful discussion will take some time to get multiple users' perspectives. —C.Fred (talk) 16:30, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
I do many many times - and no one except that one guy comments. I have left sources there and edits. WHy isnt he blocked as shld be.Tellyuer1 (talk) 16:33, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
To rephrase: try working for small changes, one at a time. I haven't seen you try to do that. I have seen about four users strongly oppose your wholesale changes. —C.Fred (talk) 16:35, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
They arent interested in engaging in dialogue and "edit warring" takes two, not one. I comment and leave ideas. they dont respond and I never put info without sources all of it is very well sourced. They are white washing a Holocaust denier, radical. And just bc they are 2 and I am 1 doesnt mean they shld be able to bully me. They place "The Vienna Review"? What is that exactly ? My sources are major papers and real.Tellyuer1 (talk) 17:30, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Reply at your talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 17:32, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
So I dont break the revert rule, TheRedPenOfDoom wrote "this is just a filing of a suit that may have no merit" - absolutely inaccurate. It is a judgement which was made, and Friedman lost. Wasnt a filing. Was a decision. Read. Tellyuer1 (talk) 17:39, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Citing Help pLease . Thanks
Hi I did make the to . Brian Littrells page. edit But I am unsure of how to cite it ? can you help me ? Thanks cuz its all truth. :) <3 thanks a bunch! :D MyHusbandsAngel (talk) 20:12, 5 January 2013 (UTC)MyHusbandsAngel
You'll need to back up every item in your edit to secondary sources—newspaper or magazine stories about Littrell. And they must be published stories in reliable sources; blogs and first-hand accounts are unacceptable. —C.Fred (talk) 20:14, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Also, please reply at your talk page. I'll be watching it for changes. —C.Fred (talk) 20:16, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks man!
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
Thanks for fixing articles I tried to edit, and teaching me a lot more about Wikipedia! Lostromantic (talk) 01:48, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Hut 8.5
I just spent two hours updating Ohio politicians for the new general assembly. Hut 8.5 is on some tirade to revert any edit by any individual on this. I am very passionate and informed on the general assembly and it is very frustrating to see good edits reverted. Take a look at joe Schiavoni as an example of the problems he causes. He also deleted a page on John Rogers who is a new representative. You will see that all of his reversions make no sense in keeping these pages up to date. In fact, he has no interest or knowledge on these topics at all. I am very upset. Please do what you can to restore my edits, which in fact are very useful and by no means harmful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.238.130.72 (talk) 23:10, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
No, Hut 8.5 is working to prevent one individual from editing the articles. Sorry, but while you're banned, you can't edit Wikipedia. I could, in all rights, have deleted this message from my talk page, but I wanted to do you the courtesy of explaining why any editor, including admins, may revert your edits on sight. —C.Fred (talk) 00:24, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi C.Fred, Orange Grove is an independent band but they have a name
Hi C.Fred, I understand that Wikipedia wants to keep their pages limited to what is generally considered popular enough..and I understand that there are way too many bands in existence to allow every independent non-signed band a page section in Wikipedia..but I do believe there are a number of non-signed bands out there who are worth mentioning simply due to the success they have managed to achieve. I am certain that Orange Grove is more popular than many bands out there who are actually signed, plus they have managed to stick around for over ten years and continue to release high quality productions in both song and video. I live in The Hague and have been to many of their concerts in this city and others. I have seen the draw crowds of over 1000 here. When they have performed on certain islands in the Caribbean they have also drawn upwards of 1000 to a concert and on those islands their music can be heard regularly on most of the local radio stations.
Is there no exception for bands that are not signed to a label? I can show you many examples of bands that are signed and do not have half the fans that Orange Grove does.
Yours sincerely,
Arne van der Meulen
aka Twemz Twemz (talk) 01:04, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
The full list of notability criteria is at WP:BAND. I looked but didn't see any way that Orange Grove met the criteria. —C.Fred (talk) 01:11, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Hello C.Fred!
It is nice to see someone so active on here. I am happy that you have the mental energy to do this. Please accept a couple of constructive criticisms.
†To avoid drawing undesired "edit wars", please simply supply a link to the copywritten photograph in the first place.
My apologies by the way.
†Please view the entire article when there is an edit.
C Fred:thanks for your message, how do I verify the info that i want to add to the LB notable alum link? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bbobfloyd (talk • contribs) 05:32, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Reply at your talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 05:47, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
A kitten for you!
this is hilarious! thanks for your help on my first wiki page! I want to write more about some interests i have ... like moms who run... or online dating - new rules for the age - i have been "out" ha ha ha 2 years and my friends ask me for tips and advice on how to set up online profile etc... or are these two topics not appropriate?
okay fred - help me here... what do i need to do or change? can u spell it out for me... i have literally spent hours looking at help screens and updating...
i am soo fru
strated... i want to write more articles and i am scared to now... is there a video or something?
can u tell me specifically what i am doing wrong? i am trying to make it just as all the other councillor pages fully approved...
Also, Joe Fontana is a former federal cabinet minister; that's why he's notable. Deb Matthews is a provincial minister. As a general rule, federal MPs are notable; provincial MPPs, MLAs, etc. are usually notable; municipal elected officers are not notable. Notability isn't temporary: if somebody was notable as an MP but has stepped down and is now a local mayor, they are still notable as a former MP. —C.Fred (talk) 19:22, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Georgia Bulldogs football
C Fred, I know that you have been active in the Florida-Georgia football rivalry discussions in the past. A random IP user has been making historically inaccurate edits to the Georgia Bulldogs football article regarding the number of national championships won and/or claimed by the Georgia program. The usual editors with an affinity for UGA-related subjects, including Jhortman, have not been active since the holidays. In their absence, I would ask that you intercede with the IP. I've reverted his edits at least three times over the past several days, and I am afraid the situation might escalate given my history of editing Florida Gators-related articles and the inevitable name-calling an bias accusations begin. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:42, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads-up. I've added Georgia Bulldogs football to my watchlist and will leave a message for the IP. —C.Fred (talk) 20:49, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Not sure what the issue is
Not sure why you are tagging the photos I am uploading of Mr. Melick. Of course these photos are not in use because they have not been linked to the article I am writing yet!!! Are you saying that to publish an article on this celebrity figure, he has to relinquish all rights to his image???? I'm sure the estates of Stan Kenton, Guy Lombardo, or Bill Evans, for example, did agree to that.
In answer to your question on 02:01, 7 December 2009 (REALLY SLOW REPLY) ... Yes, I am the author of The Rules for Polite Discourse, have all rights to it, and am willing to license it under CC-BY-SA.
SoSaysSunny (talk) 09:05, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
The Center Line: U.S. Roads WikiProject Newsletter, Winter 2013
Hi there! I invite you to participate in the request for comment on Talk:La Luz del Mundo. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! Ajaxfiore (talk) 17:23, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Kate Robbins
Please do not change the entry for Kate Robbins again, the current entry is correct at 1962
The BFI have this now and have had it on their internal database for some time.
This is basically the same as the user talk page was. Depends on your views of such things but... Cheers --Herbytalk thyme 17:57, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Yes, but it came first, and it's in a sandbox. I was giving them some time to respond before deleting it. —C.Fred (talk) 19:23, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
January 2013
Hi, I'm Layer1997, well about the correction of One of the Boys (Katy Perry album) I think it is the debut album of her because in a documental of E!, said that her album as Katy Hudson was a EP, not an Album. That is for me that's a reason why change the information about order of her proyects.
I recently added the Santa Barbara International Marathon page, but originally I messed up and now my sandbox and everything is a mess. I guess I want to know if my page is okay, this is for a class project. Kathryn.Anne.Anderson (talk) 02:05, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
I cleaned up some of the page moves and merged the histories. It should be at Santa Barbara International Marathon now. As for the content, it looks pretty good as far as articles go. I'm sure other editors will have suggestions, besides looking for a wider variety of sources. —C.Fred (talk) 02:11, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Okay, in my sandbox it has what I orginially called it "Santa Barbara International Marathon and Half Marathon." There is just a link that goes to my old sandbox and my article is no where to be found except when I type in the link for it. Kathryn.Anne.Anderson (talk) 02:17, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
For your convenience, I've pointed that redirect to the current article. —C.Fred (talk) 02:47, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
I think the sources are reliable enough, as if the pages are checked, the conversations can be found. --173.218.215.70 (talk) 20:59, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
An actor (I think it's an actor: we can't see the page ID in the snippet) saying "Total Drama All Stars" is not a reliable source that the character is returning for the fifth season. —C.Fred (talk) 21:15, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Darrell Pasloski
I am the publisher of Midnight Sun News and own the material, which was written by a hired freelance journalist, that I posted onto the Darrell Pasloski entry. There is no copyright violation.
Reply at IP's talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 21:23, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
I am not trying to delete that other section again. When I reverted your edits, that just keeps deleting. Feel free to add that back, but do not delete the portion I have added. It has been cited, linked, and a copyright release posted on the media website page at the bottom of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.247.185.193 (talk) 21:33, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Would you be willing to talk with User:MRCCR? They're completely unwilling to listen to anything I say to them, and they're constantly reverting every edit I make to the page because my edits are apparently 'destructive'. I think they might listen better to someone that isn't, you know, me. --TKKbark ! 06:01, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm monitoring his(/her) edits right now. I'll see what they do to my edit,[4] where I explained about the link repair and that the spelling isn't visible. —C.Fred (talk) 06:03, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm new to editing wikipedia and just signed up to make sure my company, Gaia Interactive - the creator of Gaia Online, has the most up-to-date corporate website address in the company information box, so I hope you don't mind helping a new user sort this out:
I'm not sure how I can prove that we have a new website unless I site the new website (which seems a little redundant). What do you suggest? Feel free to go on the website and check. Gaia Online is the final listing here: http://gaiainteractive.com/games/.
The article is about the game, not the company, so it makes sense to link directly to the game as the primary external link. It might make sense for the company to be a second link listed in the external links section. Or, it may make sense for the company to only be linked from its article. —C.Fred (talk) 22:56, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Okay, but the box in the corner is about our company, not our game. It talks about our CEO, number of employees, headquarters, etc. It doesn't make sense that it switches contexts just for the very last line. Please advise. Goatsgoatsgoats (talk) 18:21, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Regarding OpenBVE Edits
Hi, C.Fred. User "Pacific Coast Highway" (from Brooklyn) is obviously deleting all links but to his own "OpenBVE.org" (which by the way does include a "forum" in violation of your stated policy). The several links which I attempted to reinstate, are long standing in the BVE/OpenBVE community (unlike the recent upstart OpenBVE.org) and does include critical documents and addons for user and developers, which PCH keeps deleting. Please, understand this and give user PCH appropriate warning for promoting personal websites and inappropriately deleting competing links. And allow me to reinstate the links, excepting those which include forums, per your stated policy. User OBVE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OBVE (talk • contribs) 02:37, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
You'll need to discuss the links at the article's talk page, Talk:OpenBVE, to see whether there's consensus for including them or not. Also, given your username, it seems you may have a conflict of interest with the subject. —C.Fred (talk) 02:44, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
My user name "OBVE" was chosen, perhaps nievely, to simply indicate that I am a BVE/OpenBVE user. I do not have a conflict with or vested interest in the BVE/OpenBVE program or any of the linked websites. The subject links have resided for several months on the OpenBVE page until PCH recently & singly decided to delete them. OpenBVE and it's addons have been developed by an international community, and PCH deletions only serves to alienate much of that commmunity. User OBVE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OBVE (talk • contribs) 03:10, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Bear in mind that which links should or should not be included in the article do not reflect the goals of the BVE community but the Wikipedia community. Wikipedia is not a directory; the External links should not be a comprehensive list of every national file repository. —C.Fred (talk) 03:40, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
MY REJECTED ADDITION TO WIKI BASED ON COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT
Dear C Fred,
Your rejection of my edited material is unwarranted. All aspects of MY own resume and bio, from all website sources, including, but not limited to IMDb, EGTVN, SCBWU,M etc.. are owned, authored, validated and all rights of my self written resume belong only and solely to me. I AM PIPER DELLUMS, so who else would own the rights to my bio? Not a website. My bio information was added from MY written work about MYSELF. So, if you actually are intent on supplying factual information about me, or anyone else, I (we) are the best sources of our own lives and accomplishments.
Thank you for clearing this up, and returning my edit of MYSELF to the Wikipedia information concerning ME, and MY life.
Piper Dellums
pipereag@gmail.com
72.87.177.60 (talk) 04:13, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
You'll need to clear that up with Society of Children's Book Writers & Illustrators. They're asserting copyright on the text.
Also, your statement above is false: the textual representation of your biography on Wikipedia are not under the Creative Commons and GFDL licenses, not an all-rights-reserved license. —C.Fred (talk) 04:16, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
I contacted Society of Children's Book Writers & Illustrators President-and he has NO idea what or who you are referring to. His letter is as follows:
Hi Piper--this is the first we have heard of this--we have no intention of
owning anyone's bios--we do, of course want to protect the content on our
site, but I don't know what Wikipedia refers to---if you can find out, or
guess what they would need from us in order to release your bio, let us
know and we will write it up for you to send them--best wishes, Steve
Stephen Mooser
[address redacted]
Piper dellums (talk) 21:47, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
At this point, the thing to do is for you to contact the Volunteer Response Team via email. They can assist a little better with who needs to clear the rights, since on further inspection, it looks like CBW&I just reprinted a press release (without attribution).
The VRT should also get involved because they can verify that you are actually Dellums. They handle that through email, so personal information isn't placed on openly-viewable talk pages.
Regardless of what happens, bear in mind that Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anybody can edit, so you can't control what appears in the article about you. Edits that present false or misleading information will be undone by the community, but other editors can (and will) edit the wording of your bio for tone. In the event that information in a bio you wrote contradicts with information published by a third party, we generally give precedence to the secondary source over material you wrote or published yourself. I just want to make sure you aren't surprised when this happens.
Again, this is beyond a level for "ordinary" administrators like myself; it's time for the Volunteer Response Team to get involved. Instructions for emailing them are at WP:VRT. —C.Fred (talk) 23:23, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Hello
You rejected that contribution :
21:04, 10 November 2012 C.Fred (talk | contribs) . . (49,961 bytes) (-111) . . (Undid revision 522381930 by Ugo Valfer (talk) - maintainers of the gallery don't seem to be a reliable source) (undo)
and I'd like to know more precisely why. Your explanation is a bit arbitrary, I think. Thank you in advance.
Ugo Valfer (talk) 19:55, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
You used a web page with a photograph of the Fortress of Joux to support the assertion that Louverture was jailed there on 25 August 1802. My concern is how Messers Bouchon and Grau, the maintainers of that website, are reliable sources. Who reviewed the information in that caption? (Never mind that the caption doesn't mention the day of the month, just that it happened in August.) —C.Fred (talk) 23:32, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
I deleted it because, indirectly, you asked for it to be deleted. The page was empty; it had no content. One of the speedy deletion criteria, G7, says that a page may be deleted if only a single editor has contributed and they have blanked the page.
Since there's nothing valid to restore, I won't restore it. However, nothing prevents you from creating a new article at the same title. Just make sure it complies with Wikipedia guidelines on notability of companies and that it is not a copyright violation. —C.Fred (talk) 23:45, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
(talk page stalker)Be sure to avoid garbage language like "is 1 of the best software development company based in Asia. We Build. Grow. Inspire" and "Kunjam Chawla have creative business mind". Aside from being horribly bad English, it is promotional and reeks of (incompetent) advertising. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:32, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
I don't want my every article to be deleted so please restore it. And it's very common article about a company and ones it restored i will defiantly add more data and even the data is provided from the company about page only, so there is no copyright issue. So what's the problem in this article. Restore & Reply Soon!
Ron Gates
Please give me permission so i can recreate this page because it's showing me a message :
"A page with this title has previously been deleted.
If you are creating a new page with different content, please continue. If you are recreating a page similar to the previously deleted page, or are unsure, please first contact the deleting administrator using the information provided below.
16:51, 3 February 2013 C.Fred (talk | contribs) deleted page Talk:Asian Fox Developments (G8: Talk page of a deleted page)"
If you are recreating the same page that was there before, then no, you may not recreate the page. If you are creating a new page with different content...well, then continue. —C.Fred (talk) 00:35, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Webster Stanley Middle School
I believe that this middle school has enough outside sources to make it of importance. I will continue searching for even more. -- Binko71100 (talk) 22:21, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Maayan Torah Day School
Hello there. You commented on my article regarding the notability of the Maayan Torah Day School. It is the first article I've written and I'm not sure what the procedure is for responding to you; do I do it here or in the article? You wrote that demonstrating notability would probably require showing that the school "has gotten coverage in reliable sources outside Portland." The school has had write-ups in various Jewish publications. Here are links to an article in the Jewish Review and a case study from the Orthodox Union. Here is a link to an explanatory blurb on the OU's case studies on day school affordability initiatives. I'm also including a link to an article in the Portland Tribune that is in a similar vein to the OU case study and further displays Maayan's notability. I can track down some more write ups if you think I ought to. I really appreciate your going over my article and would also appreciate any more advice on what my next step should be. Thanks so much for your help! Desire Ducks (talk) 23:02, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Since you found it neede to undo my edit you and most others don't know that the Bea in Aunt is short for Beatrice Unfortunately illiteracy is becoming an all too common problem in this country today As you said that Bee is the accepted spelling does not make it correct I'm so glad to see that you were eager to jump on something and "correct" it incorrectlySparky47933 (talk) 22:47, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi C.Fred. Do you have any more input?Desire Ducks (talk) 19:35, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
CSR Racing (game)
Hello,
I saw that you edited and changed viewing permissions for two sections of my article- I was curious, what were they? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Holden Barnes (talk • contribs) 01:33, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
That was the two versions of the article with the copyright-infringing text. —C.Fred (talk) 01:34, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi - How do I change my username? I accidentally made my name the company I am creating it for. Thanks! MoviePass (talk) 22:45, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
See the links in the message on your talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 22:57, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Introduction
Hi CFred. I saw that you were active on the Talk page of Yelp, Inc. and wanted to let you know I'll be working with Yelp to help them improve the page from Talk. I also pinged User:Wikidemon, who has responded to many of the strings on the article's Talk page, though I noticed he hasn't been logged in much recently. You can see an example of my approach to COI on the Talk page of RTI International (aka Research Triangle Institute). I just thought I would introduce myself and gauge your interest in collaborating on the Yelp page.
PS - if you are still in the research triangle (your user page says you graduated from NC State) we're neighbors. I think Dennis Brown and Drmies are locals too. CorporateM (Talk) 03:46, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Godzilla Attributes delete
2/17/2013 9:30 pm User:JJHOHO3
hello, i had edited the Godzilla page for a class experiment i am doing for my cybernetics and sociology class, please put the edit back so i can study the behavior of others editing it, i or you can remove it with in 7 days after the assignment is received by my professor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JJHOHO3 (talk • contribs)
Somehow, I don't think your professor authorized you to add "NINJAZILLA DEATH!" to the Godzilla article. Even if he/she did, that wouldn't be an appropriate use of Wikipedia. NawlinWiki (talk) 03:33, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
9:37 Understandable, i go to an arts college, and i got carried away with the experiment, if you would like i could re post a variant of it without my creative optimism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JJHOHO3 (talk • contribs) 03:40, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
No. Wikipedia is not a venue for science experiments—at least, nothing at this ad hoc a level. —C.Fred (talk) 03:44, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Sorry to be intruding on your talk page C.Fred, but JJHOHO3, if your experiment is to study the behavior of other individuals editing the article, then seeing people undoing edits that are perceived to be unconstructive, such as yours, should be a pivotal part of your assignment. Jonathanfu (talk) 03:49, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Thank you,Jonathanfu, i was thinking that if it was removed so quickly there wouldn't be enough time for a reaction, but the fact that it was removed so quickly was a factor of what would be seen in an obviously unconstructive edit vs a seemingly constructive edit. didn't think about that at first, i will use that in the paper and for the rest of the experiment as it progresses for the week, Thank you again Jonathanfu for your advice it has been a tremendous help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.140.218.200 (talk • contribs) 23:49, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Hey.
Your bot deleted the company I work for, Infinite Industry. Its page got requested for speedy deletion on grounds that it is insignificant. Hurt feelings aside, please put it back up and if there's any way I could improve it to better meet Wikipedia's standards, let me know.
If you can show that the company has been written about in multiple independent reliable sources, then it might meet the standards. —C.Fred (talk) 23:52, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
This page in an intense auto-biography of my close friend.
You have no right to delete this last memory of the most awesome person i have even known.
Please reinstate the page that you have deleted
And if there is anything that i can do to improve please tell me — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stuartbenn (talk • contribs) 01:50, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
The subject is clearly not notable under WP:BIO and should not have an article. Wikipedia is not a webhost for you to write a history of your friend (or post your friend's stories about himself). —C.Fred (talk) 01:57, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
FYI the article creator took the deletion tag down one other time, and put a warning on his talk page. He's removed the tag twice in all....William 02:33, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
That's why I gave him the level 2 warning about removing speedy deletion tags. —C.Fred (talk) 02:34, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
When an editor does the same thing twice, I have trouble with AGF. There's this article- List of accidents and incidents involving commercial aircraft, which above the edit box has a notice in big red letters not to add an entry unless it has a dedicated wikipedia article. Most of the time you have the one-time adders and they're gone but just recently we had a person undo my revert. He still wasn't getting the message. Till I put it on his talk page. Cheers!...William 02:41, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm a little more generous with AGF, especially if they could've removed the tag the second time while they were getting the warning. —C.Fred (talk) 02:47, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Good question- Say an article creator kept taking down the CSD tag. Would I be violating 3RR if I kept reverting?...William 02:44, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Removing the CSD tag is in that grey area. If it's a copyvio, restore the tag: flagging the copyvio is in the clear best interest of the project. If it's CSD A7, it's not as clear-cut. The safer route would be to report the individual at the edit warring or some other admin's noticeboard. —C.Fred (talk) 02:47, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the tip. BTW he's recreated[5] the article again. Time for a block?...William 03:26, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
I was looking though the report, and apparently he was warned about getting consensus on the talk page two days ago, and he ignored it and kept on revert warring, so I did the 31 hour block, but by the time I was about to close the edit warring discussion, I noticed you looked at it first and gave him a warning. I think it's better to give him a 31 hour time out as he was warned. Looks like one of those nationalist single purpose accounts anyways. Secretaccount 18:02, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
The info box says he was born in 1120 BC Los Angeles. LA didn't exist in 1120 AD. That's the reason(plus the hidden info box) why this smells like a hoax....William 18:46, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
I agree about the hoax. I've asked the author to provide reliable sources that this character is in canon and not something he made up, but based on my Google search, I'm not expecting him to be able to come up with anything. —C.Fred (talk) 18:47, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm giving him another 10 minutes or so to respond; otherwise, I'll delete it myself under G3. —C.Fred (talk) 18:49, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
You deleted it. If its not a hoax, he can always contact you and offer proof and it will be restored. Some how I don't think that will happen but I'll admit to error if proven wrong. Cheers!...William 20:29, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
AREDS article - adding new information but everything removed
Dear Fred,
I think the wiki article should reflect the facts in the NEJM letter below. I tried to summarize those facts and state their implication regarding B&Ls selective use of the data in their advertising. Not sure why you've removed my addition.
N Engl J Med 2008; 359:1735-1736October 16, 2008DOI: 10.1056/NEJMc081470
To the Editor:
The review of age-related macular degeneration by Jager et al. (June 12 issue)1 does not refer to an editorial accompanying the report of the Age-Related Eye Disease Study (AREDS) in the Archives of Ophthalmology in 2001 and two subsequent letters,2-4 all of which criticized the study analysis for setting aside a negative result in which dietary supplementation with high doses of vitamins and minerals was ineffective and instead reporting on a subgroup in which the result was positive. The investigators argued that the excluded patients had too few end points to be eligible for treatment. However, the group of patients who received the supplement had greater disease progression and provided valuable data regarding early intervention.
Discarding prespecified negative analyses and reporting on positive subgroup analyses has been repeatedly discouraged.5 The omission of the above information perpetuates the myth that the supplement used in the AREDS was effective, at the price of a treatment that has no benefit and carries undetermined risks.
Daniel Seigel, Sc.D.
[redacted]
5 References
B&L advertising:
Helps preserve eye health**
Bausch & Lomb PreserVision soft gels are based on the AREDS formula, the one and only antioxidant vitamin and mineral supplement proven clinically effective in the age-related eye disease study (AREDS). AREDS was a 10-year, independent study conducted by the National Eye Institute (NEI) of the Nationals Institutes of Health (NIH).
This statement has not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease.
So the product, according to AREDS, prevents the progression of disease, but it is not intended to prevent any disease?
The studies conclusions can be questioned and the article in wiki should reflect this. It might also add the caveat that clinical studies supported by drug companies might not be valid, especially when those drug companies plan to use the results in their advertising.
First, I reverted your edit because you didn't add anything to the article. What you did was delete the external links and categories from the article.
As for your concerns, they're probably better discussed at Talk:Age-Related Eye Disease Study, where more editors will see the discussion and be able to chime in. —C.Fred (talk) 05:06, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Page Title
I saw the note regarding my page, (Carey May Edge...redirected from search Carey May) Can you remove the "Edge" from the title page, I don't use that name any more. I tried to edit it but couldn't figure out how to change the title. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Careymay (talk • contribs) 15:54, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Done. —C.Fred (talk) 16:02, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Vampire: The Masquerade – Bloodlines
Good day!
I am deeply sorry for breaking the three revert rule.
May I ask you to pay a little attention for the section "External links" of [6]
In "Talk" page, section "Mods and unofficial patches", [7] states "I removed most of the "unofficial patches" section, leaving the first paragraph since it was backed up by a reliable source", referring to [8] as a reliable source and deleting link to the unofficial patch of modder [9] because this is unreliable source.
The problem is that a protected by [10] link [11], titled as "Unofficial patch" is a selection of different mods, choosed by [12] depending on their preferences.
Therefore one unofficial patch [13] is denied(though it's created by acknowledged author-[14]), while another is promoting, thus violating "Tendentious editing" rule. It is also feeding the warring between rival modders.
That's why I am considering my last editing as a prudent one: the link to [15] should be titled as [16] site's page, not as a link to supposedly one and the only mod/patch(thus advertising it).
Thank you for your time!
Dazkalt (talk) 16:35, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Please stop
Your insisting on calling an organization a rude and insulting name, is unacceptable. Also, your removal of my edit without any explanation at all, is insulting to me personally. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.81.20.149 (talk) 21:12, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
First, the organization is listed in Template:Islamophobia; I'd suggest discussing at Template talk:Islamophobia or Talk:Islamophobia if you think the group should not be lsited. Second, "restore template for the Islamophobia series of articles" certainly qualifies as an explanation. —C.Fred (talk) 21:40, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Notice of Dispute resolution discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we are requesting your participation to help find a resolution. The thread is "Wikipedia:Apathy".
Guide for participants
If you wish to open a DR/N filing, click the "Request dispute resolution" button below this guide or go to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/request for an easy to follow, step by step request form.
What this noticeboard is:
It is an early step to resolve content disputes after talk page discussions have stalled. If it's something we can't help you with, or is too complex to resolve here, our volunteers will point you in the right direction.
What this noticeboard is not:
It is not a place to deal with the behavior of other editors. We deal with disputes about article content, not disputes about user conduct.
It is not a substitute for the talk pages: the dispute must have been discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) before resorting to DRN.
It is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and explanation of policy.
Things to remember:
Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, and objective. Comment only about the article's content, not the other editors. Participants who go off-topic or become uncivil may be asked to leave the discussion.
Let the other editors know about the discussion by posting {{subst:drn-notice}} on their user talk page.
If you ever need any help, ask one of our volunteers, who will help you as best as they can. You may also wish to read through the FAQ page located here and on the DR/N talkpage.
Please take a moment to review the simple guide and join the discussion. Thank you! EarwigBotoperator / talk 07:33, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Hello C.Fred. You had previously warned this user for edit warring. Following that, he was blocked by User:Secret on 21 February. The war continued after his block expired. In a new complaint at AN3, Astronomer28 is one of two editors accused of long-term warring at Nicolaus Copernicus. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 01:39, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
I need "Evil Tree House Comics"
A wiki I made and update should have this page used. Nolifescarletqueen (talk) 23:15, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Is Evil Tree House Comics a notable company? If it isn't, the article will be speedy deleted. When the article was deleted back in 2009, there was so little context, we could barely tell what the company was. —C.Fred (talk) 22:27, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
It was from the eigth Captain Underpants book. Evil George and Evil Harold made it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nolifescarletqueen (talk • contribs) 23:15, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Doesn't sound like it's notable enough on its own to have an article. —C.Fred (talk) 23:28, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
The context we have now is that it's a fictional company from the Captain Underpants universe. The prior version was just "Comix Inc. is George & Harold's comix company." That left context missing like, George and Harold who? Where? —C.Fred (talk) 13:28, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Billie Joe Armstrong NOT born in Piedmont
Hi, I was wondering if you could please change that or show where you saw that he was born in Piedmont. I was born about the same time and grew up there going to Piedmont schools and he was unknown there 100% until he became famous and moved there. There are no hospitals or ANY medical related facilities in Piedmont then or now-not one- so was it a home birth? It is clearly a falsehood and needs to be changed asap. Rascalfromtaseels (talk) 9:32, 2 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rascalfromtaseels (talk • contribs) 17:28, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
I re-checked the source: "Born thirty-three years ago in Oakland, California..." Article changed to Oakland. —C.Fred (talk) 00:44, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Please! D&A is real!
D&A Productions is a animation-studio-in-progress. 67.82.213.156 (talk) 21:51, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
The point I made about the FA Cup incident and Stanley Bowles was totally true. I am Peter Brockbank, and what I posted was what occurred. Gordon Jago did make the comment attributed to him, saying Tony Hazell hit the cup with a mis-kick. However this was only said to take away the bad publicity regarding a QPR player being responsible for such a henious crime ! Hope that helps ?
Peter Brockbank (Rushcrew (talk) 22:41, 1 March 2013 (UTC))
Please see WP:Reliable sources. Your personal recollection is not a sufficient source for the article; it would need to have been printed in a magazine, newspaper, etc. —C.Fred (talk) 22:43, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
C. Fred,
Brian Brendan Wright has never been known as, or called The Monacle. The nick name The Milkman wasn't given to Brian because " he always delivered " or " you had to get up early to catch him out. " Or any other reason that could be attributed to his criminal life. He was given that name because soon after he was married to Josie, they lived above a dairy with Josie's mother. His mother-in -law hearing there was a job going as a milkman suggested to the diary manager Brian should be given he job. One of his mates was there when Brian was told of the vacancy, he laughed and said to Brian " You , a milkman " Brian never took the job but the nick name " The Milkman" stuck. I have known Brian since 1972 when another very good friend Stan Bowles signed for QPR. I email Brian in Whitemoor prison twice a week, and he rings me a couple of times a month. He was on the phone today as it happens. Brian was Stanley's best man when Stanley got married for the third time. I am going to Brian's brother, George's 70'th birthday in April, in Manchester. Everything I have said about either of these people is the truth.
Peter Brockbank (Rushcrew (talk) 23:01, 1 March 2013 (UTC))
Given that you know both of these people personally you may also want to review WP:Conflict of interest. —C.Fred (talk) 23:29, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
(Rushcrew (talk))C.Fred
You have totally lost me. You say it has to be in a book etc. You show me where the statement that it was suggested that some of the QPR players may have had bets to see who would be first to knock the cup over is in print ? As I said I was only trying to make your reporting more factually accurate. I am a pensioner and I am not used to being treated like a kid. You have a very unhelpful way of talking down to me. Do you need Stanley to verify this ? If things have to be in print, where did Wikipedia get the totally inaccurate statement that Brian Brendan Wright was known as The Monacle ? You have removed that on my say so, yet won't accept other facts I try to tell you. Please clarify for me as I am very confused by your replies, and attitude. (Rushcrew (talk) 20:46, 2 March 2013 (UTC))
That would be the source in the article: "After the parade, the trophy was placed on a table at the side of the pitch, before Bowles ... well, let's hear it straight from the horse's mouth: 'There were a couple of us who had a bet on who could knock it off the table with the ball first," he recalls. 'With the ball at my feet I tear off straight across the park. Everyone on the pitch is just staring at me - and then, bang! The FA Cup goes shooting up in the air.'" That's from The Guardian in 2006, in a story titled "Did Stan Bowles take a pot shot at the FA Cup?".
So, we have a reliable newspaper—a secondary source—reporting on the situation after interviewing Bowles. That definitely meets the definition of WP:Reliable sources, so that's what we're relying on in the article. To change what's in the article, we would need a higher-quality source to outweigh the Guardian's story.
As for the "Monocle" nickname, it's only indirectly that I removed it at your request. When you requested it, I went to the article and looked for what source was in place to support the nickname. There wasn't any, so I removed it. Per WP:Verifiability, any statement that can't be verified to a reliable source is removed. —C.Fred (talk) 00:54, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
C.Fred
In Stanley's book Stan the Man at the bottom of page 29 Stanley mentions me by my nick name Carlisle Peter, going on to tell some stories about that time. Then on page 44 Stanley relates the story about betting me £10 he would knock the FA Cup from the table, and goes on to say what happened re that bet. I trust with this being in print along with verification of Wright's nickname, you can now allow these alterations to be reinstated ? Rushcrew (talk) 08:37, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
How does the account in the book differ from what's in the article? I'm not sure what you're suggesting needs changed. —C.Fred (talk) 13:28, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
(Rushcrew (talk) 18:09, 3 March 2013 (UTC)) C.Fred
You seem determined not to give any ground on either point. Stanley's book proves who bet who and exactly what happened. Whatever I say you don't seem capable of admitting I am right. You have fought me every inch when all I wanted to do was clear two mistakes up in the original facts about Stanley Bowles and Brian Brendan Wright. You haven't even acknowledged the fact about his nick name, which is clearly verified in the book, The Wayward Lad. What is the point of people trying to make this place more factually correct, which surely is the idea of people like me contacting this site ? I have found you very pendantic and can't help feeling you use your position to be-litle people like me. Is there anyone above you I contact to take this further, or is your word the law in this matter ? You obviously have let your position go to your head. I can't post on here what I really feel about you as no doubt I would be barred. What I do know you wouldn't last five minutes in my world, the real world. You want to put your head out of the ivory tower you seem to believe you inhabit, and smell the coffee !(Rushcrew (talk) 18:09, 3 March 2013 (UTC))
The talk page of the article is the first place to try. —C.Fred (talk) 18:12, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Done Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 20:39, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for helping to make MMA articles on wikipedia better! In September 168 people made a total of 956 edits to MMA articles. I noticed you havn't listed yourself on the WikiProject Mixed martial arts Participants page. Take a look, sign up, and don't forget to say hi on the talk page.
