User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 59

Talkback

Hello, Fred Bauder. You have new messages at J.delanoy's talk page.
Message added 01:38, 18 November 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:38, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Baggins

Thanx, Fred. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:33, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IP ranges

I don't really care. If you don't find proxies, unblock them. I just blocked them because they were not ISPs but web hosting services.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:14, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

School Role accounts

You don't have to worry about me blocking them; I'm not an admin. However, they are a technical violation of the username policy in that they are shared accounts. It would probably be a good idea to put an explanation on the userpages explaining what school they are with and how the responsible person can be contacted. That may help alleviate some concerns but someone might still block them at some point. Gigs (talk) 01:57, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Thanksgiving!

I just wanted to wish those Wikipedians who have been nice enough to give me a barnstar or smile at me, supportive enough to agree with me, etc., a Happy Thanksgiving! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 07:09, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:American Academy of Anti-Aging Medicine

Thanks for the feedback, I've relied on the talkpage. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:15, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BLP noticeboard

Your edits are being discussed in this section of the BLP noticeboard. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:01, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocking user:Yourstandinginit

No problem. Go ahead. Time will show whether he meant it. Materialscientist (talk) 02:08, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find the apology, but it appears that he didn't mean it: [1] -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 09:10, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please reply whether you would agree to reblock the user at will (if they continue this way). Materialscientist (talk) 09:16, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rangeblocks

Do whatever. I do not have any opinion about nor can I do anything concerning the rangeblocks at the moment.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:58, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please be careful

With regard to the anti-aging movement article, please be very careful to stick as closely as possible to the sources. These people seem to be quite willing to sue individual Wikipedia editors if they dislike the statements that are made in the sources cited. As a word of advice, a "movement" or a "profession" cannot sue, so if you were to say "energy healers are a bunch of dangerous quacks", an individual healer cannot sue for defamation, but if you were to say "energy healing organization X is a bunch of dangerous quacks", then that organization has standing. I'm not saying I have seen anything incorrect, and all your content seems quite acceptable to me, but this is a dangerous area to deal with. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:29, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Getadrenaline

Excellent work! No objections here. - Vianello (Talk) 04:38, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IPBE log

Heya I noticed your recent addition of IP block exemption to an account. Ensure that you note this change (and any future IPBE additions) in this log here. The log is used to monitor IPBE usage, etc. Cheers, NJA (t/c) 10:30, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can't sleep, clown will eat me

The last time he was here was March 31 last year. I think it's unlikely you'll get a response. HalfShadow 23:16, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Job well done, with none the wiser (until now)

		The Invisible Barnstar
		For tirelessly working behind the scenes answering e-mails on Unblock-en-l on the order of many tens, seemingly hundreds, daily, always with a polite word and a large amount of patience. English wikipedia would be swamped without your near incessant work. Thank you! -- Avi (talk) 04:31, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

False Sockpuppet Accusation

Hi, sorry to break the perma ban I had to request myself in order to be left in peace by certain persons and bother you again, but some poor soul has been wrongly accused of being a sockpuppet of me, by a couple of "the usual suspects". This is not fair, it's just a slur on the user concerned, and on myself, there wasn't even a proper sock check run...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Zeraeph/Archive

User:Alamanth had nothing, whatsoever to do with me, and this is the first I have heard of him/her, today, check the actual pathways and I feel sure you will find that out. I have no sockpuppets. I also REALLY think it is time someone put a stop to User:Penbat's more abstract capacity for equal misinformation, he is filling up psyhology articles with left of field nonsense, most of which is, at best, a considerable distortion of any source he cites, and, at worse simply made up off the top of his head. signed - The REAL Zeraeph --109.79.193.159 (talk) 09:58, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS Merry Christmas

It is impossible to do checkuser on someone who has not edited since January. The block is based on similarity in editing patterns, not on technical evidence. I did not follow the Arbitration Committee's decision regarding you, but long ago we determined that if someone's pattern of editing is very similar to another editor's and has the same effect on Wikipedia that we would consider them to be the same editor and apply the same remedies to them; although, obviously, they may be two different people. Which as you say, may be the case in this instance. The bottom line is that the other editor was having the same effect on Wikipedia that you had, at least according to the Arbitration Committee. Fred Talk 13:44, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Season's greetings

Thank you for being one of the people who has made 2009 such an interesting and enlightening year for me. It has certainly had its challenges, but also many highlights. I wish you peace and contentment in 2010, and a joyous holiday season to you and yours.

In honour of the season, I hope you will enjoy a little musical token. Your choice: traditional or cheeky.

Best, Risker (talk) 01:24, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Suppressed Chinese history

Hi Fred

I have proposed the deletion of Category:Suppressed Chinese history, which you created. Your input would be welcome in the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 December 25#Category:Suppressed_Chinese_history. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:44, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CfD nomination of Category:Chinese war crimes

I have nominated Category:Chinese war crimes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 17:43, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year

Best Wishes for 2010, FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 14:51, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ping

I have sent you an e-mail. --Tenmei (talk) 07:10, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem.

Thanks for taking the time to do so; I've been away from the site for a couple of days. I can help keep an eye on it as well. Thanks again for all you do! --PMDrive1061 (talk) 16:27, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Fred Bauder! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 317 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

Allan Jenkins (journalist) - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 21:54, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Fred Bauder. You have new messages at Rjanag's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Unblock of User:Zhoroscop

Did some communication happen over e-mail, or on another wiki, to warrant this user's unblock? So far, he has used his account pretty much entirely for self-promotional editing and multi-project spam, so I'm not sure what benefit there could be in unblocking him unless he's given you a clear statement of what he intends to do here. (If he has done so that's fine; I just wanted to ask.) rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 01:18, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good, thanks! rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 01:54, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have the same question, and I saw your response to Rjanag. Would you consider that Zhoroscop is now on his last chance, regarding self-promotion or original research? EdJohnston (talk) 18:50, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He claims he didn't understand. He has been counseled regarding his errors. If he continues aggressively with the same behavior that got him blocked then obviously the counseling has failed. Fred Talk 19:10, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Gigogag

Gigogag (talk · contribs) (see User talk:MuZemike/Archive 4#Gigogag) has socked again as EnchiladaMan (talk · contribs). I just blocked and tagged the sock. –MuZemike 01:24, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've extended the block back to indefinite as he evaded block again, as well as protected his userpages. He (or his sock or meat puppets) is/are showing no signs of quitting. –MuZemike 23:49, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

...for your courtesy email. Unfortunately, when I attempted to reply, I received a bounce notification - host not found. As the host site came up readily, it seems likely there is an issue with the mailserver. You may wish to check on this. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 11:08, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

Hi there. Remember me from Yahoo! Answers? Anyways, just wanted to say hi! Cheers, Razor flame 21:32, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Broken eggs and missing refs

Hi Fred. Re this: does the common knowledge of Denver residents somehow obviate a citation? Cheers, Rivertorch (talk) 23:03, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. Fancy seein' you here (Bismark drama)! Anyway, I reverted the edit. Denver knowledge =/= common knowledge. It needs a source. --13² 03:55, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's a small world. I found the edit bizarre. Given the long and illustrious history of its maker, I figured either I was missing something or his account was compromised. Fred, you are Fred, aren't you? Rivertorch (talk) 18:07, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a perfectly reasonable edit, but I'm not interested in a big discussion about it. Do they generally serve white rice and refried beans on a Mexican platter? We don't need published sources for commonplace facts. Fred Talk 19:13, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want a big discussion either, but there's a principle at stake: what one person thinks of as "commonplace facts" may be totally esoteric to someone else. Your edit summary read "Common knowledge in Denver". Now, that's probably true, but it is not necessarily common knowledge elsewhere in the English-speaking world, and it's the whole English-speaking world, not residents of Denver, that is WP's audience. I was certainly unaware of it, anyway, and until it's sourced I can't be sure about it. I'll look for a source. Rivertorch (talk) 21:51, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Add a "public interest" clause to Oversight

A proposal to add a "public interest" clause to Wikipedia:Oversight has started at Wikipedia_talk:Oversight#Proposal_for_new_.27public_interest.27_clause. SilkTork *^YES! 10:21, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA reassessment of United States Air Force Academy

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. You are being notified as you have made a number of contributions to the article. Unfortunately the poor state of referencing of the article meant that I immediately de-listed it as it fails to meet the GA criteria at present. When these concerns, which you can see at Talk:United States Air Force Academy/GA1, have been addressed you may renominate the article at WP:GAN. If you disagree with this re-assessemnt please take it ito WP:GAR for community re-assessment. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 08:02, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Add MUME to MUD Wiki?

Hi Fred,

I noticed your name in the MUD Wiki. The MUME article did not survive the deletion process (see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Software&oldid=347733127#MUME ). This seems to to fit within the scope of MUD Wiki but is not on the "Imported from Wikipedia" list. I'd really like to see MUME added to the MUD Wiki, if someone has time to do so! Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 15:36, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hutch48 block change

08:28, 20 April 2010 Fred Bauder (talk | contribs) changed block settings for Hutch48 (talk | contribs) with an expiry time of indefinite (account creation blocked, e-mail blocked, cannot edit own talk page) ‎ (Disruptive editing)
18:52, 4 February 2010 MLauba (talk | contribs) changed block settings for Hutch48 (talk | contribs) with an expiry time of indefinite (account creation blocked, e-mail blocked, cannot edit own talk page) ‎ (Making legal threats: - copyfraud with the intention of harassing others, Disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, excessive Page ownership)

Just out of curiosity, what was the change here?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:22, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Reagans with Michael Jackson.jpg

E-mail

I've just sent you an e-mail. Mjroots (talk) 12:05, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Replied by e-mail. Mjroots (talk) 12:34, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Slang meaning of maroon

I saw a recent comment you made on the definition of the word maroon, and I believe it was being used in the Bugs Bunny sense, not the sense you referred to. Neither the Wikipedia page or the Wiktionary page (wikt:maroon) mention this Bugs Bunny sense, but it is extensively described at the Urban Dictionary page (maroon). While that source is not always the most reliable, it is largely correct here about maroon being used to mean 'idiot'. Not an ideal use of the word in Wikipedia discourse, but as I said, not what you thought it was being used to mean. Carcharoth (talk) 12:48, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request for lifting of restriction

Please be aware that a request to lift a restriction has been made in an ArbCom case in which you were an arbitrator.[2]Anythingyouwant (talk) 09:08, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question concerning my probation

Another user detected a recently published book written by Elvis’s personal physician including a new theory about the cause of Elvis’s death not previously mentioned in the Elvis article, and this user thought it should be added to the Wikipedia article. As this user was an IP and the Elvis article is semi-protected, I added a short quote from this book to the section dealing with Elvis’s death. This edit was immediately removed by another user who argued that this book is not a reliable source, because Elvis’s doctor was exonerated of over-prescription of drugs (which may have contributed to Elvis’s death) and his license was revoked in the 1990s. After some heated discussions containing different opinions about the relevance of the source, I re-included the quote in the Elvis article and it was again removed. Then a participant in the heated discussion took the matter to the administrators’ noticeboard (see [3]) accusing me of trying to post fringe theories about Elvis into the singer's article, thereby bringing up again all the old arbcom cases of 2005 that led to my probation which reads as follows:

Onefortyone is placed on Wikipedia:Probation with respect to the biographies of celebrities. He may be banned from any article or talk page relating to a celebrity which he disrupts by aggressively attempting to insert poorly sourced information or original research. See [4].

Now administrator(?) TFOWR argues that I have violated this probation, as "Onefortyone should not be re-adding content after other editors have removed it, whatever Onefortyone's justification." Therefore TFOWR likes to propose the following: "OneFortyOne is indefinitely blocked. This block will be lifted if OneFortyOne consents to a topic ban covering those articles covered by OneFortyOne's current probation." However, I do not think that I have violated my probation, as I have not inserted poorly sourced information or original research . What is your opinion? Did I actually violate my probation? Onefortyone (talk) 19:40, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Only if you attempted to insert poorly sourced information or original research. Fred Talk 20:45, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whether the information is poorly sourced would depend on the quality of the book you are quoting from. Fred Talk 20:47, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your prompt reply. The said 256-page book is The King and Dr. Nick: What Really Happened to Elvis and Me (Thomas Nelson, 2010) by Dr. George Nichopoulos (author), Rose Clayton Phillips (contributor)

Product description:

The truth about Elvis's death from the doctor who spent eleven years as "the King's" personal physician, father-figure, and confidant - "Dr. Nick."

Dr. Nichopoulos spent a decade with Elvis on the road and at Graceland, trying to maintain the precarious health of one of the world's greatest entertainers. But on August 16, 1977, he found himself in the ambulance with Elvis on that fateful last trip to the ER. He signed the death certificate.

From that day forward, Dr. Nick became the focus of a media witch hunt that threatened his life and all but destroyed his professional reputation. Now, for the first time, Dr. Nick reveals the true story behind Elvis's drug use and final days-not the version formed by years of tabloid journalism and gross speculation. Put aside what you've learned about Elvis's final days and get ready to understand for the first time the inner workings of "the king of rock n' roll."

About the authors:

George C. Nichopoulos is the son of Greek immigrants. He earned his B.S. degree from the University of the South and then received his medical degree from Vanderbilt University Medical School in Nashville. Rose Clayton Phillips has written extensively about the recording industry and pop culture as a critic and correspondent for various music-oriented publications. She is co-author of Elvis by Those Who Knew Him Best.

Do you think this is reliable enough to be used for the Elvis article? Onefortyone (talk) 21:20, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't; there is strong conflict of interest, and absent other reliable sources for the information it contains, it is simply original research by Dr. Nichopoulos. Fred Talk 21:33, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nichopoulos claims that Elvis died of constipation, citing some other physicians supporting his view. The problem is that the actual cause of Elvis's death is still a matter of some debate. Here is what the mainstream Elvis biographer Peter Guralnick writes:

Specimens were collected and carefully preserved, the internal organs were examined and the heart found to be enlarged, a significant amount of coronary atherosclerosis was observed, the liver showed considerable damage, and the large intestine was clogged with fecal matter, indicating a painful and longstanding bowel condition. The bowel condition alone would have strongly suggested to the doctors what by now they had every reason to suspect from Elvis' hospital history, the observed liver damage, and abundant anecdotal evidence: that drug use was heavily implicated in this unanticipated death of a middle-aged man with no known history of heart disease who had been "mobile and functional within eight hours of his death." It was certainly possible that he had been taken while "straining at stool," and no one ruled out the possibility of anaphylactic shock brought on by the codeine pills he had gotten from his dentist, to which he was known to have had a mild allergy of long standing. The pathologists, however, were satisfied to wait for the lab results, which they were confident would overrule Dr. Francisco's precipitate, and somewhat meaningless, announcement, as indeed they eventually did. There was little disagreement in fact between the two principal laboratory reports and analyses filed two months later, with each stating a strong belief that the primary cause of death was polypharmacy, and the BioScience Laboratories report, initially filed under the patient name of "Ethel Moore," indicating the detection of fourteen drugs in Elvis' system, ten in significant quantity.

Furthermore, some recent reviews of Nichopoulos's book say that the constipation theory isn't new. However, the question remains whether my re-inclusion of a very short quote from Nichopoulos's book in the Elvis article has indeed violated my probation in so far that I should be indefinitely blocked or banned from Wikipedia, especially in view of the fact that I thought that my edit was not poorly sourced and I said on the talk page: "If there are any reliable sources supporting your view that he has invented his theory in order to deflect attention from his own possible malpractice, they may also be cited in the article for reasons of balance." This seems to be a matter of making a fair and proportionate decision. Onefortyone (talk) 22:10, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense, opiates are notorious for causing constipation http://www.science2day.info/2009/03/codeine-constipation.html Fred Talk 22:55, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised that you as an administrator don't have a correct apprehension of what the term "original research" refers to in Wikipedia parlor. Labeling Elvis' private physician's account of history original research is simply inaccurate. It's a first and second party account published by a third party. __meco (talk) 22:52, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I understood Fred, he was only of the opinion that Nichopoulos’s theory may have been this doctor’s original research, if his book would be the only source for the constipation theory (because of the strong conflict of interest), but as there are some other sources in support of the theory, it is no longer original research, and Nichopoulos’s book may be used as a reliable source. As Fred says: the constipation theory "makes sense." Therefore, I have not violated my probation. I hope I am right in my interpretation of what you said, Fred. Onefortyone (talk) 12:39, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By that understanding of the term "original research" all scientific and investigative endeavors are covered by it, which is not useful at all. Even if the underlying assumption is that research conducted under the auspices of an institution should be deemed not original research and thus have higher value intrinsically would also be not helpful. The problem that I see is when it is applied by a Wikipedia administrator on Wikipedia where less than sharp minds will pick up any definition which may seem useful in a would-be content dispute shortcut-wielding melee. __meco (talk) 13:48, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TFOWR is not an adminstrator. __meco (talk) 22:44, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The ex-doctor's self-serving opinion on Elvis' death could be considered for the article, provided it's balanced with sources making the ex-doctor's checkered situation crystal clear, so that the readers won't place undue weight on the ex-doctor's opinion. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:21, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's a matter of judgment. Subtle distinctions need to be drawn. Crafting all statements and policies on the assumption that the average Wikipedia editor can't make fine judgments or understand anything complicated is a non-starter, as all aspects of editing and administrative work here depend on sound application of discretion. Fred Talk 18:03, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly enough, this editor's interpretation of the ex-doctor's comments[5] contradicts 141's core assumption, potentially rendering this issue mostly irrelevant. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:34, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Blue-box-cheesiest-7.25.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Blue-box-cheesiest-7.25.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:15, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of unblock request.

Good day. An IP range you blocked, 115.134.0.0/16, has an IP address within it requesting unblock. As you are likely to have the most knowledge of the scenario, I would appreciate it if you could take a look and possibly advise the user if they appear to be legitimate. User talk:115.134.178.88 is the relevant page. Thank you for your time. --Taelus (Talk) 12:02, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kraft Mac & Cheese

While you have the box out, could you please fill out the Info box? --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 18:05, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Fred Bauder. You have new messages at Fabrictramp's talk page.
Message added 22:52, 2 July 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

July 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Kraft Dinner, but we cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses novel, unpublished syntheses of previously published material. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you. SummerPhD (talk) 00:23, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Packaged dry macaroni and cheese mix

The article Packaged dry macaroni and cheese mix has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No reliable sources = not notable.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. SummerPhD (talk) 01:04, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

re Removing copyright notice

This edit only removed a wikilink - take care to note that my edit retained the hyperlink itself. A later edit, by yourself, actually, removed the entire copyright notice, see [6]. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 21:51, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Liao Ban

Not to be too procedurally oriented but... Did this get run up the flagpole anywhere for the community?

Just because she asks for it, doesn't make her banned. I don't object to her being banned, but people should really not be added to those lists w/o the proper process, because then someone can say "Oh, but X is here and wasn't really...", and call the whole thing into question...

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:10, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Tolgagurcan

Just a question on why you deleted User talk:Tolgagurcan, U1 doesnt appear to apply to user talk pages (and the request had been removed by another editor on those grounds) and the page had an active block notice on it. Just curious why it has been removed. Thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 20:20, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Fred Bauder. You have new messages at Wgfinley's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Jiujitsuguy

I engaged in a lengthy correspondence with Jiujitsuguy when he emailed the functionaries list regarding possible misrepresentation of his views by other activists. I was aware of his frustrations as voiced in the web page referenced, although I'm not sure who controls that webpage, but stressed that although editors with a point of view background or motivation were free to edit that they were expected to conform to Wikipedia policies and culture, once they had an reasonable opportunity to become familiar with them. Fred Talk 00:10, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but the short answer is, "yes, you were aware of that page, and the same evidence provided by Nableezy"? Don't worry; I'm not going to debate you on your conclusion. I just want to clarify as it relates to be promise on Jiujitsuguy's page that I would unblock him provided your earlier review looked at the same material (and especially that particular page on the Activist Network). -- tariqabjotu 00:16, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Outed again

Help, I've been outed again, this time by someone else, but from the same Wisconsin community/issue. Please work your magic or steer me in the right direction. Thank you. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 06:00, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Guessing you are not editing at the moment, I just sent an email to Oversight, guessing that was the right way to go. Thank you for your past assistance (5 days ago). This new incident may get resolved before you ever see this message. I must be making great edits for people to feel the need to out/intimidate me and ask me to voluntarily stop editing. ;) --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling talk 06:49, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Advice Sought

Would like advice on what is considered "outing" and what is allowed in providing other editors with information to demonstrate an editor's personal involvement in a controversy, especially when the editor himself provides many of the very same links on his talk page, as well as in other public online forums such as blog posts discussing the actual controversy at issue (links provided upon request.) I would not have normally included personal information about the editor, but thought it was acceptable since the editor himself already publicly disclosed and acknowledged his identity. Bibliolover (talk) 12:36, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your prompt reply. I will bring it up at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard if the disruptive edits continue. Bibliolover (talk) 13:04, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Westown, Egypt

Hi Fred, I encountered the following citation in the above deleted talk page that did not have a corresponding article. I'll copy it here so you don't lose track of it: ^[1]

^ "To Catch Cairo Overflow, 2 Megacities Rise in Sand" article by Thanassis Cambanis in The New York Times August 24, 2010, accessed August 25, 2010

Cheers, Dabomb87 (talk) 14:40, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[1] "To Catch Cairo Overflow, 2 Megacities Rise in Sand" article by Thanassis Cambanis in The New York Times August 24, 2010, accessed August 25, 2010

[1]