User talk:C.Fred/Archive 9

Please un-block doppelgänger burntout1234

Hi, C.Fred - Not sure if you are in charge re burntout1234, but is there any chance that you (or somebody else) kindly release burntout1234 as the legitimate and fully disclosed doppelgänger of butntout123 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Burntout123)? If you are not in charge or if there is CoI, then kindly refer me to whoever is in charge. I left 2 similar messages for Joe and Crit I think. Thanks. -- --S.Buntout123 (talk) 20:22, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Why do you need Burntout1234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) unblocked? What purpose does having this account unblocked accomplish? —C.Fred (talk) 20:40, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Besides which, it's not a doppelgänger account, because you created it for a purpose other than avoiding impersonation. —C.Fred (talk) 20:42, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Agree with your comments, above. In addition, see my reply to this user's request at User_talk:JoeSperrazza#Please_un-block_doppelg.C3.A4nger_burntout1234 JoeSperrazza (talk) 20:46, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Also taking into account the message left at User talk:Cirt, and Cirt's reply deferring to me on the matter (diff), I outright decline the request to unblock User:Burntout1234, in the absence of a compelling reason why an account that should not be used for editing needs editing permissions. —C.Fred (talk) 20:55, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Responding to C.Fred, it is important to resolve the events of the past and to get it over with and be forward looking. This blocked account is still a reminder of past stigmata, and the blocked account can be abused in the future by biased users (without naming anybody) to implicate and oppose future actions. People with certain agenda may continue reminding us of the past events to justify their future actions. Unless there are warranted and compelling reasons that a blocked account can be used to abuse upon unblock, that account should not remain blocked. It is a gesture of good will and a reinforcement of true Wikipedia sprit to unblock this account, unless future abuse is imminent.

To respond to JoeSperrazza's comments, quite frankly I am disappointed and appalled by the above reasoning, as if the original event of the inception of an account would justify further treatment for eternity. Assuming your assertion is true (the account was created to evade another blockage), the previous blockage is long resolved and the dust is settled. Wise and civil community does not sanction its members for what was once done in the past and is now resolved. If a poor child is born out of rape, we do not treat the child based on his/her events around his birth or we would not be any different from medieval Europeans who burned such children or perceived witches. Let’s have heightened tolerance and tolerate new comers and those who "do not agree with my way of thinking and doing things". --S.Buntout123 (talk) 21:08, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Then why dwell on the past? Just go ahead and continue to edit with your primary account. Build a history of good edits with that account, and nobody will need to worry about errors you made early in your editing career. —C.Fred (talk) 21:20, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Will pursue this again in a few weeks to months. --S.Buntout123 (talk) 14:19, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Then you're entirely missing the point. You should just let the second account go and move forward with a single account. —C.Fred (talk) 15:43, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Here we should agree to disagree. Once one creates something, one is responsible for its existance and its liabilities no matter at what cost. Or do not be creative. --S.Burntout123 (talk) 17:25, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Talk:A. Nesamony

I noticed that you dropped into Talk:A. Nesamony recently. I am struggling to get my point across to the major contributor, and it is perhaps not helped that I know a little of that person's history here. Some genuinely neutral guidance would, I think, be useful. I am trying to remain focussed and certainly have no vested interest in the subject matter, but I am beginning to query my own understanding of WP policies etc. This is one of those messy situations where a calm, uninvolved message might assist enormously.

I do recognise that since I first got involved there have been other sources introduced, which is A Good Thing & entirely down to the work of the major contributor because here at my end I have been able to find next to nothing. I have tried to acknowledge this but, perhaps, inadequately. I really do think that the subject is notable; the issue is more in relation to how it is depicted as such. Perhaps I am being pedantic? - Sitush (talk) 00:31, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

it was already proven . . . . .

by her record label and herself,so the facts remains. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robinlovemusic (talk • contribs) 09:05, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Her label claims a platinum and two gold records without stating which albums got which; it's going down the slippery slope of original research to say which album got which. Of course, this is compounded by the RIAA database not having been updated for the award, which is reason to challenge the claim. Both sources are somewhat self-published; however, since her label has something to gain by claiming the awards, most editors will take the label's claim with a grain of salt and put more stock in what RIAA has reported that it's awarded.

That's all the more reason why you should discuss the situation and the relevant articles' talk pages, rather than continue to add the un-/weakly sourced material. —C.Fred (talk) 14:40, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Sterling Office Moving

I have recieved permission from the author of the sterling website that you have looked over to use this information in the Sterling Office Moving Wikipedia article. If need be you may contact them at [redacted].

Thank You

June 13th — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chelmsford4 (talk • contribs) 16:50, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Replied at your talk page. Please continue the discussion there. —C.Fred (talk) 16:56, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Happy Feet Two

Out of curiosity, why was my edit on Happy Feet Two reverted? I had sources provided with the information. Please reply on my talk page if you get a chance.--BarrettM82 Contact 00:33, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

gSchool EdifyLabs

Hello Fred,

We do have original feedback with us, some of them have been posted on our website.

You can talk to any of our clients if your wish we would provide their contact details.

We are new to wikipedia and and wish to create our presence here since through wikipedia we can reach and help a large number of students.

All the information mentioned is original and we are accountable for it.

regards Nitesh Gawade (please don't post phone #s here. removed) Edify Labs — Preceding unsigned comment added by EDIFYLABS (talk • contribs) 05:49, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Please read our guidelines on conflicts of interest. Also, sorry, we can't take that information unless you are basically making the info almost in the public domain - anyone else can use it for commercial purposes.Jasper Deng (talk) 05:52, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Ricardo Duchesne

Hi. Could you monitor the article, there is some disruptive IP again. Id appreciate if such IPs get blocked from the article per WP:BLP, it has stopped from being funny already a while ago. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 20:13, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

1. Could you a) block the IP and b) protect the page from editing by anonymous IPs? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 16:48, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

The problem is, it only seems to be one such edit every three days or so. That's not the volume of vandalism that typically leads to page protection, nor is it a severe enough attack of the person to warrant protection yet. Also, the IPs have gone inactive and are rotating, so blocking the IP won't necessarily block the vandal.

I've been offline the last few days, but I do have the article on my watchlist. If the vandalism gets severe (as in, multiple instances of vandalism within a few hours, you can file a report at WP:RFPP. —C.Fred (talk) 12:18, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

regarding deletion of Mysto & Pizzi's wikipedia page.

What were the reasons for contesting Mysto & Pizzi's page and retracting it from the wikipedia community? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amarquetti (talk • contribs) 22:51, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Established community consensus that they shouldn't have a page, via deletion discussion. See WP:Articles for deletion/Mysto & Pizzi (2nd nomination). —C.Fred (talk) 23:09, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Mysto & Pizzi should be recognized, and there are various evidence stating their accomplishments and career, even from the wikipedia community. This deletion should be retracted, here are some sources in regards to mysto & pizzi.

from wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&search=mysto+pizzi

mysto & pizzi -w- geico -> http://www.geico.com/about/commercials/music/ mysto & pizzi -w- ultra records -> http://ultrarecords.com/artists/mysto--pizzi/# mysto & pizzi -w- youtube -> http://youtube.com/mystoandpizzi mysto & pizzi -w- itunes -> http://ax.search.itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZSearch.woa/wa/search?entity=song&media=all&page=1&restrict=true&startIndex=0&term=mysto+pizzi — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amarquetti (talk • contribs) 23:23, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I stand by my previous assessment that the article was not improved from the last AfD, so speedy deletion was in order. You're welcome to open a case at WP:Deletion review to see if there's support to start a new article; that's the next step from here. —C.Fred (talk) 00:00, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Can you have a look at this Mysto & pizzi just recreated yet again a few minutes ago. It's not quite the same as the previously deleted version (although it's an utter mess). I 've gone through all the refs and there do appear to be claims of notability this time, so I'm erring on the side of caution rather than deleting it and I'm a quandry as to what to do. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:11, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Most of the refs were present during the 2nd AfD. (Plus there were others not present here.) The new sources are the TEDx video (a 6-minute clip of them speaking and performing at the TEDxKids@Brussels event), the New York Post article (a minor mention, specifically that they're getting royalties from the GEICO commercial), and the PR at Sys-Con (a passing mention). I'm not convinced it's really a new claim of notability. I'm going to move the article to the properly-formatted title and tag it db-repost. If another admin declines, I'll start a 3rd AfD sometime this week. —C.Fred (talk) 11:53, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I've deleted it. If it gets recreated again it can be salted. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:03, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Which works by me. It was a little more borderline than the G4 delete I did earlier, but there weren't any new claims to notability. If they'd gotten an award in the last year or so, that would've been different. —C.Fred (talk) 12:13, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

User account issue

Hi C.Fred,
I have been attempting to sign on my user account for the last 10 minutes.
I've been using the right password and for some reason it's saying it's not valid; however, it is.
It might be possible that someone hacked my account recently and changed my password.
Can you please help me?
Thanks.
User:ATC 108.41.105.93 (talk) 22:12, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

What to do with a one-line disambig page

Hello, me again. I have just removed one of the two entries on the Kambar disambig page. Much as I enjoyed my time studying at Cambridge, the entry there for a nightclub type of thing had existed since April 2008 without an article being created. Or, if an article was created then it has been deleted.

So, we now have a single-entry disambig page and this is daft. I could redirect it but have the feeling that this might not be the correct course. Do you have any advice? Is it an XfD situation? - Sitush (talk) 01:25, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the best case is there either. I've readded the link to Chandrashekhara Kambara, because Chandrashekhara Kambar is a redirect to it, so there are two links at the page. —C.Fred (talk) 03:16, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Requesting review of a talk page comment I have made

A week ago you contributed a brief note at Talk:A._Nesamony. There was some response, in a new section erroneously suggesting vandalism, on the following day. I dealt with that as best I could. There has been no further action on the talk page until the last few hours, at which point Kumaripriya continued the thread. I have just replied to that. If you have the time then I would appreciate you casting your eye over it. I am not asking you to get involved but if I have acted inappropriately in my response then please let me know & I will amend accordingly. Obviously, if you want to get involved on the page itself then that is no problem but my primary purpose here is really to have someone judge if I am communicating in a reasonable manner or if, for example, I am being bite-y.

As an aside, I am missing something obvious here. Why can I not link directly to the relevant TP section? There should be a TOC that enables me to do that. Does this feature have to be enabled on talk pages? - Sitush (talk) 01:06, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll start with the aside. You're looking for anchors, so it's syntax like Talk:A. Nesamony#Vandalism by vested interest groups. —C.Fred (talk) 02:01, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

As for your response, I feel it is very well-written. It focuses on your concerns with the articles, and where those concerns relate to the other editor specifically, they seem written in a polite and civil manner. —C.Fred (talk) 02:05, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Your opinion is much appreciated, thanks. I fretted about what and how to say things for quite a while, and still there are a couple of typos in there! As for the "d'oh" issue regarding section links, well, d'oh. However, low hanging fruit are of little use to giraffes ;) I will see how things develop on the article and its talk page. I am expecting some fireworks sooner or later but perhaps this will be one of the exceptions to my recent experience of Indian subcontinent articles. . - Sitush (talk) 02:15, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

There has been more to-ing and fro-ing in the section referred to above. I have ignored the abuse and just concentrated on the source(s) in question. I now have real doubts about their reliability but this is not a high traffic article. Do you think that it is worth bothering WP:RSN? My own experience of that forum is that it seems usually not to produce a consensus, so it could be a waste of time taking the issue there. - Sitush (talk) 18:49, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

SchoolTipline Page

At your request, I've rewritten the page to be neutral. I'd appreciate your feedback in helping the page to stay on wikipedia. I am involved with the organization, but I would like to keep the article neutral. I'm also new user to Wikipedia and I've been studying up on what makes a page appropriate for the site. I do have a question about notability. We are a national program in hundreds of schools across the US. As far as references, I've included articles written about the company in the external links; what else would you like to see on the page? Thanks for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tkirktx (talk • contribs) 20:44, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Is "Krazysexy music" is sock of "Robinlovemusic"?

Hello,
Is "Krazysexy music" is sock of "Robinlovemusic"?
Similar editing and uncivil manner. Please see Trina discography.—Iknow23 (talk) 02:41, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Similar enough for me to have blocked indefinitely. —C.Fred (talk) 03:14, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Problem Sleuth redirect

I saw you speedy deleted the redirect from Problem Sleuth to MS Paint Adventures under WP:R3. As there's a redirect from Homestuck to MS Paint Adventures, I think it's notable enough to warrant the redirect be brought back. Zig (talk) 00:32, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to create a new redirect pointing that way if you think it's appropriate. I didn't think that a redirect from Problem Sleuth to Pumpkin was appropriate; that's the one I deleted. —C.Fred (talk) 02:31, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Picture from The Black Death

If you think the image was the same, then go to commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Spread-Of-The-Black-Death.gif. You'll see it also spreads in Asia too. Then look where it says, "File:Spread-Of-The-Black-Death.gif". I could be right or wrong. If you disagree, then someone might have uploaded the file from Google Images or any other source of images.

Eric567 (talk) 14:41, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Which is the other image? Every time you've given a comparison, it's been the image back to itself. There is no File:Spread-Of-The-Black-Death.gif image on the English Wikipedia; that file link is to the Commons image. —C.Fred (talk) 02:25, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, when I looked at it, I could have made a typing error. Follow these steps below. This might solve it.

1. Go to "The Black Death" on Wikimedia Commons

2. The first image on the top is the image I am talking about.

Eric567 (talk) 08:45, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Can you or someone that can take care of my request just delete my page? I thought genealogy is something you can learn from, but apparently not. So, please delete it because I tried to look for that option, but couldn't find it. NeilsErikson (talk) 18:35, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

famale rapper sales.

i don't why you changing the right information i put that came from billboard magazine,the link was provided.

lil kim - hard core 1,400,000

eve first album - 2,000,00074.176.66.36 (talk) 20:42, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

The links you added—at least to the articles related to Trina—did not back up the claims you made. I may have reverted other edits that appeared similar based on the dubious sourcing. —C.Fred (talk) 02:00, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Since you're all into reliable sources

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purchasing_Managers_Index

Will you check that for sources and stuff? Special:Contributions/67.185.251.75 (User talk:67.185.251.75)

Note: This user triggered the abusefilter for some reason, and I am copying his message here. Reaper Eternal (talk) 10:33, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Banned user is back under his block length and continues same vandalism

The I.P that got recently blocked seems to be back under the 31 hours. He seems to have a registered account and continues to do the same vandalism to my articles. Can you please block him again? I also think he is now acting as a sockpuppet since he is using his IP to prevent getting his registered user blocked. He also seems to the the author of the fan article Total Drama Destination. Giggett (talk) 20:00, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Trina and Trina discography

The socking seems to be continuing (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Backlook). Semi-protection may be necessary if possible.Jasper Deng (talk) 02:28, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Is there a template that can be placed on articles to warn readers of frequent vandalism and to be very wary of any of its material?—Iknow23 (talk) 04:29, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, if the vandalism is that frequent, the template would be {{pp-semi-vandalism}}, but I'm not sure we want to go that route just yet. —C.Fred (talk) 15:21, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok. Thank you for the information. I'm thinking that only an admin can do that anyway? But I see that there is {{pp-semi-protected}} protection at the discog page.—Iknow23 (talk) 05:28, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

@both:Vandalism is not the only reason, sockpuppetry is also a valid reason for semi-protection.@Iknow23:Yes, only admins can semi-protect it.Jasper Deng (talk) 05:33, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Jasper Deng. Just a thought...as far as I know...sockpuppetry is only used to continue vandalism. If someone had multiple accounts but used them all in a proper wiki manner, I don't believe that anyone would notice (or even care). But alas, such is not the case.—Iknow23 (talk) 05:53, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry is actually used mostly for purposes other than vandalism. The socking here is one example. Another is AllanEdwards999 (talk · contribs)'s socking on Efficient-market hypothesis. There are some legitimate uses of multiple accounts though. It's very hard and rare for people to sock and get away with it, one example is Pastor Theo (talk · contribs), sockpuppet of the banned user Ecoleetage (talk · contribs).Jasper Deng (talk) 06:14, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism continues at Trina discog and albums + possibly Aaliyah & Lil' Kim. See User:Goodfan Contributions.—Iknow23 (talk) 00:32, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Completely new abortion proposal and mediation

In light of the seemingly endless disputes over their respective titles, a neutral mediator has crafted a proposal to rename the two major abortion articles (pro-life/anti-abortion movement, and pro-choice/abortion rights movement) to completely new names. The idea, which is located here, is currently open for opinions. As you have been a contributor in the past to at least one of the articles, your thoughts on the matter would be appreciated.

The hope is that, if a consensus can be reached on the article titles, the energy that has been spent debating the titles of the articles here and here can be better spent giving both articles some much needed improvement to their content. Please take some time to read the proposal and weigh in on the matter. Even if your opinion is simple indifference, that opinion would be valuable to have posted.

To avoid concerns that this notice might violate WP:CANVASS, this posting is being made to every non-anon editor who has edited either page (or either page's respective talk page) since 1 July 2010, irrespective of possible previous participation at the mediation page. HuskyHuskie (talk) 22:25, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar

I would like to thank you for taking care of User:Dantherocker1 last February by revoking his talk page access while indef blocked. He has been bothering me on YouTube lately and admitted that he has been on Wikipedia before. Due to harassing me on YouTube and the fact that he was on Wikipedia, it has come to my attention that if he wasn't blocked, he would be vandalizing my userpage. NHRHS2010 the student pilot ✈ 15:50, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Morley Academy

Thanks for your interest in the Morley Academy entry. We have tried to improve its accuracy by linking to well recognised information on our website. The previous section on Headteacher controversy was fairly malicious and had no reference other than to anonymous posts in a discussion thread. Not very credible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SSATPolicy (talk • contribs) 15:42, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Since you've admitted a conflict of interest, I remind you again to edit very carefully with regard to the subject. Also, another editor has objected to your edits, so I suggest you discuss the situation at the article's talk page. I'll recheck the sources, but if you mention at Talk:The Morley Academy which sources are based on discussion threads, I (and other editors) will be sure to focus on those. —C.Fred (talk) 15:45, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Jack Hoban

Thank you for restoring the Jack Hoban page. Mtpublicaffairs (talk) 20:53, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Plans for Total Drama related articles

I already added an example of how the episodes should look like in the main total drama article. But the biggest and most controversial change that needs to happen is removing the elimination table as it makes the articles incredibly in-universe. So i was wondering if we can decide that.Bread Ninja (talk) 20:06, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I saw your example and already started converting all the episode lists on all 4 season articles, based upon your example. Also those elimination tables were supposed to be removed a long time ago since they are mostly trivial. Giggett (talk) 02:15, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Good to know we are understanding now.Bread Ninja (talk) 02:38, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Request

Hello, possible request. Is it possible to develop an article Corbin Bleu and become a good article See the article Arabic Wikipedia good article, can you?--77.31.36.7 (talk) 15:36, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Look at this version will help you to become a good article look--77.31.36.7 (talk) 15:52, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

User:WassWassDat at ANI

I'm wondering if this comment should be deleted. It's an attempt (albeit circuitous) to out the editor who made the preceding comment. Voceditenore (talk) 15:39, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I had a feeling there was something less-than-kosher about it, but a didn't want to dive in and strike it from AN/I without some background. I'm going to delete it. —C.Fred (talk) 15:56, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

red bottoms

trina red bottoms number 100 on the r&b/hip-hop chart,and i don't see why you keep reverting the page.

http://www.billboard.com/#/artist/trina/252957

98.88.209.190 (talk) 04:34, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Because indefinitely-blocked users, as it's pretty clear you are, do not have the privilege to edit Wikipedia. As a result, your edits are reverted on sight and will continue to be until you have your main account unblocked. —C.Fred (talk) 04:51, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

C.Fred, I have already explained this to the user in a more constructive way on his/her talk page. But please check whether it is more constructive.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:53, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Jasper, I agree that the explanation you gave at the IP's talk page was more constructive. I was condensing the content here to note that I've looked at the issue. Sorry if my comments came across as cranky or anything. —C.Fred (talk) 04:55, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

trina!

Yes I have new information about trina,and i would love for you to add it.

http://hiphopwired.com/2011/07/14/trina-joins-%E2%80%9Cno-h8%E2%80%9D-campaign-photos/

http://www.newswiretoday.com/news/94340/ 74.190.22.214 (talk) 20:06, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the links. I'm not sure the swimsuit modeling is relevant, but I've opened discussion at Talk:Trina about whether the NOH8 photo shoot is. —C.Fred (talk) 20:50, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Adam (AJ) Devine

Hello C.Fred. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Adam (AJ) Devine, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Thou shalt not tag for A3 within minutes of creation. . Thank you. Danger (talk) 05:20, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Too late. I already declined the speedy deletion. My tag worked: sufficient content was added. —C.Fred (talk) 05:22, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Bampublore

Bampublore is Vermapriya1986 all over again. Same odd typos in punctuation, same signature style, same whining, same articles, same sources, same attack mode. The SPI has been open for a while but Tnxman said the old a/cs are stale. S/he has thrown several unnecessary 3RR warnings at my page in the last hour, although I removed them. - Sitush (talk) 20:49, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Amusingly, Bampublore is on pace to get blocked for 3RR for re-adding the 3RR warnings at your user talk page. I agree that there's a lot of quacking going on from that account. —C.Fred (talk) 20:52, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I wondered about that. I am tempted to poke a stick to provoke it but will, of course, desist. No choice, actually, since my dog is whining for his walkies here. - Sitush (talk) 20:55, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

hey C.Fred i was just wondering why you took my Shake It Up cast list off. I know you think it is to similar to Shake It Up (TV series) but I thought it was a cool idea because then someone who was wondering what the cast was or someones name or something they could just go there. And thanks for reminding me to sign my talk page posts.

                                                                       sorry to bother,
                                                                                       --Sami0829 (talk) 23:50, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Help

I'm having trouble with certain edits in articles 'PPACA' and 'Health Insurance Mandate' by a user (TVC 15) that you appear to have deleted. He is blatantly non-NPOV but keeps reverting to his old text despite this (seemingly on the justification that simply if he has news links to it he can't be expressing PoV/non-NPOV. This seems to be vanadalism in favor of his PoV; but if he is deleted, how can he still do this? Help? Thanks 24/07/11 - from user: still needs to sign up to an account (will do so eventually, but only just started editting - I follow policy and the health care policy edits that TVC is vandalising are a problem to me, and I think any sincere wikipedian). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.188.221.123 (talk) 21:26, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to stay out of this one, because a) this is over 24 hours stale by the time I logged back in to Wikipedia to see the message, and b) there are suggestions of sockpuppetry, so I'm going to defer to editors more familiar with the article history. —C.Fred (talk) 05:27, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi

Hiyah, thanks for your help on my page, Im clearly new to this. I have seen some pages that dont have much info on the actors but the page has still been able to stay up. Hopefully this will stay. Again thanks for the help x (Lola-razz (talk) 20:57, 28 July 2011 (UTC))

About Usc soundcheck

Hi C. - yep, understood, point taken - --Shirt58 (talk) 16:30, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

No biggie. The main reasons I left the message on the user's talk page and not yours were (1) so the user knows that it's generally not okay but is in that case and (2) so the warning isn't counted against him if he gets escalating warnings in the future. —C.Fred (talk) 16:35, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Morris prod...

Can you bring that up on ANI? That was clearly retaliatory, and I've got a thread open there already on Yoseph in an attempt to get him on the right track. MSJapan (talk) 01:26, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Commented. The volume at which he's nominating does suggest WP:POINTiness, but I'm not convinced that it's not a good-faith effort to improve Wikipedia—or to subject multiple articles to the same scrutiny his have been subjected to. —C.Fred (talk) 01:33, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Other than he tagged selfpub on an article that had no selfpub refs, said "no google books hits" for a guy who wrote a book in 1740 that's now published under Grand Lodge copyright, tagged "no reliable sources" on an article that stated it incorporated material from an RSed and WLed biographical dictionary, etc. If he was doing things correctly, I wouldn't mind, but he's doing it wrong to cause an issue. MSJapan (talk) 01:39, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Which may be unfamiliarity with the tags—just copying the tags off one of his articles and pasting it onto another—more than malice. Of course, now he seems to have decided to take his toys and go home. I'd have preferred to get through this learning curve and that he'd turn into a good editor, but c'est la vie. —C.Fred (talk) 01:43, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

What annoys me most is the fact that he's going to use his own actions as an excuse to play "us vs. them", especially when he doesn't know if I am an "us" or a "them," as he is doing on his userpage now. Oh well. It's too bad, too, because we could have done something with Phylaxis eventually. MSJapan (talk) 01:48, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Response to MP Those notability and others were not retaliatory and you failed you let them go through the process of allowing other editors to check them for their merit. Your actions were arbitrary, assuming, and game playing. I looked at every person in that catagory for persons known for their contribution to Freemasonry and marked the ones that needed help and the ones that were canditates for deletion based upon the Wiki Rules for notability. You had no right not to allow them through the process.--Yosesphdaviyd (talk) 05:04, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Arguably, he did allow them to go through the process: he objected to deletion and removed the proposed deletion tag. —C.Fred (talk) 05:21, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Response to Fred - Even though the community rules are clear on that part, I could have sworn the tags said don't remove until the issue has been resolved. So guess one person can resolve it. Thanks. But a number of those articles clearly need help and he didn't even improve them before he removed the tag. He's a wikibully. :) --Yosesphdaviyd (talk) 06:09, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Just because somebody does not agree with you does not make them a Wikibully. As for some of the tags he removed, I agree with their removal: they didn't apply in the one case I looked at. —C.Fred (talk) 06:11, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Moreover, wasn't there suppose to be a Deletion Discussion? No, he's a wikibully and a harrasser. I feel it. --Yosesphdaviyd (talk) 06:15, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Nope, not with WP:Proposed deletion. It's a separate process, and any user who objects to deletion may remove the tag and end the process. WP:Articles for deletion is a different process; it involves discussion. —C.Fred (talk) 06:18, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Have a cookie

SwisterTwister has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can Spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Have a cookie as a friendly greeting from a fellow Wikipedian, SwisterTwister talk 07:15, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

thx

I just requested a new name. Thx for letting me know, I hadn't thought of that. NZparliament (talk) 18:10, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

License of File:Stadion Niedermatten.jpg

Sorry I changed it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Futbol vic (talk • contribs) 05:23, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Ralph Berkowitz's death

I'm Ralph's grandson. My mom (his elder daughter, Ellen Berkowitz Carlin) told me the news two hours ago. No obits have been published yet (I don't think), but I imagine the Albuqurque, NM newspaper will run something tomorrow.

thanks, Peter Ames Carlin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peteramescarlin (talk • contribs) 00:31, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll look for an obit tomorrow or story otherwise in the newspaper tomorrow or the next couple of days. And my condolences to you and your family. —C.Fred (talk) 00:54, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks, but it was not a simple 'disagreement about an article'. Please read this. Moriori deleted all the links I added instead of only the one problem link (which I believe was caused by the Parliament site being in flux at that point due to Carter's resignation, as cut and paste is usually straightforward). He made no attempt to simply fix the error. He made no attempt to contact me so I could fix the error. He then implied he did NOT delete everything, when he should have at least apologized for that error. He blamed me for everything, and in an insulting, condescending, arrogant way. Finally, he selectively edited our disagreement on his Talk page to make himself appear to be in the right. As a supposedly experienced Administrator (I note he started editing in 2003), all that is very wrong. I refuse to waste my time with a project which puts destructive people in leadership positions. If those are the sort of people you want to be in charge, then you need to look for contributors far different from me. I suggest you try the local playground. Kiwigov (talk) 15:27, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Which link?

At User talk:Kiwigov you said -- "And for the record, I support your edit to the John Carter (New Zealand) article; the link looks fine to me." Which link do you mean? Moriori (talk) 21:28, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

This link, via the {{MPLinksNZ}} template, that Kiwigov added with this diff. —C.Fred (talk) 02:55, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Having now looked at the discussion on your talk page, if he was using the wrong template, that should've been spelled out a little better—if the New Zealand politics WikiProject has standardized on a different site for links for former MPs, for instance. I saw the addition of a valid link to the right MP (where a previous edit linked to a different Carter); that's why I spoke up to endorse the addition of the link. —C.Fred (talk) 03:00, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I too endorse his addition of that link. That's why I haven't edited the article since he added it!. Moriori (talk) 03:12, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

And I figured you'd have brought it up on the talk page if you did disagree. Sorry if I was ambiguous in which link addition I was endorsing; I was trying to reassure a new editor that not everybody was out to get him. —C.Fred (talk) 03:29, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Brilliant Idea Barnstar
	TRLIJC18 (talk) 04:26, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Hey

Those can all be blocked as socks. We had this problem about a year ago, I don't remember the checkuser name exactly but I can try to find it if you want. --Rschen7754 04:05, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I smelled socks too, even if I wasn't sure who the puppeteer was. —C.Fred (talk) 04:06, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, the "master" was another meaningless combination of letters and numbers. --Rschen7754 04:07, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Found it - Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/D62943/Archive. --Rschen7754 04:13, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

File:St. Anne's Church.jpg

Hello C.Fred, I added more information of File:St. Anne's Church.jpg. I Originally took the photo in the 1950's, when I was younger, and made it into a drawing on Paint.net a cuple days ago. From there I added words to make it look more authentic, as if it was a postcard from the 50's. I hope this helped. --Kenlukus (talk) 02:38, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenlukus (talk • contribs) 02:00, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I am speedying this image. It's copyvio from a website[1] that hasn't been updated in roughly four years. It would thus be impossible for you to have made the image a few days ago, and them to have put it online four years earlier than you made it. ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 05:15, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Good catch, finding that image. I had a feeling it was a copyvio, but I couldn't prove it. —C.Fred (talk) 05:16, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Glad I could help. I run into a lot of postcards like that very close to that area, no less. The printing and lettering seemed rather familiar, so I dug. :-) Left a warning on the user's page. Perhaps some of the other images may be in order for review considering the claim made above? Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 05:19, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Ooops, I am not sure if I CSD'd it correctly. It's my first image copyvio. ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 05:20, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

There's overlap. CSD F9 is a file with a copyright infringement, while G12 is for a copyright infringement in any namespace. I suppose F9 is preferred, but G12 works. —C.Fred (talk) 05:25, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

And I just deleted it, using the G12 rationale. —C.Fred (talk) 05:25, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks... And here is another one[2]. "Borrowed" from the same site.[3] Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 05:27, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for notifying me about that edit. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 01:49, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

No problem. It's not the first time I've seen a message intended for a user left on their User: instead of User talk: page, and I usually move the messages in those cases. I figured I would also do the courtesy of explaining why I left the message—and let you know that at least one admin already has his eyes on Medboy1's edits. —C.Fred (talk) 01:54, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Cheers. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 01:56, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Recent Changes to my Info

How do I change my birthdate to the correct date or 10/05/1982 instead of the written 10/05/1981 without having it reverted back to the wrong date? IsaiahEk (talk) 02:51, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

As I noted on your talk page, you'll need to provide a reliable source for the 1981 date. The NFL.com website has it listed as 1982, so you'll probably need to find multiple published sources to support the change.

We can't take your word for it, especially as we haven't done anything to verify that you are who you purport to be. —C.Fred (talk) 03:00, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Image copyright violations by User:Kenlukus. Thank you.ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 06:22, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

HIII

I only disagree with the term cult leader as Meher Baba never declared, himself to be a cult leader in any publication. (Dragonbooster4 (talk) 18:19, 9 August 2011 (UTC)).

Since it appears that multiple reliable sources have classified him otherwise, it is within Wikipedia's guidelines to state that he's been described as a cult leader. Omitting the description could be seen as violating WP:NPOV. —C.Fred (talk) 18:22, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Meher Baba never declared himself to be a cult leader

(Dragonbooster4 (talk) 18:23, 9 August 2011 (UTC)).

Irrelevant. Most cult leaders probably don't; it's a decision made my sociologists and the like. Hence the use of independent reliable sources to support the claim rather than works of Baba himself. —C.Fred (talk) 18:27, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Meher Baba

in his interviews to charles purdom / meredith starr - Meher baba (see meher baba references) declared himself that he is Non dogmatic and his mission to west is not to establish any Cult or religion - He never classified himself as a cult leader

(Dragonbooster4 (talk) 18:27, 9 August 2011 (UTC)).

Same as the above. —C.Fred (talk) 18:27, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Further,

Sociologists can make several claims based on their personal research - That doeant mean u classify him as cult leader (Dragonbooster4 (talk) 18:29, 9 August 2011 (UTC)).

This is the wrong venue for this discussion; I'm not the audience you need to persuade. Talk:Meher Baba is a better venue; that's where you'll be able to build consensus for your view (or have consensus demonstrated the other way). —C.Fred (talk) 18:31, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Respected editor,

Info about Meher baba whethe he is a cult leader or not is not required in Don E Stevens article.

(Dragonbooster4 (talk) 18:33, 9 August 2011 (UTC)).

QSY. When you're back from your block, open discussion at Talk:Meher Baba. —C.Fred (talk) 18:35, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Stepping away

I note your comments above about including content from independent reliable sources. Many of the cited additions I have made regarding Baba have been reverted by other editors. I'm going to step away from the articles for now, as it is clear there are some editors who are quite passionate about defending them, and it is not a good use of energy on my part to engage if other editors are just reverting without discussing the merits of bringing an alternative view. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 19:44, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

The One and Only Ramblin' Reck

As an avid fan of the Georgia Tech Yellow Jackets, an extremely involved campus contributor, and a caretaker for the Ramblin' Reck, you are wrong in MANY areas of the "Ramblin' Wreck" article. You obviously are not a true fan of Georgia Tech as you do not know the proper name of our mascot. The Ramblin' Reck is properly spelled with an "R" and not a "W". I don't know where you got your information, but it is wrong. The media and Athletic Association have been wrong for a while in their spelling, but the true history is correct and credible. The original archives of the Georgia Institute of Technology mention the "Ramblin' Reck".

I was only changing your article for the misspelled name of the beloved name of my most cherished school. I'm glad that for at least an hour, the Wikipedia article was correct in its spelling. You can undo changes from true, knowledgeable Georgia Tech fans, but you will never be correct. Your sources and reasonings will always be flawed if you continue misname the Ramblin' Reck. You are incredibly disrespectful, and I was only trying to correct your article as many Wikipedia users do on a regular basis.

Before you try to oppress Wikipedia users and undermine the free speech of Wikipedia, you should get your facts straight. People are only trying to help before more people are misinformed about the topics of your articles.

Embaker823 (talk) 17:27, 10 August 2011 (UTC) THE RAMBLIN' RECK

Wrong is a matter of perspective here. The archives may mention the "Ramblin' Reck," but they probably also refer to the football team as the "Golden Tornadoes." The latter is archaic; the former is a deprecated or, at best, alternate spelling.

The citation in the article for the spelling of Ramblin' Wreck is to the Institute's Communications and Marketing department. Ramblin' Wreck is registered as a trademark of the Institute. If Ramblin' Reck were the correct spelling, or even an accepted alternate spelling, wouldn't Ma Tech have obtained a trademark on it as well?

That said, if you have reliable sources—and preferably secondary sources—to validate the Reck spelling as common (other than in the name Ramblin' Reck Club, which does and has historically used that spelling), I encourage you to open discussion of the matter at Talk:Ramblin' Wreck.

Thank you, and (insert The Good Word here). —C.Fred (talk) 17:47, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Speaking as a Tech alum, Reck is consistently and traditionally used internally at Tech, and Wreck externally, probably to save explanations concerning the loss of a W. Wreck is perfectly acceptable for use on WP: Reck is fine too, but it is more of an inside thing. It's certainly not disrespectful to place the W in front, and it's worth noting that there is no such thing as "freedom of speech" on Wikipedia, nor are members of the Reck Club entitled to feel oppressed by Wikipedia content. I'd say the Alumni Association would have the final say on the matter, not necessarily the Reck Club, which can spell it any way they like. The lede could read "The Ramblin' Wreck from Georgia Tech is the 1930 Ford Model A Sport coupe that serves as the official mascot of the student body at the Georgia Institute of Technology. The Wreck (or as traditionally spelled by Tech students and alumni, the Reck), is present at all major sporting events and student body functions. Acroterion (talk) 18:17, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

The Alumni Association have no affiliation with the Reck. The Reck is maintained and operated solely by Reck Club which does not even receive money from the Institute. The Athletic Association would be the closest affiliated Tech department but that is solely because Reck Club appears at their events. Reck Club was formed and operates for the "education and promotion of Tech spirit, history and tradition." They don't just "spell it any way they like". They are the ones who maintain and research said traditions. While I agree that externally the use of a W is appropriate to avoid confusion I do not see a problem with using 'Reck' throughout the article with a proper disclaimer. Hopefully this will help dispel the common misconception that 'Wreck' is the proper spelling. --Jackets1991 (talk) 18:50, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

That's probably best stated on the article's talkpage so it's accessible to other editors. It seems to me that the spelling has veered more in favor of the W version since I was at Tech in the late 70s/early 80s - even the Technique uses it in the references, despite the Reck Club's efforts. The problem in Wikipedia terms is the lack of verifiable sources according to WP policies for the Reck version. Perhaps you could find some good references that don't rely on (not-extremely-useful-as-references-on-Wikipeda) Reck Club policy (which is what I was really trying to say)? Acroterion (talk) 19:09, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Meher Baba

HIII

Glad to speak to you again. Actually, The indications I gave about the Cult leader statement in Meher Baba's article is apparently vandalism, as you could notice.

The sources the user indicated may be reliable but the interpretation of those sources form the user may not be true. This is what I tried to explain it to the other editor.

(Dragonbooster4 (talk) 13:10, 11 August 2011 (UTC)).

I disagree with the assessment of the statement as vandalism. It might not be an accurate interpretation, and there may be other issues at play, but I'm not convinced that it was done in bad faith. —C.Fred (talk) 13:20, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

== Okay ==

(Dragonbooster4 (talk) 14:14, 11 August 2011 (UTC)).

Possible socking by Kumaripriya?

Hi

An IP has today edited User:Kumaripriya with this.

In itself, no big deal - the edit is merely formatting etc and it is safe to assume that this is the registered user doing things while logged out.

However, also today, a fairly dormant account has edited an article on which Kumaripriya was warring & that has had no action for a while - see here. The images are already tagged by Fut. Perf but could this possibly be a sock? It seems to be quite a coincidence, especially since Kumaripriya has a history of working in Christianity-based articles and the alternate account has also made these edits. - Sitush (talk) 23:12, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

IAC-Israel Museum → Drkup(IMJ)

• Current name: IAC-Israel Museum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · target logs · block log · list user · global contribs · central auth · Google) (ping user)
• Requested name: Drkup(IMJ) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · target logs · block log · list user · global contribs · central auth · Google)
• Previous renames: current user, target user, Queue: open req, closed req
• For global renamer: rename user
• Datestamp: 01:10, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
• Reason: See above IAC-Israel Museum (talk) 01:10, 12 August 2011 (UTC) IAC-Israel Museum (talk) 01:10, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

• You will need to post this request at WP:Changing username for it to be acted on, not on your talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 01:55, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I tried to follow link but was told in edit mode that this is not the place to post requests, where is the right place? Thank you 04:33, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

See your talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 05:10, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Also, do you have two accounts, this one and Drkup (talk · contribs)? I ask because the reply on this move came from the second account. —C.Fred (talk) 05:12, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Could you also block User:Textenwikisearcher? I would also like to know whether these edits: [4] & [5] could be hid (so that their edit summaries are not shown in history). Thanks again! --Omnipaedista (talk) 21:49, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Done and done. I'd debated about offering to revision-delete one of the messages right after I leveled the block; your comment of "amusing trolling" is why I didn't offer. But you asked, so I've cleared them. —C.Fred (talk) 21:53, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I understand. Thanks for the help. --Omnipaedista (talk) 22:12, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

J.C. Moreau recreated

Hello, C.Fred … You did a WP:CSD of J.C. Moreau (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) which has been recreated by the subject and author, Jcmoreau (talk · contribs) … perhaps they need a stronger warning, and perhaps WP:SALT the article? Happy Editing! — 70.21.24.28 (talk · contribs) _{17:12, 14 August 2011 (UTC)}

Article deleted again, especially since it still infringes copyright. Level 3 warning left. —C.Fred (talk) 17:18, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

UK year nav

You may wish to comment at Template talk:UK year nav. Moonraker (talk) 03:46, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Resop picture

If I took a picture of Resop with my cell phone from the TV would that be alright? Thanks for your help — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mustangrrf (talk • contribs) 18:25, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

No. The underlying copyright would be with Major League Baseball, as licensed by the TV network/station carrying the game. The picture would have to be taken at the ball park and directly of Resop; a picture of a TV screen, monitor, magazine photo, etc. is not allowable. —C.Fred (talk) 22:02, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

20:59, 29 July 2011 C.Fred (talk | contribs) deleted "Mary Ellen Mazey" ‎ (G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of http://www.bgsu.edu/offices/president/page97521.html)

Hello - I was made aware of your deletion of the Mary Ellen Mazey wikipedia page. I am in the Office of Marketing and Communications at BGSU - the owner of the page where the biographical information was taken. This is not a copyright violation - I was instructed to create the page by the University. I would like to see the page reinstated in full.

Please contact me with any further questions.

Jennifer Sobolewski Office of Marketing and Communications Bowling Green State University [redacted]@bgsu.edu

Jsobole (talk) 20:29, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I cannot restore the page. You will have to contact WP:OTRS, the volunteer response team. They handle these sorts of donations of text to Wikipedia. They'll need to get verification that the university has released the text into the public domain or under Creative Commons or a similar license, which allows unlimited reuse, including commercial reuse, of the text.

Even if the text is donated, it will still be subject to editing by other Wikipedia users for neutrality, independent sourcing, and other compliance with Wikipedia guidelines. —C.Fred (talk) 20:43, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I have contacted wikipedia, thanks.

Jsobole (talk) 20:59, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

National Board for Respiratory Care

I found thru searching in Wikipedia that you deal with article merge issues. On 19 August I attempted to move an article I created in my workspace named User:Wpollard/NBRC. The title was to be National Board for Respiratory Care. I was unable to do this and was uncertain as to why. One possibility was an article by that name had just been created, so I looked for it. I did not find it and moved my article to NBRC, reasoning that I could look into this matter more fully later.

When I looked into this, I found someone had created such an article, although it contained much less info than the one I created. I created a discussion page in NBRC proposing the two articles be merged.

Someone merged them, but lost the unique info in the article I created. I could manually put the info back, as I printed a copy once my article was finished. I make hard copies of some new articles, because I have run into a somewhat similar situation before. Is there a way to retreive the info from the NBRC article, thus making it easier to truly merge the two articles?

Thanks for your time.Bill Pollard (talk) 22:04, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Vedette/Showgirl

vedette is the latin(spanish) version of showgirl which are stage female performers that act,sing or dance. You can also know what they are by searching for eather vedette or showgirl. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Santiagokdasilva1 (talk • contribs) 00:56, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Blue on Gray

Disruptive single-purpose account who is again on his monthly campaign against the article. Could you block him? Just to make sure he understands WP is not a place where you can continuously get away with this. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 20:01, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Blue on Gray

Disruptive single-purpose account who is again on his monthly campaign against the article. Could you block him? Just to make sure he understands WP is not a place where you can continuously get away with this. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 20:01, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Reported, please see here. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 09:03, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

What a fun-filled few minutes. Not.

I seem to have attracted even more attention than is usual. It would not surprise me if this is another off-wiki concert party. Thanks for your help so far. - Sitush (talk) 06:24, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Another edit warrior

Since you just blocked Truefact1979 for crossing 3RR after warning on Yadav, could you do the same for User:Nishukumar on James Tod; it's pretty clear (you issued the 3RR warning), and would save me having to fill out the whole 3RRNB report. Thanks. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:24, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the heads-up that he broke 3RR. I'm cleaning up some rampant vandalism and hadn't looped back to Nishukumar's recent activity. —C.Fred (talk) 06:27, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

And thank you, too! Qwyrxian (talk) 06:30, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Mass deletion of pages

On WP:ANI, you asked if there was a way to mass delete pages. Did you know about Special:Nuke? It it exactly what you were looking for. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 08:07, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) That was used recently to mass delete > 800 Indian village articles. The admin who used it found that it only deleted the article pages - they had to go back through and delete all of the associated talk pages. No idea if that was an admin error or just the way that Nuke worked. - Sitush (talk) 08:11, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Nuke is a bit funny. It looks up all recently created pages by a user: main space, talk, user talk, you name it. If those 800+ article talk pages were not created by the same editor, then they would not appear and the admin would have to delete the talk pages manually (or leave them to be picked up by BernsteinBot for orphaned talk pages and then Athaenara and I would probably quit in protest =)). -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 08:18, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Ah. It sounds like it may have been user error, then. The articles were all created by Maheshkumaryadav. Still, in the unlikely event that I ever end up at RfA then at least I will be able to sound knowledgeable about something that I cannot even use! Thanks for the explanation. - Sitush (talk) 08:35, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

You made me look... PMDrive1061 did the mass deletion. It took me awhile to find some of the talk pages since they all did not have one. Maheshkumaryadav did not make corresponding talk pages, various other editors did, so the Nuke wouldn't have covered it. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 08:57, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks again, and sorry to have caused you some work. PMD handed in their mop & retired soon after the nuke. A unrelated, very unfortunate case of off-wiki hounding/legalities that they had to get WMF involved in, IIRC. Hopefully, they will return at some point. - Sitush (talk) 09:12, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Gogo: Special:Nuke is exactly the tool I'd have been looking for last night. Thank you for pointing it out. I hope I won't need to use it again, but I know what to use when the situation arises. —C.Fred (talk) 15:58, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Ausstage

This database is crucial for anyone researching Australian theatre history - it's got records of performances by Peter Finch, etc - like an IMDB for Australian theatre. I've done a bunch of entries on Australian actors, writers and directors for wikipedia and always use it. Dutchy85 (talk) 06:09, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

If it's so crucial, why aren't any secondary sources about it turning up when I go searching? —C.Fred (talk) 06:13, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

C.Fed, I don't know why it's not turning up for you - maybe it's because information about Australia's theatre history is so unrepresented on the web. (Something Ausstage is trying to fix up) It also might be because researches use Ausstage as a database to access primary sources of information - you look up, say, Peter Finch and get the dates of performances he's been in, then access newspapers from those dates to get reviews, etc. This is what I've done when I've used it for academic articles I've written on Frank Harvey and Alec Coppel. If you google "ausstage" you will see it has quite a presence eg http://www.adsa.edu.au/news/call-for-proposals-ausstage-symposium, http://www.nla.gov.au/pub/gateways/archive/57/p07a01.html. The reason I gave it it's own page was I was constantly using Ausstage as an external link for biographical entries, same as IMDB or IBDB and felt it deserved a page to explain to anyone who was looking to click on it what they were getting. It's a terrific resource for theatre historians and ask that wikipedia allow it to stay up there. Thanks Dutchy85 (talk) 06:54, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

User:TRLIJC19

Hi,

I notice that you have warned this editor about edit warring, some of his edits since then (esp. this one) would indicate a bit of time in the cooler might help him. Mtking ^(edits) 05:38, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Managed Print Services

C.Fred, So if someone outside my company posted the same thing it would be okay because it is coming from an independent source? In relation to encouraging deletion of a competitor posting I request that purely because it is now untrue. I wouldn't care if you have 1000 independent consultants in that section as long as they are truly independent and Newfield IT (who I personally have nothing against) are not independent, they are clearly owned by Xerox so that should be the end of the discussion on that and they should be moved or deleted if your real interest is accuracy and honest representation. I should note that I only copied the format that Newfield IT, Print Operations Group etc. used so if mine was so wrong then they must be too? First it was that I was trying to advertise Fulton Francis which was not the case because I followed same format as everyone else and did not make any statements about our market position or capabilities, then it was adding inappropriate external links which again was the same as everyone else and now it is the conflict of interest...I'm confused: Getting back to the question, have we overcome the first two issues and is it now a matter of having this uploaded by someone independent of Fulton Francis?Bfrancis73 (talk) 21:41, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Rose State College

Thanks for fixing the "junior" college on the Rose State College page. I've been invited to upload the correct logo, however, I have no link through which to upload it. Can you help? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rose State College (talk • contribs) 21:57, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

You don't have "Upload file" available on the left side of the screen, under Toolbox? —C.Fred (talk) 22:03, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

ANI notification

This is your pro forma notification of a thread involving you, and also including you, since you're too fast for me. Drmies (talk) 03:00, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Sal Abbatiello page

Goodafternoon I am receiving emails from you saying I can not edit my page.. I am Sal Abbatiello and all the edits I am making are about me.. My User name on here is fevermusic... P Lease let me know how I can edit MY OWN PERSONAL info and how to stop you from changing it back— Preceding unsigned comment added by fevermusic (talk • contribs)

Your username is promotional, which is a violation. Calabe1992 (talk) 21:00, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of article, The National Theatre of the World

Hello, I am writing to inquire after the deletion of the article "The National Theatre of the World." This deletion was, apparently, established on the basis "G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of http://www.thenationaltheatreoftheworld.com/The_World.html." I interpret this to mean that the inclusion of the URL here specified infringed upon Wikipedia guidelines. I apologize if this indeed is the situation and am willing to remove any flagged material/urls in conflict. Montroseworld78 (talk) 18:42, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

The article was deleted not because of the URL, but because of material taken from the linked site. The text of the article, at the time it was deleted, had been copied from the Theatre's website. Since the website does not display a Creative Commons or similar free license, the text was deleted as a copyright infringement. —C.Fred (talk) 18:47, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Understandable. Thank you very much. The page was created on behalf of the company, upon its request. Would it suffice for the text to be rewritten?

Montroseworld78 (talk) 16:39, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Possibly. If you created the page at the company's request, that suggests you have a conflict of interest with the company. You'll need to make sure you comply with the guidelines for editing when you have a COI. For instance, the article must be written from neutral point of view, including negative as well as positive information about the company. The article is an encyclopedia article, not a press piece. —C.Fred (talk) 20:23, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Of course. Thank you very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Montroseworld78 (talk • contribs) 14:35, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Farmhouse Foods

Hi C. Fred,

I've completely reworked the Farmhouse Foods page and simply given basic information about the brand. I understand now what the problem was with the previous post.

(Foodman11 (talk) 23:00, 6 September 2011 (UTC)).

Sockpuppet of User:Philip126

Hi, C.Fred. Heyjudejang and Osakafreid you blocked are sockpuppet of User:Philip126. Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Philip126. Thank you. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 11:36, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree. I've blocked Heyjudejang indefinitely and changed the sockpuppetry notice on Osakafried to point to the puppeteer account. —C.Fred (talk) 15:02, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your help on User_talk:Pierceybrian23. I cannot tell if this guy is just being arrogant or plain ignorant. He did this previously as User:Pierceybrian22 as well under numerous IPs. It's not blantant vandalism, but now that he is ignoring warnings and bordering 3RR, maybe he'll learn something. But I've said that before. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 23:15, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

It could be one of two things. English may not be his first language, so there may be a legitimate communication issue. Or he may be feigning ignorance to lead us on. If it's the latter case, I'm content to being polite and feeding him rope for a while. If it's the former, I'd like to help him, but at some point, you have to be able to communicate in English to participate in the English Wikipedia. (I've left messages at some non-English Wikipedias in limited situations, so I do know how that goes.) —C.Fred (talk) 23:26, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I have tried numerous tactics as well, from civility to attempts at mentorship to warnings to trying to be stern (maybe closer to rudeness, I know) as I was doing this time. I was hoping he'd ask for help or apologize or even explain why he does what he does, which he always avoids answering even when asked directly. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 23:41, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Note that PierceyBrian is back as User:71.172.184.212 performing similar types of edits, an obvious evasion of his block. He has a dynamic IP, so even by blocking this one, he'll return again. Thanks again. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 18:49, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Which is why the best thing to do for now may be to just revert as the edits are made. If the problem gets to be that widespread, then we can consider page protection. —C.Fred (talk) 19:06, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the block. I am sure it is him. I was about to ask if you could protect Now That's What I Call Music! discography, since it's hard to keep up with this guy and I could see him coming back soon as a different IP.--Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 20:23, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

On the other hand, the volume isn't that great, so the article makes a nice honeypot for any new IPs to identify and block them. —C.Fred (talk) 20:26, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Permutations of redirects

Is it normal to permutate redirects of articles to quite the extent that was done here between 17:14 & 17:21 today? The contributor has done this sort of thing a few times, IIRC, but it seems a little extreme to me. - Sitush (talk) 20:13, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

It's not unreasonable, though I'd have expected Greg Possehl to be one of the redirects created, under the logic of a likely search term. —C.Fred (talk) 20:23, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks. One could rack up quite an edit count/new article count doing that sort thing. I'll stick to (mostly) adding knowledge and leave this type of wikignoming to others. - Sitush (talk) 20:35, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Questionnaire

Hi there, I wonder if you would be interested in helping me with my research on Wikipedia. I am writing a dissertation on Wikipedia as part of my undergraduate course at the University of Cambridge. What I am asking is for you to complete a questionnaire with a number of general, subjective questions about your experiences working on Wikipedia, for example concerning Wikipedia's culture, your motivation in participating and so on. It should take 10-20 minutes. Participants will be anonymous if requested. More information is available if you are interested. Thanks! I really appreciate any time you can give! Thedarkfourth (talk) 07:30, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Why do you keep deleting my xbox live clan wiki page?

why do you keep deleting the ROBC page? — Preceding chuch8736 comment added by Chuch8736 (talk • contribs) 16:10, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Because it's not a notable organization. —C.Fred (talk) 17:47, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

PLEASE HELP ME EDIT THE PAGE FOR J M!!!! (iamawesome100) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamawesome100 (talk • contribs) 03:45, 15 September 2011 (UTC) Thank you!!!!!!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamawesome100 (talk • contribs) 03:52, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Warring

Is there any chance that you could take a look at the contributions of User:Kunwaryogendrasinghlodhikheriyarafatpur to Lodhi, since you reverted some edits fairly recently. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 06:18, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Cancel - they've done it again, so I have taken it to WP:AN3. - Sitush (talk) 07:05, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Question about criteria for speedy A10

Hey C.Fred. I notice you've been processing some speedies. I am looking at History of Animal Rights, an article that has existed since early July. It duplicates the history part of Animal rights, a much longer and more mature article. i.e. it's the same topic. There exists a speedy tag which seems to address this, Wikipedia:CSD#A10, for a 'Recently created article that duplicates an existing topic', a tag which I've never used. The creator of History of Animal Rights, User:Mozzyepic24 is not around to be consulted, since he is indefinitely blocked as a sock. The article has no substantive contributions besides those of the creator. I don't notice any interesting material in the article that's worth preserving. Is this an A10 candidate? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 05:25, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

RE:YOU WHATS THE DEAL U (rpa)

Thank you for the intervention, just saw it . Have no idea who that is. I'll look through it in the morning and see if anything looks familiar. Again thanx.
Mlpearc If you reply here, please leave a {{Talkback}} on my talk. 05:50, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Pietheism

Why has this page been deleted, I was told to give a reason why it was important but two people thought it would be funny to vandalise my page (you can check if you want)then Wikipedia hadn't taken the original page on the history so I had to write it all out again! Then as soon as I finished you had removed it for not changing what I had been told to so well thats hours of my life wasted thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stotto1119 (talk • contribs) 20:51, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

The page was deleted for being about an organization with no assertion of the significance or importance of the organization. If you can show that it has gotten substantial coverage in newspapers, magazines, or similar independent reliable sources, I'll assist you in restoring the article. —C.Fred (talk) 23:07, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Merl code

Better now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ottawarene (talk • contribs) 15:30, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Naturopathy

9/21/11 The edit to Naturopathy is better, though it ends on a note that is untrue. There have been many research studies indicating the efficacy of Naturopathic medicine. I will edit the page again at a later time with links. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kitton14 (talk • contribs) 05:00, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Bro. Come on.

My band has released a song, has a Facebook page, has played atleast 80 shows, and gets paid. I published the page to show my other member the link so he could say if it was official so I could add the links to the page and videos. It does have significance too since nearly 2000 people would wanna read the article. Restore it dude. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LondonBell (talk • contribs) 05:15, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

None of that meets WP:BAND, not to mention you've admitted a conflict of interest with the band. —C.Fred (talk) 05:27, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) "Bro. Come on." is without a doubt the best undeletion argument I've read in weeks. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:47, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion

Hi C.Fred,

Please delete the David Herskovitz post. The name is misspelled, thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ncacia (talk • contribs) 13:59, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm getting ready to delete the David Hershkovitz page as soon as I confirm the spelling. —C.Fred (talk) 14:00, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Speed Deletion due to Spelling

C. Fred the last name should end in a Z not S. Can you please amend this or instruct me of how to do so?

Thank you

As I noted, I've verified the spelling. If you think the name should end in a Z, you'll need to furnish some reliable sources that confirm the spelling. If you find the sources, the article will be moved but not deleted. —C.Fred (talk) 14:06, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Sources for Correction of Spelling. In addition to ending in a Z, there should also be an 'H' before the letter K.

In the New York Times article Second Paragraph The spelling is - 

'If Kim Hastreiter is most familiar as one of the two editors of Paper (the other is David Hershkovitz)' http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/08/fashion/08Gimlet.html?pagewanted=all

Another NY Times Article Spells the Last name as Hershkovitz, Eleven Lines you can find the correct spelling. "With the encouragement of the magazine’s other founder, David Hershkovits, she agreed. “The idea of influencers is like C.E.O. magazine,” Ms. Hastreiter said. “If you have 100 C.E.O.s read your magazine, it’s valuable. Small is big.” http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/15/fashion/extra-extra-papers-event-planning-affiliate-ny-fashion-week.html?ref=fashion

Also, the books he published are spelled David Hershkovits http://books.google.com/books?id=Srt_GwAACAAJ&dq=david+hershkovits&hl=en&ei=yUF7TpaTOsjl0QH2gvC5Ag&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAA — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ncacia (talk • contribs) 14:16, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Amend Name Change ASAP

C.Fred Can this page please edited correctly ASAP. With the correct spelling as Hershkovitz Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ncacia (talk • contribs) 14:26, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Taking a look at the sources above. —C.Fred (talk) 14:35, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

And I'm confused. More of the sources show the spelling as Hershkovits than Hershkovitz. I'll grant that an alternate spelling could be listed in the intro, but I'm don't think that the article should be moved. —C.Fred (talk) 14:38, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

C. Fred,

The name should be spelled as Hershkovitz. The sources I provided spell the name as Hershkovitz, not Hershkovits, please can you amend this soon. Other spellings are incorrect, as my previous sources show.

Thank you, Ncacia (talk) 14:46, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Two of the three sources you provided spell it Hershkovits! I've started discussion at Talk:David Hershkovits about it, to get some input from other editors. —C.Fred (talk) 14:48, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

My mistake, Thank you C. FRed — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ncacia (talk • contribs) 15:02, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Page: Bert Oliva

I have edited out what seems to be the conflict of interest issues,may you please review as i would like to at least put it up so others may help... Thank you C.Fred for all of your help! URL is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Michaelparks/Bert_Oliva --Michaelparks (talk) 17:34, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

One of the flaws identified during WP:Articles for deletion/Bert Oliva was the lack of reliable sources independent of the subject. The article still suffers from that: there are no footnoted references in the article currently; the only general reference that even comes close is the BlogTalkRadio blurb about Oliva, and even that probably wasn't thoroughly vetted. (I did not listen to the whole interview; there could be some biographical information that can be used there.) Two of the "references" were mirrors of the old Wikipedia article, so they can't be used (the article can't reference itself).

Before the article has any chance of going back to main space, you'll need to show that Oliva has been covered in secondary sources, such as newpapers or magazines. It will also need to be substantial coverage; it shouldn't be just a passing mention of Oliva. —C.Fred (talk) 20:17, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay then question, someone from the old article posted pictures from different newspapers and magazines(now I'm glad i copied everything from the original article). I was wondering if I can use those? Newspapers like the Miami Herald and business magazines are all reliable sources, so i went to each link that was posted and downloaded each picture... what can i do with this? How do i show this as evidence? Also one wikipedia mediator or something a said that it would be okay if i just had the name of the media(Miami Herlad/Biz Bash/etc.) and date that that would be an exception to not having the actual article accessible on the internet. Also! I checked out some of his videos and you can see him on NBC, CBS, CNN and other big names. I understand if someone just told me this stuff but i saw in the videos facts that he has been on these shows and tv channels. Basically i have 2 mediums of facts that I'm not sure how to get them right for you to exept them, but there are existent and van be found! :) Thanks for all the help! --Michaelparks (talk) 18:04, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Drew Elliott

I added spam to the reason for deletion and deleted it. There's been some spamming at the magazine's page, and this looked to me to be a continuation of it undercover. Peridon (talk) 20:32, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Not entirely undercover. If you check the logs, Ncacia (talk · contribs) was created by Paper Mag (talk · contribs), after the latter account was soft blocked and urged to create a new account. —C.Fred (talk) 20:34, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Indirect might have been a better word rather than undercover... Peridon (talk) 20:44, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of Article

I had created an artile under Bioteknika. It was deleted. Is there any updates that are required?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kuber.ksp (talk • contribs) 06:06, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Article "Sculpture Natalia Shapiro"

Hi, If you deleted my article, could you please remove it completely, I do not won it like this - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natalia_Shapira on the Google search Thank you VERY VERY much Regards Svetlana Ivanova. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.229.215.223 (talk) 12:28, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

That's the way it looks when an article was created and is deleted. If I "removed it completely", the only thing that would disappear is the log of the deletion—and that log needs to stay in place. —C.Fred (talk) 20:06, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I think that the problem that Ivanova is pointing to is that the article still shows up on Google Search. Unfortunately, there is nothing we can do about that, because Google is a wholly separate organization that we have no control over. Often, Wikipedia articles get copied by other sites, including Google, before we have a chance to edit or delete them, and thus can remain on the web indefinitely. However, over time, those copied pages often fall in Google's ratings, because they become stale and are replaced with more up-to-date information. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:01, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Thank you for removing the obnoxious racist edits to the Holly Springs page! Allthingstoallpeople (talk) 03:38, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Occupy Wall Street

I accidentally reverted your edit. Your change was promptly adopted. Thank you. --Fayerman (talk) 05:05, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Evan Feinberg

Although obviously this unsourced article would not stand as it is , it clearly asserted importance. Please restore, and perhaps there will be sources available, though even then it might not pass AfD. (I know I have the ability to do so myself, but I want to ask you first.) Incidentally, the ed. who placed the tag has placed a good many incorrect speedies, as judged by a number of admins, and I'd suggest checking his tagging quite carefully DGG ( talk ) 03:48, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

A highly biased article needs equilibrium

Fred, Prior to making 'undos' it is requested that you visit the polarized, biased information formerly on this article and question your ethics as a CPA if the article was not, in fact, biased before. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pharmameatsdorkies (talk • contribs) 02:23, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Pardon my butting in, but you'll want to discuss this on the article's talk page, Pharma. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:47, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Their wedding was verified by Associated Press, that was the "AP" reports. Just google it and you will see. Their people verified as India Times and others were just putting something to sell papers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mamajoe777 (talk • contribs) 22:31, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

October 2011

[Copy of warning I left on IP's page removed.]

User talk:LardoBalsamico keeps making deceitful edits regarding his personal sports team whereas attacking rival team pages. I would explain you further if you hadn't come as such a condescending prick. The feud will not come to an end even if it takes months before an administrator resolved this matter: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADabomb87&action=historysubmit&diff=455476256&oldid=454721537 and punishes User talk:LardoBalsamico for deliberately and continiously inserting controversial information into WP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.244.102.189 (talk) 14:44, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

In the absence of an explanation, all I can do is act on what I see: you continuing a feud, refusing to discuss the matter civilly, and harassing another user. Frankly, I wouldn't expect anything but the account you use getting blocked for conduct like that. —C.Fred (talk) 15:30, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

What is going on

Why should I be blocked for Adding Information — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drugsarebad89 (talk • contribs) 01:33, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

See User talk:Drugsarebad89#Edit warring revisited for reply. —C.Fred (talk) 01:37, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Explain this to me

Why do people keep reverting information i add what is the problem with what I put. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drugsarebad89 (talk • contribs) 01:39, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

As I said at Talk:Michael Jackson, it's probably because of the large amount of changes you're doing in a single edit and the changes to references you're making. —C.Fred (talk) 01:41, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

So can I now add the information that I wanted to put down

I just wanted to post facts on wikipedia I have no Idea why people would be reverting everything I post — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drugsarebad89 (talk • contribs) 01:42, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Drugsarebad89‎

Hello Fred. the editor is just playing a game, and has consistently done the same type of things over and over. I don't know exactly how far this vandal goes, but I can see the sequence of edits that have lead us to this particular point. The Billy Jean article(from Hungryforfun9000 1,2,3,4)(from blocked Masterknowledgelol 1) from anon ip 96.246.254.161 1,2,3 plus about 4 more of the same edits) and then Drugsarebad89‎ makes the same edits to the article 1 and then moves to other articles playing the same games and has already been blocked twice with this account. This needs Admin action and a CU over at SPI. I'll do it, but I don't have the time right now. Evidently, per edit summaries, the user has had interactions with the Admin Tide Rolls too. It's all in the contribution history and edit summaries. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 02:01, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Deletion notice re: International Society for the Study of Medievalism

Dear Fred,

I will add more information on the Society soon. The Society's work is notable and worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia because the various other projects/pages it is connected to (Studies in Medievalism, Medievally Speaking, etc.) all happen under the umbrella of the organization. If it is the list of names that is problematic, I can certainly take those off and simply put a link to the Society pages soon to go up on the Studies in Medievalism website. Thanks for any help you can give me. Best, r — Preceding unsigned comment added by Utziputz (talk • contribs) 12:42, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

The Society's products could be notable without the Society itself being notable. The key is to find independent reliable sources—and I stress independence as you appear to have a conflict of interest with the Society—that will attest to the Society's notability. —C.Fred (talk) 12:48, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Sure, Fred, go ahead and delete it. I don't have all the materials on the society's history at hand to make appropriate changes. It's existed since the 1980s, with members far and wide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Utziputz (talk • contribs) 15:12, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you!

Just wanted to thank you for the help you gave my students working on the Weardrobe page - all of the class members, including me, their instructor, are newbies in the Wikipedia world. Efforts like yours are what makes Wikipedia a welcoming community where we can delve in and learn more about the backstage working of it. Thanks! LeshedInstructor (talk) 14:21, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks C.Fred

Thanks for taking care of that Rat Pack page! (I'm a newbie here) Skweezy (talk) 01:42, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

(Message also left on Skweezy's talk page.)

I keep an eye out for changes from newer editors, so it was your cleanup efforts that caught my eye. I saw the longer chain of edits to Rat Pack, and I undid them all at once.

Again, thank you for jumping in and helping out with the cleanup! —C.Fred (talk) 01:43, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Figures.

Show me one part of the paragraphed that I typed that didn't "improve" the article. My scriptures that I supported there support the post tribulation viewpoint. Last time I checked the discussion page, people were doing the same thing as I was doing. Putting scriptures to support THEIR VIEWPOINT.

If my statement didn't improve the article, i'm about to erase the whole discussion board.

You trying to censor what i'm saying cause you don't agree with it? That's not going to happen.

Please, stay the heck away from my post. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HolyandClean (talk • contribs) 01:55, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a forum. At best, scripture is of limited use in the article because it's a primary source. The comment did not appear to address improving the article—I did not see any suggestions on how text in the article should be changed and improved based on secondary sources. It was only a general discussion of the topic of the article, and the removal was in order with the talk page guidelines. —C.Fred (talk) 02:05, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh, well I fixed it up. Go look at it now. HolyandClean (talk) 02:28, 19 October 2011 (UTC)HolyandClean

Goat Island

The second revision was on a {{for}} hatnote template, which contains no such restriction. See Wikipedia:Hatnote#"For …, see …". Please feel free to weigh in at Talk:Goat Island, Trinidad and Tobago or Wikipedia:RM. Jokestress (talk) 04:36, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Guitar Resonator

[Deleted article "Guitar Resonator"]

Unfortunately I missed the prior discussion about deleting this page. Discussion is closed and I'm wondering how it could be re-initiated. The article "Guitar Resonator" has been translated from de.wikipedia. As a long time guitar player I know most of the international publications in this field. International references show definitely a relevance in this group of guitar effects. The discussion showed some errors to me but I don't know how to re-initiate. What procedure do you recommend ? Xstring (talk) 09:51, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

There was no demonstration of international references or coverage of the effects in reliable sources. You'll need to provide more sources, and they'll need to be independent sources that give substantial coverage to the subject. Also please note that de.wikipedia is a separate project with its own rules for article inclusion; an article that is acceptable there may not be here, and vice versa.

When I compared your version of the article to the one deleted after the deletion discussion (WP:Articles for deletion/Guitar Resonator), I saw that the text was essentially unchanged and that there were no additional sources. That qualified it for CSD G4, recreation of an article previously deleted via AfD.

I recommend looking for additional sources and working on a draft either offline or in your user space (e.g., User:Xstring/Guitar Resonator). If it's sufficiently improved, then it can be moved back to main article space. (Once it's sufficiently changed/improved, CSD G4 no longer applies; to be deleted again, the article would need to go through a new deletion discussion.) —C.Fred (talk) 22:17, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I need to contest this deletion of Bert Oliva

Hi C.Fred, hope everything is well! I need your help; the page i helped create: "Bert Oliva" was deleted because they said it was a recreation of an older version. I worked with other people including yourself on creating new material, verbiage and references. How can I get this turned around? I think this wasn't a valid deletion.

Thank you very much for your time and help! --Michaelparks (talk) 17:01, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

You'll need to start by asking this question to Fastily (talk · contribs). Point out that you added references, where the AfD'ed version had none. Point out that you revised the text. Ask if it wasn't sufficiently different to be ineligible for CSD G4. He may undelete the article. (He may also start a new deletion discussion after so doing.) If he does think it met the G4 criteria, you can ask for wider consideration of the issue via WP:Deletion review. However, you should consult with Fastily first. —C.Fred (talk) 00:45, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

That user conveniently went on a break... for a whole month... However it also says on his talk page this: "Starting on 26 October 2011, I will be unavailable until 24 November 2011. I will not have access to Wikipedia during this time so queries left here will not be answered by me, if at all. Admins, in my absence, you do not need to ask for my permission or input to reverse one of my administrative actions." So does that mean you can help me out with reversing this deletion? Thank you very much for your help C.Fred! --Michaelparks (talk) 12:50, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, now the administrative action in question is the protection of the article. I've asked that admin for input; see User talk:Will Beback#Protection of Bert Oliva. —C.Fred (talk) 00:17, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

C.Fred - I salted the page simply because it had been created and deleted so often. If there's a legitimate reason to recreate it then I have no objection. If you like, I can lift the protection myself or you're welcome to do it. (FWIW, Michaelparks had asked for my help earlier and I searched for information about the subject and found insufficient sources to merit an article. That's why I had it on my watchlist but not why I protected it- if sources are found then that's fine.)   Will Beback  talk  00:20, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I took a closer look at the sources, and they don't meet the "substantial coverage" requirement for reliable sources. I'm thinking wider discussion is necessary.

Michaelparks, I recommend you start a request at WP:Deletion review about the most recent speedy deletion of the article. That will get a wider range of input on the matter—and probably draw in some more editors to look for additional sources. —C.Fred (talk) 00:29, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

October 2011

Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made to Ubuntu (operating system): you may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:09, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, but when it's a one-shot vandalism from an IP, it's four hours stale, and it's minor (no profanity, defamation, or the like), it's almost not worth the effort. I mean, if they were going to get templated, it'd be {{uw-test1}}, just about. —C.Fred (talk) 14:14, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Good point. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:16, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism?

"Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Seattle SuperSonics, you may be blocked from editing. This appears to be the third account you've used today to vandalize the article. You may not abuse multiple accounts in this manner. —C.Fred (talk) 22:31, 5 November 2011 (UTC)"

I apologize. I wasn't trying to vandalize the article. I simply didn't like the wording at the top of the page. Please explain to me how my edit can be considered disruptive, let alone vandalism? I promise you that this is my only account. Furthermore, let me explain to you why I edited the article, and how I did so without any intent of vandalism:

You see, I recently watched Sonicsgate, so I decided to look at the Sonics wiki page. When I read "This article is about the defunct Seattle basketball team. For the current incarnation of the team, see Oklahoma City Thunder." and then noticed that that part of the article changed when I refreshed the page a few minutes later, I decided to look at the page's edit history. And when I also noticed that that section of the article had been edited by several people, multiple times in the past couple of hours, I thought I should create an account, and try to make the friendliest edit possible, according to which statement I agreed with most at the top of the page. Thus, I changed "This article is about the defunct Seattle basketball team. For the current incarnation of the team, see Oklahoma City Thunder." to "This article is about the beloved Seattle basketball team, regrettably relocated after 41 years in the city."

Instead of defunct, I thought it should be noted how beloved the team was. I realize that this is the same word used in previous edits today, but it was just something I appreciated, and therefore wanted to keep in my edit. And then I added "regrettably relocated after 41 years in the city," in place of "For the current incarnation of the team, see Oklahoma City Thunder" because I feel it is disrespectful to call the Thunder the Sonics' reincarnation; especially after the way the Sonics were relocated to Oklahoma City.

So if these changes are considered vandalism, then once again I apologize, and I guess Wikipedia is not the place for me.

Thank you for your time, and sorry for any inconvenience.

P.S. Because of this experience, I will no longer make edits on Wikipedia. But if you are kind enough to take into account my point of view, I humbly ask that you make an edit that uses kinder words in the Seattle SuperSonics page than "defunct" and "incarnation" — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlfredoMontoya (talk • contribs) 23:02, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I suppose it's possible that you, Mistah Perfekshun (talk · contribs), and DerpDderp (talk · contribs) all just happened to watch that today and all decided to change the introduction to the article independently. However, it sure looks like the three accounts are all connected. —C.Fred (talk) 23:05, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree that those other two accounts look connected, but I promise you that my account is independent from those two. Therefore, can you explain to me why my edit was considered vandalism? I made such edit in good faith. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlfredoMontoya (talk • contribs) 23:10, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Yet what was your edit? Undoing mine and restoring the text that Mistah Perfekshun added to the article. That sure paints you as connected. —C.Fred (talk) 23:16, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I thought I explained my edit to the introduction as such: Instead of defunct, I thought it should be noted how beloved the team was. I realize that this is the same word used in previous edits today, but it was just something I appreciated, and therefore wanted to keep in my edit. And then I added "regrettably relocated after 41 years in the city," in place of "For the current incarnation of the team, see Oklahoma City Thunder" because I feel it is disrespectful to call the Thunder the Sonics' reincarnation; especially after the way the Sonics were relocated to Oklahoma City.

I mistakenly undid your edit instead of just making the edit I made anyway, first. But I still don't appreciate you saying that I vandalized the page. I don't know what else I can do to prove to you that I'm not connected to Mistah Perfekshun nor DerpDderp, besides the assurances that I have already given. Yet that doesn't seem to be enough.

And I've already apologized for the similarities between my edit and the edits of the two aforementioned accounts , but you still refuse to explain to me why the edit I made was vandalism. What is so disruptive about me editing the introduction to the Seattle SuperSonics page, to state that "This article is about the beloved Seattle basketball team, regrettably relocated after 41 years in the city."? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlfredoMontoya (talk • contribs) 23:30, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Because we have a firm and inflexible policy of neutral point of view. They may have been beloved by some; but that's opinion. The move may have been reggretable in some eyes, but long overdue in others. The restoration of that kind of glurgy sentimentalism constituted vandalism. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:34, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Orangemike for the simple, straightforward explanation. I hereby apologize for my biased statement. But your explanation is also hypocritical, because how is calling the Thunder the "incarnation" of the Seattle SuperSonics, NOT biased or opinionated???

Whatever, I've wasted enough time on this topic. I guess being a life-long Sonics fan is not nearly enough to qualify me to edit a page about the Seattle SuperSonics, but having degrees from North Carolina State Univerisity is... Once again, thank you Orangemike for the simple, straightforward explanation. But most of all, thank you to the self-righteous prick, C.Fred, for ruining my Wikipedia experience.AlfredoMontoya (talk) 01:28, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

GPM Antivirus Issues

Hellow, regarding to the Article GPM Antivirus, can the developers/other editors edit the content of this article just only to remove the issues. I am not advertising or any other violations. and to stop deleting this article. I am gonna let the developers/other editors to edit the contents of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gian20 (talk • contribs) 14:05, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

The issue I have is that I don't see any purpose for the article other than to promote the product. If the text were re-written, the article would still be subject to "normal" deletion for failing to assert the notability of the software. —C.Fred (talk) 14:17, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

User talk:Factiod

Time to disable talk page access for this user? Clearly not getting with the program, and now with a large dump of copyvio. EdJohnston (talk) 03:37, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I pointed out the copyvio issue. If he keeps abusing that, yes, cut off the talk page access—and monitor Ran kurosawa (talk · contribs), as there may be some sockpuppet-type behavior. —C.Fred (talk) 03:40, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

So many experienced editors have pleaded with him, in a friendly way at first, to edit collaboratively, to no avail. Also take a look at the abysmal Net Talk Live! which somehow made it through articles for creation, and was written by Ran kurosawa. Surprise! The host of that show invented the CueCat. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:45, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

AirTran

You give the very good response, which is civil response. I stating to JetBlast to follow your role models example. Thanks. --B767-500 (talk) 05:12, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Problematic IP editor from NY library

I've been having some difficulties with User:65.88.88.202, who is apparently contributing via a library/hotspot in New York. It took me a while to catch on to the fact that it is a static address but I did try to advise them a few hours ago.

Subsequent to that they yet again pushed exactly the same POV as they had previously been pushing on Kashmiri Pandit. The article is very poor (although I've actually increased the number of RS etc in it) but there is no need to replace one reasonable but unsourced statement with another that is both unsourced and unreasonable. Furthermore, they keep meddling with the mention of "Mongol", which was discussed on the article talk page here.

What should I do next? The idea of reporting this to WP:3RRNB for edit warring is a bit awkward if that IP address really is used by the location stated on the IP talk page. We could end up briefly blocking contributions from a major library, albeit at present the sole contributor from the address is clearly a the same person (edits are confined to Kashmiri subjects). - Sitush (talk) 00:18, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

If you do feel it needs reported to the 3RRNB, I would make sure to raise that point. Whichever admin acts on the issue will take that under consideration—and also consider whether page protection would be the better remedy. Since most of the edits from that IP appear to be to similar topics, I think that a short-term anonblock would be placed, but only if there was a pattern of reverts over a short period of time. —C.Fred (talk) 00:23, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Semi-PP will not do the trick when an IP has >: 4 edits (or 10, I forget which it is). Or have I got that wrong? Full protection would force the issue to the talk page, I guess, but when it is pretty much one vs one then achieving anything from it seems pretty unlikely. Even though I am (I think!) policy-comliant and they are not. I'll have a think. Thanks for the input. - Sitush (talk) 00:28, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Semi-protection will work against all IPs; they can't get autoconfirmed like named accounts can. —C.Fred (talk) 00:30, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh, wow. I've misunderstood that. I'll drop a note on their page about the Mongol issue, since I have not specifically mentioned that one to them. If they continue in the same vein thereafter then I'll request semi-PP. - Sitush (talk) 00:36, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

It turns out to be more complex. The *.202 IP is in fact the one with whom I had a brief discussion about Mongols back in July, linked to above. And an IP making similarly problematic edits to the same range of Kashmir-related articles was indef'd on 30 Sept & resolves to exactly the same institution (see User:65.88.88.175). I'll either have to request semi-PP on quite a few articles or go the 3RRNB route & nuke a small range. Neither is a particularly appealing solution. - Sitush (talk) 01:16, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

No, but it sounds like somebody with an agenda is abusing some IPs. If the owner can't control them, then Wikipedia does what it needs to to protect the project's integrity. And that's the only IP I've ever seen indefed, so if this guy has that much history, it's likely that either the articles will get protected or more IPs will get blocked. —C.Fred (talk) 01:25, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I left a note on the blocking admin's page, referring them to this thread. Rrather stupidly, I did not look at the IP's user page but saw the block on their contributions page - consequently, I have "sort of" queried whether the library issue was known. Dammit! I have the feeling that this may be an ANI case, given the potential fall-out if *.202 continues in the same vein. I mean, the library will definitely have a range & that is what would have to be blocked. - Sitush (talk) 01:33, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd definitly try and see about getting a long-term range block - IPs usually don't get long-termed or indef'd due to collateral, but it seems there aren't any productive edits at all coming out of that range. So... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:58, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks folks. I will await developments in the (probably vain) hope that the contributor has learned something. A repeat instance will cause me to take it to 3RRNB, where I am pretty sure the result will be "oh, er, but this is a library" ... and then it will have to go to ANI. This is not meant as a criticism of those patrolling 3RRNB: I think that the awkwardness of this particular situation is already apparent and a community decision would be an entirely appropriate thing for a 3RRNB patroller to expect. I'll ping you should anything occur. - Sitush (talk) 00:33, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok, we have a twist. Another US IP has again been "meddling" on the article, in a slightly different but similarly contra-source manner. And then they posted this. Hm. Same or different? I have been "accused" recently week of being from Liverpool and Manchester, of being Jewish and Muslim, of being a paid editor, of being out of work, of being a member of a "high caste" (India), a vandal, a defamer and who knows what else. I seem to be attracting more rubbish than many admins who mop up! Perhaps I need to return to my long term projects: defunct UK businesses & prizefighters of the 18th C. - Sitush (talk) 00:55, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

They've done it again, so I have reported at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:65.88.88.202_reported_by_User:Sitush_.28Result:_.29. This thread and your name are mentioned. - Sitush (talk) 00:26, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

C. Fred blocking Users - willing to learn that which is considered dictionary and not TALK. TJ Morris

Dear Sir:

I am willing to learn to share words that are listed as DICTIONARY terms. I am also willing to learn to share TALK pages.

Therefore, I request you unblock me and share the words which are now words in etymology.

Those that I share in cosmology which you believe on TALK pages are rambling are important to many of us who are creators, authors, science fiction writers, script writers, special effects creators, editors, publishers, and webhosts.

Please refer to all the articles, pages, photos, and references made with the words which I have requested to be included such as the Alphaverse and Omegaverse.

I have a strong suggestion that those who are of the interest in making Wikipedia the free encyclopedia that is the best in the world shall agree that it is best to include all words and not just those chosen by yourself.

It would be best if one who deletes information know that it is better to take one's creative words and (Ramblings) as you define them and create them into more of what one of your stature in life expects.

This is a formal humanitarian apology to one named C. Fred who has seen fit to delete me and block me. One having such POWER on EARTH must also define opulent control.

Those of us who are desiring to include words in our genre in social networking and futurists creations such as cosmology would appreciate your contributions to our cause in etymology on the free wikipedia.

Please know that much of what I read on Wikipedia appears as explanation in TALK form and articles.

Thank you for assisting me as a new contributor. Your help would be most appreciated in the editing the words and fields instead of simply deleting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.170.25 (talk) 02:10, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

The mere fact that you left this message on this talk page means that your IP address is not blocked. If your account is blocked, you'll need to request unblocking by logging in with your account and placing an unblock request on your account's user talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 23:26, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Bold merge

Do you think that Kulin Brahmin and Kulin Brahmins can be merged boldly? Neither are great articles but they are also not duplicated content, just both about the same subject. The singular form is more commonly used for India caste articles, so Kulin Brahmin would contain the content.

I am almost tempted to cut them back to a short single para due to the poor sourcing, but one does have a few listed if they are not cited inline. - Sitush (talk) 20:22, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Volume 4, Issue 3 • Fall 2011 • About the Newsletter
Departments Assessment roundup Portal selected articles and pictures	Features Junction list template updates coming ACR processes merged Stub drive getting toward the end	State and national updates Project reports for CA MD MI PA VA TX
Archives • Newsroom • Full Issue • Shortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS

—JCbot (talk) 01:15, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Cue cat suggestions

Hello C Fred, I see you have both commented on the records for cue cat. I have made suggestions on the cuecat record for improvement and would welcome your comments and suggestions. Will you please join this and add your comments? Thank you (ProofPlus Professional Researcher 19:44, 2 November 2011 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Proofplus (talk • contribs)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is CueCat article. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:24, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank each of you, wiki editors and such, for giving me such great pointers and also for the direct emails of encouragement in learning this process. Shabbat Shalom - and since it's Friday I plan to make my additions and updates to the record on Monday. ProofPlus Professional Researcher 19:42, 4 November 2011 (UTC) (ProofPlus Professional Researcher 19:42, 4 November 2011 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Proofplus (talk • contribs)

AIGOW

Just letting you know I've speedily tagged it as G3. →Στc. 00:13, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Images of wrestlers

WWE does let fans use and show off photos to websites for informational reasons and to show people that points of intrest in the shows.Tiffany Nicole Herrington (talk) 02:08, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Can you (1) show where that policy is in writing and (2) show where that policy allows commercial reuse of the images? —C.Fred (talk) 02:09, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Luchow's Cookbook bookjacket

I've done the fair use reduction for this image. Can you please delete the original? Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:35, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

It's an overwrite of the same file name, so it would have to be a revision deletion. Frankly, I'm not sure what the usual practice is in a case like this. I'd have to ask on a fair use noticeboard. —C.Fred (talk) 03:59, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I've asked at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. —C.Fred (talk) 04:11, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

It's standard to delete the previous larger image, but don't worry, I've tagged the image with {{fair use reduced}}, so somenone will be by to delete it at some point. Sorry for the trouble. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:26, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Also, I've been following the rather strange conversation on User talk:BruceWHain, but haven't commented there because (a) I have nothing to apologize for, and (b) I have no desire to stir things up. I am concerned, however, about what he plans to do when he comes off his block. I'm sure you were probably planning to anyway, but would you mind keeping Luchow's on your watchlist, and keeping a weather eye on it? It would be appreciated. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:46, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I've already got the article on my watchlist. —C.Fred (talk) 00:50, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm sowy

I'm sowy for dowing that . I'm just jealous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jibberjabbermouth (talk • contribs) 03:40, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

thank you

Thank for the move and the note how to do it properly. MaroonGray213 (talk) 03:58, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

C. Fred, can you help me?

C. Fred can you help?

I posted to Cue cat as I said I would. Once again Bbb23 undid my work as he has done to all other. But in the process of dismantleing my work he left out the Codie Ward for cue cat. Would you look over my links for the award and consider improving the file of cue cat on my behalf for the codie award? Seems, me being new and female is hurting me. Can you help improve the cue cat file? I have left the links and info in the discussion page. Thanks ProofPlus Professional Researcher 16:23, 8 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Proofplus (talk • contribs)

Being new is only hurting you to the extent that your edits don't comply with Wikipedia policies and are in an unwieldy style. That said, the Codie award—which I didn't see mentioned anywhere in your last set of edits—is a notable award, so I've added one sentence to the article mentioning it. —C.Fred (talk) 00:08, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

That's because it wasn't there. I commented on this in a new section (the other sections were so awful I just left them alone) on the CueCat Talk page. Thanks for your edit, Fred.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:23, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I also agree with your addition, C.Fred. I've elaborated a bit, and also left a comment on Proofplus's talk page. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:10, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

GUYS thank you so much for your help and guidance. I am trying to learn and will get better I promise. Now will start on some facts that are incorrect in the record. Thanks for your kind help. ProofPlus Professional Researcher 18:58, 9 November 2011 (UTC) I will get better I promise guys. ProofPlus Professional Researcher 18:58, 9 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Proofplus (talk • contribs)

Care to help out...?

I began over at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elisa Gabrielli and had a hard time believing that someone who has done so much over such a long time[6] could not be sourced. With a bit of research, I learned that this woman has a fist full of AKA, and under her many different psseudonyms her rather hefty career is imminently sourcable.[7][8][9][10] The article's author was apparently too lazy, but the well has only just been tapped. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:41, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Meddling and Violating Personal Space

I mean this in the nicest of ways, but you need to stop bothering everyone and their personal edits. Most are constructive, however you are opinionated and feel they are not constructive. Do not forget that the idea of Wikipedia is a group effort, not your private project. You had better stop or I will need to report you to the board. 71.132.196.34 (talk) 23:38, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Which "personal edits" do you refer to? If you mean people's user pages, very rarely do I edit those. If you mean people's vanity articles about themselves, their bands, ad nauseam, you'll find that the notability guidelines and criterion for speedy deletion A7 justify the deletion. —C.Fred (talk) 00:16, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

You always edit those. I have been checking my resources and you hook on to talk pages and delete almost every edit made. You are wrong in this case, so stop and follow Wikipedia guidelines. 71.132.194.158 (talk) 22:23, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Diffs? I do not know which edits you're referring to. —C.Fred (talk) 22:27, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Stop leaving templates on my page! I check this often! These are exactly what I am talking about. Not to mention that all view histories have you written on it! I am taking this matter higher. 71.132.194.158 (talk) 22:35, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I haven't left any templates on your user talk page (I didn't even leave a talkback over my reply!), and since you're not logged in and haven't edited any articles from this IP, I couldn't begin to tell you what article this relates to. Feel free to file a report, although I might caution you to make sure you don't shoot yourself in the foot in the process. —C.Fred (talk) 22:44, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

You just edited a page because if the person had really signed a letter of intent to go to michigan(on De La Salle's wikipedia page) it would have been reported somewhere. It has been reported on ESPN....you were incorrect — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.205.62.36 (talk) 02:58, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

For definitions of "just" that include two months ago: the edits in question were on 6 September. And I stand by the edit: even if his signing had been reported, he wouldn't be a notable athlete. —C.Fred (talk) 03:12, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry, but you are too arrogant to admit you are wrong. I am now going to file for threatening my foot. I also have the talkback templates FYI. I will personally see to that your privileges are removed from Wikipedia for personal attacks and threats, and that you are on record with law enforcement for threatening, cyber bullying, and Type 2 assault.71.132.207.123 (talk) 00:22, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Blocked for the above ("threatening my foot?!"). Acroterion (talk) 00:27, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Acroterion: thank you for taking care of that so quickly. I've got no clue who the user(s) behind these IPs is, and it looks like a dynamic IP, so hopefully this doesn't turn into a rangeblock. —C.Fred (talk) 00:31, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Fred isw this normal? Bbb23 and Cullen making same edits same time different but interconnected records?

Hey C. Fred, can you look at the Cue cat discussion and see the topic where Kbb23 and Cullen make the same edist to any and all records for digital convergence? Look up net talk live and cue cat. Seems weird to me that two different users make the same edits to different records totally but interconnect to the history of this company???/ ANy suggestions??? ProofPlus Professional Researcher 19:35, 10 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Proofplus (talk • contribs)

Peter J Mikhail

This person, Marco Safwat always tries to delete facts from this page, Qnet ltd, as he is trying advertise this company, as one of its IRs who tries to advertise his company, by just Copying its Profile information from its Website. I don't know how to report him, I'm just asking for an action as he's keeping deleting facts and posting his company's profile. Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterjmikhail (talk • contribs) 14:33, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

You should at least include an edit summary that says "remove blatantly promotional material." I'm watching the page now, so I'll see what happens; in general, the administrators' noticeboard for incidents or the conflict of interest noticeboard would be the places to report a situation like that. —C.Fred (talk) 14:54, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Qnet ltd

Hi,

I have tagged Qnet ltd because it has multiple problems and is a mess. I described some of the problems on the talk page. Hopefully some discussion will take place there. My opinion is that most of it should be deleted and should not be on wikipedia.

KennethSides (talk) 15:39, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Should we roll back to this version, before Marco Safwat (talk · contribs) readded so much material to the article? —C.Fred (talk) 15:59, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd support that. The condition it's in now is impossible to deal with, except by reducing it to a stub. KennethSides (talk) 16:03, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Done, with your maintenance tags now atop the article. —C.Fred (talk) 16:05, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Peter j Mikhail

Thanks for your help. I only have a question, Can I know which source you found that is not considered a "reliable source"?? Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterjmikhail (talk • contribs) 01:07, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not the one who tagged the article for the sourcing issues. There's discussion started at Talk:Qnet ltd; I suggest asking there. —C.Fred (talk) 01:12, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, C.Fred. I already did.--Peterjmikhail (talk) 01:22, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

FRED can you help me with LINK references???

Fred I know I am stumbling, and yes I say Kbb23 Cullens accusations, but I just warned them of liable with the words they attributed to an author, but was with that said.

I cannot for the life of me, figure out the links process. Can you help me?

I addded a statement by Ebay ceo, who licenses the scan commerce patents, and how ebay now has 56 million scan app users. Can you link it for me? I will send you a virtual coffee LOL

Any way here are the links:

Users confirmation: http://www.4-traders.com/EBAY-INC-4869/news/EBAY-INC-At-Industry-Conferences-eBay-Inc-s-CEO-John-Donahoe-Points-to-Major-Consumer-Shifts-13876819/ Second ceo ebay reference http://www.internetretailer.com/2011/11/03/smartphones-blur-line-between-stores-and-e-commerce

Link to ebay as licensee of patent portfolio http://www.rpxcorp.com/index.cfm?pageid=11

Sorry but I am learning and boy kbb23 is not playing nice ProofPlus Professional Researcher 20:46, 11 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Proofplus (talk • contribs)

I'm missing a connection somewhere. I see how eBay had its application downloaded 56 million times (not necessarily 56 million distinct users). And I see that eBay is a customer of that patent licenser. What's missing is how eBay's use of the patents is relevant to the CueCat specifically. —C.Fred (talk) 20:49, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Fred, thank you for your reply. RPX is the owner of the DigitalConvergence patents, see the uspto and the patents for inventor and digitalconvergence and you see they are owend by RPX and that is what RPX licenses to the 103 companies it list. SNIP>> Philyaw; Jeffry Jovan (Dallas, TX) Assignee: RPX-LV Acquisition LLC (Wilmington, DE)

Appl. No.:  09/614,937 

SHORT LINK: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=%22Philyaw,+Jeffry+Jovan%22&OS="Philyaw,+Jeffry+Jovan"&RS="Philyaw,+Jeffry+Jovan"

Short version: Philyaw Inventor - DigitalConvergence 1st assignee, sold to LV, LV bought by RPX. PPXCORP.COM, they now license this portfolio and was there largest aquisition. Ebay, Micorsoft and other. RPX is also the citation needed for above in the article but I do not know how to do links yet. Thats why I turned to a mentor like you. ProofPlus Professional Researcher 21:02, 11 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Proofplus (talk • contribs)

ALL the records reflect: Assignee: RPX-LV Acquisition LLC (Wilmington, DE)

This is the LONG link for them all, but you have to click one by one: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=0&f=S&l=50&TERM1=Philyaw%2C+Jeffry+Jovan&FIELD1=&co1=AND&TERM2=&FIELD2=&d=PTXT — Preceding unsigned comment added by Proofplus (talk • contribs) 21:00, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

The question remains, though: why is the later reuse of the underlying patents relevant to the article on CueCat? —C.Fred (talk) 21:26, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

fred ALL of the wiki record on Cue cat mentions CRQ, the codes, the scanning and digital convergence AND YOU GUYS merged the record. So, one cannot be selective and say CUE CAT and thats software. They are one in the same. CRQ was the software and CUecat was ONE of 8 devices digital had. So, how can you NOW isolate CueCat. CUECAT CRQ DIGITALCONVERGENCE bar code reading ARE ALL IN THE RECORD and thus it is important and they ALL use the CRQ scan system. How can you pick it apart and and not see that? Will you please post up- the reference and help on this matter? we are all trying to improve the real record. please help ProofPlus Professional Researcher 21:36, 11 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Proofplus (talk • contribs)

We—and I assume the we you refer to is the Wikipedia community—are trying to make sure the article is accurate, and that includes relying on reliable sources and omitting original research. Trying to stretch from eBay licensing a patent portfolio held by DigitalConvergence to eBay is using the CueCat technology directly is, in my opinion, a stretch made by original research. I don't see a clear statement in a secondary sources that says eBay is using CueCat's technology in any of its scanning products. —C.Fred (talk) 21:43, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Please be fair on this Fred and help someone trying to make this one record better. Be fair. New people need help and heros not walls and judgements. I am really trying, but there is so much hate and bias in this record its unbearable. I am trying to be a great contributor and I am not glossing over the record, I am just putting the facts as they are. Please help and be a hero to a mom with frazzeled nerves already. I could really use a WIKI friend right about now. Please ProofPlus Professional Researcher 21:39, 11 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Proofplus (talk • contribs)

I don't see any evidence that any user editing the CueCat article is intentionally trying to introduce "hate and bias" to the article. I think every user—and I'm including you in that count—is working in good faith to improve the article. There are different perceptions of improvement, different interpretations of Wikipedia policy, but nothing I see as an intentional attempt to disrupt the article. —C.Fred (talk) 21:43, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

FRED, bb23 adn Cullen CLEARLY posted that "jovan" was "conartstry" and "Psycho" and those statements are BOTH NOT ALLOWED and INFLAMATORY ProofPlus Professional Researcher 21:48, 11 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Proofplus (talk • contribs)

And they were correct in doing so, although they should probably clarify that those were the words of Eric Celeste of the Dallas Observer.

A few years ago, we told you about Dallas' own Music Man, J. Jovan Philyaw ("Goodbye Kitty," June 6, 2001), the man behind the CueCat, Net Talk Live!, Tripledge Wipers and other testaments to his con-artistry. Now, Jovan has reinvented himself again--and this time, Buzz must say, he's really outdone himself, in the same entertainingly psycho way that Iraqi Information Minister Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf outdoes himself with each new press conference. ("There are no tanks. Oh, those tanks, the ones behind me? We have those tanks surrounded.")

Celeste, Eric. "Crystal Clear". Dallas Observer. 10 April 2003. Accessed 11 November 2011.

Wikipedia articles are based on secondary sources: writings about the subject in reliable sources such as newspapers. Articles should reference the sources used. The article did, and the article directly quoted the reporter for the terms like "con-artistry" and "psycho," the other editors used the exact words of the newspaper reporter, to avoid applying any spin of their own. —C.Fred (talk) 21:57, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

FRED STATS as to WHY the RPX issue and license is REAL VALID AND IMPORTANT: On the article for cuecat the reference count are as follows: 13 references to cue cat as device 8 references to DigitalConvergence as company 22 references to the actual software and backend 12 references to the database actions

so, out of 55 references, 94% are about the software, company and database and YOU ASK WHY IS THE LICENSE IMPORTANT?

117 Patents and ONE is for CueCat the Device and 99.8% are about the software, backend and databsse functions and YOU ASK WHY THE LICENSE AND SUCH IS IMPORTANT TO THE RECORD?

Come on FRED. This is an encylopedia, you can just pick and choose what are facts!!!!

Please help me! ProofPlus Professional Researcher 21:53, 11 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Proofplus (talk • contribs)

PLEASE UNDO YOUR UNDO ON THE REFERENCE TO LICENSE OF THE IP. I have proven my point beyond a shadow of a doubt and I need you to be fair and not make this an undo redo. Come on Fred, I have proven my case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Proofplus (talk • contribs) 21:55, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

You've provided original research. I'd prefer to see a secondary source that directly says eBay is using technology directly derived from CueCat—not just following down the same path of ideas. —C.Fred (talk) 21:58, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

FRED stupid question but

I keep seeing notes I did not sign right. IS it just ProofPlus Professional Researcher 21:08, 11 November 2011 (UTC) of (ProofPlus Professional Researcher 21:08, 11 November 2011 (UTC)) inside Parens??? I am confused so I have been doinw both

A. ProofPlus Professional Researcher 21:08, 11 November 2011 (UTC) B (ProofPlus Professional Researcher 21:08, 11 November 2011 (UTC))

which is right? Thanks my kind friend. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Proofplus (talk • contribs) 21:08, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

The correct form is "Proofplus Professional Researcher 21:10, 11 November 2011 (UTC)" (you should include a link to your user or user talk page).   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 21:10, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Just add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) and the system will do it for you. —C.Fred (talk) 21:24, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Fred and Jeff, I am doing the four tildes, but seems it keeps posting wrong. Got the tildes down but seems not to be showing right. Do I need to update something on my side to make it work right? Point me where to? ProofPlus Professional Researcher 21:27, 11 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Proofplus (talk • contribs)

Go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Preferences and Signature is the third option on the page. If you have the "Treat the above as wiki markup" option checked, make sure you have valid links in the code. My signature, for instance, is —'''[[User:C.Fred|C.Fred]]''' ([[User_talk:C.Fred|talk]]) ; that makes sure that my user and user talk pages are linked in my signature, as I have the treat-as-markup box checked. —C.Fred (talk) 21:33, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Got myself in a muddle with a page move

Edward Maclagan was the original title, to which umpteen articles were linked or redirected. However, that name was wrong. I could live with the article omitting the middle name - "Douglas" - but the capitalisation was also incorrect. It should have been "MacLagan", per the various books/official reports that he published. So, I moved Edward Maclagan to Edward Douglas MacLagan, fixed one obvious link problem related to Horace Arthur Rose ... and seem to have gotten myself in a right pickle.

I recall from something that you told me in the past (re: merging Patna University articles, IIRC) that a bot comes round and straightens out a lot of this stuff. But if you have the time then could you please check that I've done this correctly? There are so many permutations of the name, including "E. Maclagan", "E. D. Maclagan", "E. MacLagan", "E. D. MacLagan", "Edward Maclagan", "Edward MacLagan" ... you get my drift. I am not convinced that I have got this right, although I am convinced that the correct full name is Edward Douglas MacLagan & can point people to various published sources for verification thereof. - Sitush (talk) 02:48, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

The M Machine

Hello C Fred, I'm inquiring to discuss the deletion of The M Machine's page. You listed G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of http://www.madeevent.com/ElectricZoo/artists.php?REFID=madeweb. I was using that reference to cite The M Machine's presence at the Electric Zoo Festival, and double posted the same reference because I thought I hadn't saved the edit the first time. Can you help? Thanks! Dustinslush (talk) 05:13, 12 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dustinslush (talk • contribs) 04:59, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes: Use the facts from the page, but don't copy their words. Double-posting the reference had nothing to do with it; it had to do with the wording being similar enough to lead a reader to conclude it was copied. —C.Fred (talk) 12:55, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

That's the group's official bio, why can't that be in the wikipedia page? Sorry if I don't understand. Dustinslush (talk) 23:39, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

The group's official bio is protected under copyright. Unless they make very clear that it's licensed under a free license—and that anybody may reuse it, including commercial reuse—then Wikipedia can't use it on our servers. This is critical with images, but it's important with text too. —C.Fred (talk) 23:50, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Blocking

I was wondering this: It appears that you have had to deal with some rogue IP's lately, and that temporary blocking was involved. If I ever come across a Wikipedian who is continually vandalizing articles, how do I warn them and eventually create a temporary block? I hope I never have to do this, but I should know. Mallen22 (talk) 01:21, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Reply on your talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 01:51, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Always helps to check the block log first

You might have had a simpler decision-making process on those Trina articles if you had looked here.—Kww(talk) 13:57, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I was at the end of a time window and had to move on to off-wiki matters, or I'd have found that. —C.Fred (talk) 19:26, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

HELP ME!

NoseyFruitcake3 (talk) 19:47, 13 November 2011 (UTC) I am trying to upload an image but its freaking not working!

PLEASE HELP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I saw you create the description page but not upload the image. It may be that your account is too new; there's a restriction against young accounts uploading images. —C.Fred (talk) 19:48, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

(talk) 19:48, 13 November 2011 (UTC) OK!

Article Creation

I am in the process of a draft article, and it is almost complete except the filmography and references section are not formatting correctly on screen even though they are on the edit page. Could you please go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Fay_Wolf and see if you can fix that error? Thanks! Also, this is my first article, so please give some feedback. -Mallen22 (talk) 01:41, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

The filmography section was not formatting correctly because the table was not closed. I added one line to the end of the table with |} on it: that marked the table as ended and made it display in the filmography section.

I also split the IMDB and other external links into an external links section. There are no <ref> tags in the article, so there's nothing to pull down into references. Because of this, if the article went live, it would be subject to an immediate proposed deletion: all biographies of living people must have references. —C.Fred (talk) 02:14, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you so much! You have been really helpful. Would you say my article is ready to be submitted? -Mallen22 (talk) 02:21, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

MRSM Terendak School Anthem

Hello,

Regarding your comments on the school anthem, I shall work on it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MRSM_Terendak

Shahrulazwad (talk) 06:51, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Curious multiple account attack on CueCat

Your contribution is encouraged. Mangoe (talk) 18:27, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

He is back...

Vinnie is back, claiming UFO researcher help.... Thanks. History2007 (talk) 20:54, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I've added the new target article to my watchlist. —C.Fred (talk) 23:30, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. History2007 (talk) 00:21, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Please would you ask your fellow editors to stop writing nonsense about "vandalism" on my page. I added a verified helpful comment to an article. It was meant to warn the public of the risks of using a particular "cashback" site. In return I am called a vandal. These editors obviously have some strong emotional (or financial) link to the subject matter and regard other's contributions as NPOV.

I would like to remind you and other editors that Vandalism is: The conduct or spirit characteristic of, or attributed to, the Vandals in respect of culture; ruthless destruction or spoiling of anything beautiful or venerable; in weakened sense, barbarous, ignorant, or inartistic treatment. OED These editors are the culprits: Favonian, Barek, Bwilkins, Calabe1992

Their actions are authoritarian and only serve to alienate normal users of Wikipedia. Even more so than that picture of Jimmy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fghgfhgfhgfh (talk • contribs) 04:33, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

You've piggy-backed your comment onto a section about an editor who is known to attempt to include self-promoting material into an article, though I don't think you're the Shroud of Turin editor. You've also created a new account to leave this message; not only does it make it difficult to determine which edits you're referring to, but it raises the question of whether you're abusing multiple accounts, possibly to evade a block.

That said, whether your comment was "helpful" is subject to interpretation, particularly if it's a comment with a strong point-of-view—and "warn[ing] the public of the risks" of a subject is a strong POV. It's probably a situation best discussed on the talk page to get consensus, because if you keep re-adding the same material into the article, that's edit warring, and major violations of that are dealt with in the same manner as vandalism. —C.Fred (talk) 04:38, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Based on the edits complained about, I was guessing this was Jane1222556 (talk · contribs), of whom you blocked what is an apparent IP sock earlier tonight at 217.171.129.70 (talk · contribs). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:46, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Yep. And never was vandalism raised as an issue; edit warring and violation of WP:NPOV were. —C.Fred (talk) 04:48, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

And again, I'm not sure what the "master" account of yours is, but it's pretty clear that you also used Aibureshon (talk · contribs) this evening. —C.Fred (talk) 04:41, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Brown Thursday

Regarding the first comment. Neologism and Brown Thursday. When is it considered non neologism? How many pages must be populated, how many newscasters must use the word before it is not neologism?

Regarding the second comment.. who... That is why I included the link to the google search, there are several people (mostly common citizens), myself included.

Please work with me, in improving my article as it is my first, instead of deleating it. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pesnider (talk • contribs) 22:10, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I see your comments and will edit the article and add references, but it is going to be later tonight. I see that I have approximately 7 days to get the article where it needs to be or else it will be deleted. Thank you for working with me, and offering suggestions. Regarding the who, can I just use a source online, or can I say friends of user:pesnider. I can post a poll through survery monkey and get results over the next few days. What qualifies as the who? Can I simply say me? Thank you for your help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pesnider (talk • contribs) 22:26, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

It needs to be some significant group of people—you or the responders to a survey monkey poll aren't sufficient. If Gallup conducted the poll and found Americans in general or some subset were using the term, that would be significant. You'll probably want to look at WP:Reliable sources for some guidance. —C.Fred (talk) 23:22, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The section is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#MangoWong Block review - Sitush (talk) 03:24, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	This is for adding an edit summary to Seventh-Day Adventist Church, so I understand the purpose of the removal of the category. "Oh, that makes perfect sense!" 78.26 (talk) 01:54, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

thanks

Your note was very timely and correct and is much appreciated. Thanks - Youreallycan (talk) 01:33, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Transfer factor

Hi C.Fred,

Why are you always undoing my edits on transfer factors? How can the source of Physicians' Desk Reference (PDR.net) be considered a vague source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.156.10.11 (talk) 02:09, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Because nowhere on the front page of the PDR are transfer factors mentioned. You'd need to cite the specific page within the PDR (or article, section, etc.) where the reference is found. —C.Fred (talk) 02:11, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok done. Thanks for pointing that out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.156.10.11 (talk) 02:20, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Sigma Alpha Epsilon

Hi C. Fred,

Thanks for sending me the message on links. I was unsure where I could contribute the information on the SAE initiation ritual. I'm unsure if my other most recent edits were ok, but I included the ritual as a reference to what I had. I have other references if that's ok as well. I'm just trying to make the article content more comprehensive. Thanks! SAEAlum (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:42, 9 December 2011 (UTC).

Could you have a look please

Could you have a quick look editor just reverted on UKIP thanks, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/08aviee Mo ainm~Talk 18:32, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Quick look didn't scream sockpuppetry, but I've added the article to my watchlist. —C.Fred (talk) 13:48, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Great thanks, as you can see editor was blocked. Mo ainm~Talk 19:31, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Triangle Expressway

It was right to begin with. I knew it was not the first toll road in the state when I created the article, and don't know how that got changed.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 19:58, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Oops. I never said "modern". So it was my mistake. I was trying to come up with a better description and just never got around to it. So thanks for fixing it.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 20:21, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Why was my page deleted?

Hi C.Fred, I do not want to cause any kind of trouble but...how come my page was deleted? Every single part of it was true you know...Me and my mate we do a web show and we thought people might want to see information about it. We beg of you to let it back up. Thanks.

Robbie 5001 (talk) 08:52, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

• Your web show doesn't meet the notability standards of WP:WEB. NawlinWiki (talk) 12:59, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

NawlinWiki hit the nail on the head. Until the show achieves notability—either by meeting the WP:WEB guidelines mentioned above or by being covered in enough newspapers, magazines, and other reliable sources to be generally notable—the web show may not have an article. If it does become notable, it's probably best that you don't start the article anyway, since you have a conflict of interest. You're not prohibited from writing about your own works, but an independent editor is generally better at preserving neutral point of view. —C.Fred (talk) 13:46, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Zang-Hee Cho

Hi, could you have a look at Zang-Hee Cho? Having spent some time this morning doing a bit of fixing of the unreferenced biography of Ryong Ryoo created by the same user, the style of the Zang-Hee Cho article set my antennae twiching. Particularly given your comment on the User talk page re the copyright infringement of two other articles (which I didn't register until after I'd done the work on the Roo article). I have tried to check both the Roo article and Zang-Hee Cho for evidence of copyright infringement but I'm coming up blank. They both look like copy and paste to me but I can't spot the source. Doesn't appear to be the same as the others (unless I'm being dense). Subject appears notable enough, so the article could be stubbed. Don't want to do any more on this before someone with rather more experience has a look. --CharlieDelta (talk) 10:24, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

And I checked the other articles against the place where I found the first copyvio, but it didn't look like he'd won the HOAM Prize to have a bio at http://hoamprize.samsungfoundation.org; that's where the other articles had been copied from.

I agree that there's no copyvio—or at least nothing that either of us have turned up to suggest it, so go ahead with the work. Of course, if you're editing the prose while you're fixing references, you may leave the article in a non-copyvio state even if one is later found—so we can just delete the offending revisions but leave the article in place. —C.Fred (talk) 13:44, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the swift response.--CharlieDelta (talk) 15:36, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Ha! Buried in the body of the suspicious-looking body text I found "(see the attachment for the further elaborations)", which seems to me to be a clear indication that the whole thing had been copied from somewhere else. I have reduced the article to a few main facts and the long list of publications and awards, which I think will minimise the risk for now. I've added one ref as the subject seems clearly notable enough for an article here. Hopefully, with the WikiProject tags in place, someone with knowledge of the field will come along and turn it into a decent article in due course.--CharlieDelta (talk) 22:31, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Big Brother 2012 (UK)

re this [11] I think you meant Big Brother 01 (UK). Leaky Caldron 20:45, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

That looks like the same content that was at Big Brother 2012 (UK), which I tagged db-hoax, but the creator subsequently blanked (and I deleted G7). —C.Fred (talk) 23:45, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Is there any way you can kill off the pointless redirect Big_Brother_01_(UK) as well? It's just clutter really. Don't you think his editing behaviour is odd? Hours & hours spent on the same table in his sandbox. Maybe he's just practising his tables! Leaky Caldron 12:44, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

why?

why did you delete that page? it meant alot and now its gone... thanks alot — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.119.113.60 (talk) 04:20, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

That's why I advised the creator to make sure he backed it up offline. It was not appropriate for Wikipedia: it made no assertion about the significance or importance of a subvarsity team and showed no signs that there was anything significant enough to warrant an article, so it was deleted under criterion for speedy deletion A7. —C.Fred (talk) 04:23, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Total Drama: Revenge of the Island

It doesn't matter if France airs it first. Canada is still the country of originality, and since the show is Canadian, only the Canadian airdates will be shown. Even though Australia aired TDWT first, the Australian airdates are not in the infobox. So yeah, time is not a manner, it's originality. Yes, we might get all the episode information right before the show even airs on Canada, but note that the infobox says "Original Run" which means that we are still going to put everything as it is airing in Canada. :) Giggett (talk) 01:48, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Links to WikiProjects on Wikipedia page

Quicklinks to WikiProjects(Wiktionary, WikiNews etc) are needed on Wikipedia and vice-versa, in the header or on the left-margin column. Please consider including these to the existing links for the convenience of users navigation from one project to another.Rockin291 (talk) 15:17, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

QNet ltd.

Thank you for the notice regarding the article on Qnet ltd, I will try my best to edit the article to make it more informative and written from a more neutral point of view and maybe include some of the supporting points of view. But I believe this will be better done by other members as I am currently opposed to the way the company operates in my country Mohehab (talk) 16:34, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for the info. Rubinkumar (talk) 23:00, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Do You Like Selena Gomez?

	Asking if You Like Selena Gomez
	Do you like Selena Gomez? I know I do! =P ★♛iluvselenagomez1234♛★ (talk) 17:12, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Photo assistance needed

With these edits, an editor has done a good thing, namely, adding a free use photo of the subject of an article where there had been none before. However, in the article itself, there is a lot of wiki markup showing around the picture (not in the editing window, in the article itself). This is not my area; is this something you can easily fix, or at least, direct someone to Bart Starr who does know how to fix it? 74.178.230.234 (talk) 20:02, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Done. That particular issue happens a lot in infoboxes. —C.Fred (talk) 20:57, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. 74.178.230.234 (talk) 23:17, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Article References

Hey! I have almost got my first article down, except I cannot get references right! I read the article on how to do them, how to use ref tags, etc. I formatted it correctly, too, but it only shows 1, 2, and 3 instead of the name of the reference. Please help! I really need it. Go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Fay_Wolf and please fix this! Thanks. -Mallen22 (talk) 04:45, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Reply

on my talk page. 74.178.230.234 (talk) 04:19, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Gee, Fred, maybe RJ has a point. What do you think of this edit? :-) 74.178.230.234 (talk) 17:51, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Besides, don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point? —C.Fred (talk) 18:15, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I've actually heard of that rule (though I don't like it); that's why I instantly reverted myself. I just wanted to point out what it looks like. I would have done a preview and sent you a screen shot, if I knew of a way to do that, but I thought that instantaneously reverting myself and just sending you the "RJ version" would be, for all practical purposes, non-disruptive.

Hey, and I am exercising restraint. You don't think I didn't want to follow up your comments at Talk:The Fugitive (1993 film) with something like, Hey, RJ, you douchebag, editors who can read actually understand my edits? But I'm trying to take your lessons to heart and not further inflame that jagoff. I may yet prove to be rehabilitatable. 74.178.230.234 (talk) 18:32, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

C.Fred, Please help. RJ is leaving Wikipedia. I can't post on his talk page, please tell him how sorry I am. I was upset about him, but I know he is more important here than me, and I can't bear to think that I have made someone want to leave. I don't care about the "then" or the wikilink, they're not important compared to losing someone who has been here for years. I just wanted him to talk to me about the edits, but I didn't want him to leave. Please tell him I'm sorry, and that if he comes back, I'll never edit again or I'll never say curse words in my edit summaries again or whatever else he wants. I mean this, in all sincerity. Please try to convince him to come back. 74.178.230.234 (talk) 12:25, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

C Fred, can you email RJ or something? I feel so bad about this. 74.178.230.234 (talk) 09:12, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I get it; I understand. I'm not the only one blaming me for what happened to RJ. You do too. And you're right. I'm leaving Wikipedia too. Please let RJ know I'll never edit again. Please tell him I'm sorry--all I wanted was for him to talk to me but perhaps it was too much to expect him to give up time to someone he considered to be rude in the first place. And I guess he was right. Goodbye. 74.178.230.234 (talk) 01:36, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

The Alternates

Hi C.Fred, saw that my article regarding The Alternates was deleted. I checked the band guidelines for Wikipedia and The Alternates fit the criteria to submit the article, they have notablitity. How can I not have the article deleted if I resubmit? Any suggestions? --DavidSCastro (talk) 21:50, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Which criteria are you saying that the Alternates meet? I looked through the text of the article again, and I don't see a clear indication of significance. It also appears that there are no independent reliable sources in the article - sources are either primary (like a label's or venue's website) or aren't reliable (like blog postings). —C.Fred (talk) 22:17, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 2

I notice that you have recently edited Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 2 and would like to make you aware that I'm seeking consensus on the article on the talk page . --Mrmatiko (talk) 09:22, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion

Please Stop Adding Speedy Deletion Notices As You Did With Whimsical Ponies. Just Because You Don't Know About It Doesn't Mean It Is False. You Want Me To Add References? Fine. Also, Why Don't YOU Do Some Research. Google Is A Thing Of A Breakthrough.

Love,

GenghisKhan12 (talk) 03:24, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

The burden is on the article creator to provide references and a clear assertion of significant or importance. The article lacks both. —C.Fred (talk) 03:24, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

C.Fred, I Thank You Kindly For Branding My Page With A Speedy Deletion Tag, Resulting In The Deletion Of My Page. Now That I Think Of It, Thank You For At Least Giving Me A Chance To Present References And Demonstrate The Importance Of The Page. It's Not As If The Page Was Speedily Deleted Before I Could Add A Section About The Importance Of The Article. I Think What You Are Doing Is A Good Deed To Humanity, For I Believe That You Do Know Everything About Everything, And If You Have Never Heard About It Before, Then It Musn't Be True! I Especially Love The Fact That You Threaten People On Their Talk Pages With "Just So You Know" Information. It's Not As If The Whimsical Ponies Page Was Of Any Importance. It Was Probably All A Joke. Once Again, Thank You For Recognizing The Insignificance Of A Small Business That Has Grown To Something Beautiful.

Love, GenghisKhan12 (talk) 03:36, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Victorious

Please have a look on iTunes, which is exactly the season-order in which Nick airs the show, and there you can see that "Blooptorious" is S02E13 & "A Christmas Tori" is S03E01! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dupewrest (talk • contribs) 08:27, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Which it does say. See my comments at Talk:List of Victorious episodes. —C.Fred (talk) 17:21, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Regarding The article on Somvanshi Kshatriya

Hi Fred,

This is regarding Somavanshi Kshytriya page in Wiki, There are many articles in Wikipedia which have large portions of text un-cited, unverifiable. Still these articles exist.

This page existed in wiki since a long time as long as 2008, until recently when it was deleted. I have cited notable people. The map showing where people exist. The mention of the community in religious text and books. What more is needed? why are you so persistent on deleting this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ninadraut123 (talk • contribs) 03:32, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Because as long ago as 2008, consensus was for it not to be a stand-alone page. That's why I started the discussion at Talk:Somvanshi Kshatriya, which is the better venue to continue this. —C.Fred (talk) 15:55, 1 January 2012 (UTC)