User talk:C.Fred/Archive 14

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

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

→

Deleted non-profit page

Hi Fred, You recently deleted a page dedicated to a non-profit that I am involved with and had planned on updating. I read through the reasons given but am confused why ours cannot exist when there are plenty of other examples that are still allowed to function. For instamce: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penn_State_IFC/Panhellenic_Dance_Marathon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwestern_University_Dance_Marathon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dance_Marathon_at_the_University_of_Michigan

Thanks for any feedback that can help us craft a correct page. Agiacini (talk) 03:42, 6 May 2014 (UTC) Andrew

@Agiacini: Other stuff exists. Each of those articles exists separately; I haven't looked at them to consider whether they have sufficient reliable sources and otherwise meet the notability guidelines.

Whatever the article you were going to get involved with apparently didn't meet the guidelines. Since you hadn't edited in the past, and you didn't tell me what the article is, I can't give you any more information than that. —C.Fred (talk) 04:00, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Page Deletion Spherexx

I was not aware that this information could be considered advertorial; I will revise the article and submit from the Sandbox for review. Thanks for your help(KathyFreeberg (talk) 17:00, 7 May 2014 (UTC))

Except I didn't add the Twitter source on the TD page.68.105.101.190 (talk) 18:09, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello...

C Fred. About your edition [1]. See, i discovered that, "user:Status" made this edition without consensus a time ago [2] their edit summary was: "lol". So, i can't understand why some users don't understand that they are promotional singles. Several users needs make a consensus but one or two users "old" in this wikipedia, don't need consensus??. This is the "correct" version, [3] before edits without consensus by "user:Status". Regards. Connie (A.K) (talk) 02:57, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

@ConnieGB: They are promotional singles. I think you answered your own question about why they are included on the list of singles. —C.Fred (talk) 02:58, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

??. Mmm if are promotional singles, they shouldn't on singles section, C Fred. They should be on promotional singles section, like this [4], before an edition without explication by user:Status. RegardsConnie (A.K) (talk) 03:03, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

May I suggest you take a look through Talk:Ariana Grande discography again, including where secondary sources are provided that describe those songs as singles? —C.Fred (talk) 03:06, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but i don't know why user:Status made this edition [5] because their edit summary just said: "lol", and why an edition without consensus still there. Im confuse for that, Can you understand me now?. I think, an edit without consensus, needs be deleted, "lol" isn't an explication. Regards. Connie (A.K) (talk) 03:28, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Since that edits predates the discussion on the talk page, I don't think that's relevant now. —C.Fred (talk) 03:54, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

On the talk page don't say nothing. Yes, this is relevant, Status made an edition wrong and without explication. In the day, is for Status edition that several users delete christmas songs, because they are promotional. Nobody knowed about that Status edition until today, for this their edition is there. Is appropriate reverted to Louis Erisson's edition. Connie (A.K) (talk) 04:31, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Endorsement

Dear C Fred,

Can you please tell me why you endorsed the deletion? Did you even read my comments? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reigningbc (talk • contribs) 13:02, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Just noticed that you wrote your comments. Thanks, but is there anything you can suggest? I just need someone to help please... --Reigningbc (talk) 13:08, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

@Reigningbc: I read your comments. I read your interpretations of WP:NOTINHERITED, which do not agree with the text of the guideline. I also read the arguments in the AfD. Ultimately, I agree with Tokyogirl's early close of the AfD and close as a delete.

At some point in the future, Brandon Cyrus may be notable enough for an article, but it doesn't appear that's the case yet. Once he's gotten significant coverage in reliable sources like magazines and newspapers, and once he's had roles sufficient to meet the notability criteria, we can look at recreation. Further, when he is notable, the article about him should be written by independent editors, not editors who have declared a conflict of interest with him. —C.Fred (talk) 13:12, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello, C.Fred I understand that. However, I'm confused. Was the decision met already? Did you close the discussion? Also, he does meet some of the notability clauses, not all of them but some of them which means his page should be kept under the fan clause. Also, excuse my language but I'm fighting like hell to keep this page because, not only do I work under him, but I am still a fan of his work. There's no COI as we do not personally know one another. --Reigningbc (talk) 13:16, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

@Reigningbc: You don't have to personally know him; you work for him and are (either directly or indirectly) on his payroll. In some ways, paid editing is an even worse "sin" than a personal conflict of interest in the eyes of some editors.

As for the decision, the deletion review is still ongoing. The usual timespan for a review discussion is seven days. —C.Fred (talk) 13:23, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Is there anyway I can help you get on my side? Yes, I know it's bad to say I work under him but I believe in good faith rather than lying and I am indeed not lying about making the Wikipedia page for profits, it was decision I made yet again under good faith. And thank you very much for that information. --Reigningbc (talk) 13:28, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

@Reigningbc: I agree with the procedure of the AfD—I think it was a fair close. I also agree with the outcome—looking at the text of the article, I agree that notability was not met. Finally, your sandbox looks to be in better condition than the article was, so I think that's a good place to work on improving the text. —C.Fred (talk) 13:39, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

So you don't want to help me at all? :( --Reigningbc (talk) 13:41, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

@Reigningbc: Work on the sandbox for a while and get back to me after you add some secondary sources. —C.Fred (talk) 13:47, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Oh gosh... I didn't know sandboxes were public... I hope I have nothing embarrassing on it, I was playing around with formats, etc. Thanks, I will do that! --Reigningbc (talk) 13:52, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Writer199

Why was my page Perkiomen Valley High School Walkout deleted. It was a real event that is showing protest in our country with students in high school. I am not breaking any laws of copyright and I dont know why it was deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Writer199 (talk • contribs) 01:25, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

@Writer199: It was deleted because it was about an event that failed to demonstrate any significance or importance. If the event were notable, there would have been multiple reliable sources covering the event—and the events would have been from national media (news networks, the New York Times, etc.). Further, the article would have explained how the event was of (inter)national significance. —C.Fred (talk) 01:28, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

@C.Fred: There were multiple media sources covering this event. 6abc news, NBC 10, Times Herald. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Writer199 (talk • contribs) 19:43, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

@Writer199: Was there any non-local coverage? —C.Fred (talk) 19:53, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

@C.Fred: No it has to be national coverage? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Writer199 (talk • contribs) 20:06, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

@Writer199: See WP:GEOSCOPE, where it talks about notability of events: "An event affecting a local area and reported only by the media within the immediate region may not necessarily be notable. Coverage of an event nationally or internationally may make notability more likely, but such coverage should not be the sole basis for creating an article." —C.Fred (talk) 20:26, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

@C.Fred: Ok but we are trying to make this a movement showing other school students they have voices. This went to the State level in PA as we got a state rep. to talk to us. Making this page will put the word out there that 500 students if a school of 1800 can make a difference and we have a voice. This is what people need to be like wow this is important and jobs can not be cut. Also Considering on social media we had a fashion designer in Canada tell us she supported this movement makes it international. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Writer199 (talk • contribs) 20:57, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

@Writer199: It sounds like you have a conflict of interest with the situation, since you were a participant. Wikipedia is not a soapbox or a place to promote your cause or agenda. Wikipedia is not a device to "put the word out"; it is an encyclopedia, and articles need to be of lasting notability. —C.Fred (talk) 21:16, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Re-added page to PE Exam page

Hey Fred you deleted the LEARNerds link I added to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentals_of_Engineering_exam

You cited the reason being that it was indirectly related. However, the site caters specifically to the preparing for this specific exam (particularly the breadth module of the exam). Content is also freely available to all visitors.

I've just readded it based on this reasoning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.1.4.155 (talk) 19:59, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Socks of indef blocked User:Altimgamr

Ferrari LaFerrari (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 99.155.192.12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Check their contributions... Thomas.W ^talk 18:13, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

@Thomas.W: I'm not seeing a smoking gun to say for sure they're both Altimgamr, but the two are pretty clearly connected to each other. —C.Fred (talk) 18:17, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

The IP's very first edits were on User talk:Altimgamr. Just for starters... Thomas.W ^talk 18:20, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

@Thomas.W: Oh, yeah. Good point there. —C.Fred (talk) 18:21, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

The IP also geolocates to the part of Northern California that Altimgamr is known to operate from. Thomas.W ^talk 18:24, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I've followed his "career" here on WP since late last summer so I've seen quite a few socks go by. Two of his user accounts were named Jasons99Contour and Jasons1999Contour, so I "know" him by those names even though that SPI was later merged with Altimgamr's, for some reason that I don't understand. Which is why I reverted him with the greeting "Hello, Jason!" in the edit summary, to let him know that he had been spotted. I believe that Jason is his real name, based on a short discussion I had with him on a talk page last fall, I also believe that 1999 is the year he was born... Thomas.W ^talk 18:46, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

@Thomas.W: That was enough for me. I've indeffed the registered account and blocked the IP. —C.Fred (talk) 19:38, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Lexus

Can you please look at the recent history of Lexus - three new editors and an IP participating in some sort of idiocy. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:17, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

@NeilN: Methinks one or more is not a new editor but is returning banned or indef-blocked user. —C.Fred (talk) 03:23, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Me too. But acting on it is above my pay grade :) SPI to be sure or can you handle per WP:DUCK or something else? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:26, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Looks like The Bushranger took care of it. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:37, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Yep. And it confirms to me that my hunch was right. —C.Fred (talk) 03:40, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Holy crap! I just saw I was the one who made the very first Altimgamr sock report [6] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:44, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi from the College Football Playoff

	Hi from the College Football Playoff
	Can you please change CFP wiki image to correct logo? I can send you the file.. The current one you have uploaded is not the correct font.. Thank you, CFP Staff ([redacted]) LaurenLanier (talk) 21:06, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Replying at your talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 21:08, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I dont know how to use this "talk" feature.. Attempted to delete the logo in Wiki Commons. Can you please e-mail me? [redacted]

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by LaurenLanier (talk • contribs) 21:25, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

@LaurenLanier: No, I don't do email exchanges. To reply to my message, just edit your own user talk page, and write your reply below mine. —C.Fred (talk) 21:27, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Cagan´s definition of hyperinflation is not followed by any country.

Cagan´s definition of hyperinflation is not followed by any country. 147 countries today follow the IASB definition. This is verified and referenced in the article. MonteDaCunca (talk) 15:02, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

@MonteDaCunca: What's the difference between Cagan's methodology for defining inflation and the IASB one?~

@C.Fred): "Cagan defined in his book hyperinflation as starting in the month that the monthly inflation rate exceeds 50%, and as ending when the monthly inflation rate drops below 50% and stays that way for at least a year" per the WP article. Cagan wrote his book in 1956. This is since 1989 followed by no country in the world economy. Not even Venezuela today. The IAS's definition: "The cumulative inflation rate over three years approaches, or exceeds, 100%" comes to about 2.5% inflation per month, or 26% annual inflation for 3 years in a row. Cagan´s definition comes to about 13 000% inflation per annum. A massive difference. No country follows that. The IASB's definition is followed by 147 countries: all the countries that implement IFRS - according to PwC, referenced in the article. This issue is very clear. MonteDaCunca (talk) 15:21, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

You state that just about all of the inflation levels are per Cagan's definition. Please explain why the inflation levels are different per Cagan. If your only issue is that the countries don't cross IASB's 100% threshold, there are better ways to note that. —C.Fred (talk) 15:05, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

@C.Fred Please name one national government that today follows Cagan's definition? MonteDaCunca (talk) 16:52, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

regarding the editing in page "shiva'

I felt the content produces disharmony among two very prominent sects of hinduism.if you know the history of vaishnavism and shaivism,you'll know their followers have been trying sagaciously for ages to subvert the other.i believe wikipedia has no business flaring up such sentiments by highlighting stories of conflict between the two deities in its content.I can assure you such stories were fabricated in a very sectarian fashion during various periods of history and coerced within the original scriptures.you can consult experts for confirmation,but presently i would like you to help me remove such less than halcyon contents from wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ankisur2 (talk • contribs) 22:56, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Current members, Madison Rising, 2014.jpg

I have authorization from Purple Eagle Entertainment to use the image, and can provide proof if needed.TheGr8Gonzo (talk) 01:31, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Reply at your talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 01:50, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Okay, great. What do I need to tell them to provide in the way of authorization?TheGr8Gonzo (talk) 02:29, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Liliane Bettencourt

This is being used in scam email that's why I was changing it. As shown below and if this Wicca page is real you better stop the spammers or I will continue to deface this page. So get of your high horse and do something about the spam

[spam email text redacted] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.50.203.90 (talk) 02:32, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia can't do anything to stop the spam email. Further, the spammer are using Bettencourt's name but have no connection to her. —C.Fred (talk) 02:59, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

LamborghiniBot

LamborghiniBot is not a valid bot . . . it is sockpuppeteer User:Altimgamr and used my user name. Please block it. Bahooka (talk) 05:53, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

@Bahooka: I did block the account, but I think I forgot to remove your name from the user page. I also didn't make the connection to Altimgamr, although I had a feeling the account was a...repeat offender. Thank you for making the connection, and I'll change the block terms if nobody else has. —C.Fred (talk) 13:12, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

FYI

I blocked the Tu van account because all of their foundation content were copied from either the Clinton Foundation, Rockefeller Foundation, or a few other websites with the names changed. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:54, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

@Gogo Dodo: I had a feeling the text was copied; I hadn't had a chance to run the searches to figure out where from. —C.Fred (talk) 05:59, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

I ran the searches as I thought they were copying it from the foundation or center website and I was going to delete it for that reason. When I kept getting results from the Clinton Foundation and the Rockefeller Foundation, I knew something stranger was up. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:05, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Def of hyperinflation in IAS 29 Par 3 (e)

The source on Hyperinflation article is Deloitte, one of the Big Four audit firms: They know what they are talking about: The definition of hyperinflation is contained in Par 3 (e) of IAS 29: what the page is about on Deloitte's site. Def = hyperflation is 100% cumulative inflation over three years. See Definitions on the article page. 78.130.81.221 (talk) 17:51, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment

Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

TheLittleDuke

Yeah, I'm not without hope. Proceed as you see fit. Daniel Case (talk) 03:09, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Saba University edit

The information about the fact that the history of the university was a tax fraud conspiracy scheme belongs on the page. it is public knowledge. Do not remove it from there again unless you think it belongs in the history section. If there is an error in my syntax, then please inform me on my mistake EngineerMD (talk) 16:52, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

@EngineerMD: Where do you see that the school itself is fraudulent? I see that the owners engaged in fraud but not the school itself. See also my comment on the talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 16:58, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Hence why the school was "involved" in fraud. The $36 million was hidden in the school, and the school was valued at a sale price of $36 M. The public has a right to know. Man up and take the hits. You can blame the dean of clinical sciences. Ask him if he has learned anything yet. EngineerMD (talk) 17:23, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Anguish Sublime page

Hello. I am investigating why the page Anguish Sublime is deleted? This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because the band is a one of the bands that was influential band in the end of 1990's and beginning of 2000's in Serbian metal and underground scene. The band played on all major festivals in Serbia like Zajecar guitar competition, Exit Fest (2007), won the first place on Guitar competition in Vrbas, been on a 3rd place in demo scene competition organized by a national radio station Belgrade 202, and has been recognized as a new hope in Serbian underground scene.

It's members also formed an NGO named "Archaic Spawn" in Novi Sad, Serbia, that, in the period of 3 years organized many (over 50) domestic and international gigs and concerts (supporting many domestic and foreign bands, like German Obscura[7] for instance), as well as some cultural events, poetry nights, etc.

In wikipedia you can also find many similar bands, like Abonos [8], for example, which, by the level of importance does not differ much from Anguish Sublime in any wayCrnidk (talk) 04:41, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

@Crnidk: None of that was mentioned in the article. Further, the article cited no reliable sources that were independent of the band. Since I saw an article about a band with no charted albums, no other clear assertion of significance, and no reliable sources, that's why I deleted it. —C.Fred (talk) 15:00, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Giggett

Is adding speculation on the Total Drama page about Season 7 having more than 20 characters and 26 episodes without providing any legit sources or citations. Can you please warn him to stop or something? Thank you. 68.105.101.190 (talk) 17:39, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

FASTigerETURNS

C. Fred, how do you know that the edits i made are not accurate? Id you reserch the topic like I did? — Preceding unsigned comment added by FASTigerETURNS (talk • contribs) 02:27, 31 May 2014‎ (UTC)

C. Fred, I'd say this is enough rope to just block FASTigerETURNS. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:46, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

World Tomorrow

Can you explain to me the difference between fair use of a screenshot title card image being added to one article such as The World Tomorrow Wikipedia page with Julian Assange, but the very identical type and fair use screenshot image for the page The World Tomorrow with Herbert W, and Garner Ted Armstrong being not allowed. It seems to me you, and several others have fought very hard against allowing a title card photo to be uploaded to the original Wikipedia page for The World Tomorrow television series for many years as one reviews the history of the page. It would make any wonder why the double standard? Why the blatant favoritism toward promoting one TV show and series which ripped off the name of the original? 85Rebels — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85Rebels (talk • contribs) 19:28, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

@85Rebels: A fair use screenshot image is probably in order for the Armstrongs' TV show article. However, I haven't seen one added to date. However, I have yet to see one added. The image that was added, you claimed to be your own work. I didn't delete the image, but I'm assuming whoever did took it down for infringing the show's copyrights. —C.Fred (talk) 19:31, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

CFred

I never claimed to own or authorship of the title card. I am not the owner or author. I just uploaded an image from Google images for The World Tomorrow. I am not close to the subject. I am new and was also going to upload an image for another page, until I see the censorship going on around here on Wikipedia. You've censored an image being added to this particular page before, with a different reason that time. It appears a different reason is given each time by a handful of editors watching this page in a concentrated effort not to allow an image to be added to this television program. And you avoided answering my question, why the double standard. Why is their an image on the Julian Assange World Tomorrow page, and not the Herbert W Armstrong and Garner Ted Armstrong World Tomorrow page. As a lead Wikipedia editor, surely you can very easily take it upon yourself to add the image from the wealth of available images in the public domain since 1934.

This was another excuse you once used for not allowing an image to be added, and then you didn't even fix it and add one yourself:

(cur | prev) 02:38, 25 August 2013‎ C.Fred (talk | contribs)‎ . . (12,840 bytes) (-77)‎ . . (Undid revision 570071054 by Wv859 (talk) - image has not been uploaded to en.wikipedia yet) (undo | thank)

Signed 85Rebels — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85Rebels (talk • contribs) 19:46, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

@85Rebels: You did claim authorship. That's why I left the COI message on your talk page: you uploaded the title card and claimed it was your own work. You also uploaded the image to Wikimedia Commons, and Commons does not accept non-free or fair-use images. Any image under a non-free license is subject to deletion from Commons.

It is not always true, but it is a general rule that when somebody uploads an image they found on Google images, the image is not free. Wikipedia is very strict about using non-free images; Commons doesn't allow any non-free images. Yes, the rules are cumbersome, especially with the hurdles to justify use of a non-free image. (It's just about impossible to do on a biography of a living person.)

As for the question, my answer is the same as before: there is no double standard. The article on Assange's show has a title card image because an image was uploaded to the English Wikipedia with the proper justifications under the non-free content criteria. The Armstrongs' show does not have an image because one has not been uploaded to the English Wikipedia with the proper justifications. —C.Fred (talk) 20:04, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Do you really think the article is better off having a red link in the infobox? —C.Fred (talk) 20:05, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Ok Fred, stop yappin about it and fix the problem yourself then since you know exactly what needs to be done. (And I did not claim authorship, I just uploaded an image). Try doing the same thing with the Armstrong World Tomorrow page that was done with the Assange World Tomorrow page, as you described since you're so concerned about this one particular page. Fix the issue and upload an image in the same exact manner. (Or do you have yet another excuse not to do so?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85Rebels (talk • contribs) 21:23, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

When you tagged the image as "own work", you claimed authorship. As for adding an image, I don't have an image or a source for one, so there's not much I can do. —C.Fred (talk) 21:36, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

100s Wiki Page

Yo man if you could refer to the thread on STATicVapor's Talk Page for why I made those changes that would be prime, I'm just working on behalf of the artist to try and portray him in the most accurate way possible, and most certainly trying to correct any wrong information that is contained in his wikipedia page. Adamberson510 (talk) 04:06, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

@Adamberson510: Then I'm sure SV has pointed out the conflict of interest guidelines, which you need to abide by since you're editing on behalf of the artist, as well as WP:Verifiability, which says sources need to have been published in reliable sources. —C.Fred (talk) 04:12, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Zielfahrzeug 68

Hello, I tried to protect the page Zielfahrzeug 68 and Panzer 68. Id you have a look at the history you can see that someone with differend anonym IP's is "playing" araound. Unfortunatly I don't know good how to do such protection. As you removed my atemp i think i had made it wrong. so I ask you if you can add this protection on this 2 pages?. Thank you. FLORAKO (talk) 17:47, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

@FLORAKO: I don't see enough recent vandalism to warrant it, but if you think protection is needed, you can request it at WP:Requests for page protection. —C.Fred (talk) 17:49, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

O.K. Thank you.

FLORAKO (talk) 18:12, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Help Please

I'm not auto-confirmed anymore? I've been editing Wikipedia for almost 4 years now and for some reason Wikipedia thinks I'm a "new user", so why is that? Giggett (talk) 16:43, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

@Giggett: Your user rights page says you're autoconfirmed. What page triggered an error that makes you think you aren't? —C.Fred (talk) 17:19, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Both Total Drama: Pahkitew Island and iPhone. Giggett (talk) 17:21, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Never mind, it seems to be working now again :) Giggett (talk) 17:29, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

@Giggett: Odd. The log shows you had the autocomfirmed right all along. Let me know if you see any other unusual behavior. —C.Fred (talk) 17:32, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, you can see my earlier edit still marked as pending, while my later edits are all "automatically accepted". Also, my edit on the iPhone article didn't even went through. Maybe it's was just a minor bug that only lasted about an hour. Giggett (talk) 17:38, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Never mind it's back, and User:Snowy66 seems to be affected by it too. Both of our edits seems to be put on a wait list, while the article is only semi-protected, yet it seems only admins' edits are being automatically accepted. Giggett (talk) 22:08, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

@Giggett: I think I see what happened. Because your edit is after a pending edit, it didn't auto-accept yours. You should be able to accept your own edit, but it's a safety measure so you don't accidentally accept somebody else's edit. I think. —C.Fred (talk) 23:46, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Your input could help at ANI

There's an ANI discussion about a topic ban for me. 2 involved editors opposed to me keep editing my response to the topic ban request. I keep reverting it, past 3RR. I thought it was vandalism to edit a reply against the will of someone you are debating. Your input would help. Not sure if you fel like looking at the topic ban itself but the revert question and the editors' behavior is all I'm requesting now. Useitorloseit (talk) 02:29, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)OP keeps inserting BLP-violating material in a discussion on his upcoming topic ban from the related article (for, among other things, edit warring). His response to this was to call the editors involved vandals even after WP:NOTVAND was pointed out to him, repeatedly. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:33, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

OK, let's not drag out this discussion on this page. AN/I is the appropriate venue. Go Phightins! 02:36, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Request for article protection

Hello C. Fred!

You helped me with an article recently, so I am applying to you for help with the article titled "National Society of Leadership and Success." An unregistered user has been inserting information into the article that is inaccurate. I have recently edited the article, cleaned it up, and added much needed references to independent sources, but I am concerned that someone may want to reintroduce misinformation.

Specifically, an earlier draft of the article says that the society has been described as a "vanity society" or a "moneymaking machine." I carefully examined the sources that back up these claims. One is a New Jersey state website that says nothing about the organization that I could find by searching the site. The other source says that some parents have called the university with questions about the fees charged by both for-profit and non-profit honor societies. The second source is overall extremely bullish on this particular organization and does not single it out as one about which parents are calling.

The earlier draft of the article also states that the society has a B rating with the Better Business Bureau. This may have been true at one point (I don't know), but the source sited, a page from the BBB, shows an A- rating.

So I am wondering if you could padlock the article with some layer of protection to discourage idle additions of misinformation, at least for the immediate future.

Lynn--Georgiasouthernlynn (talk) 18:51, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

@Georgiasouthernlynn: I've added the article to my watchlist. A quick look shows that the article needs serious attention. The first section I looked at, History, is copied from the NSLS website and infringes their copyright. That section will need completely rewritten. There might be other sections in the same situation.

As far as article protection, that's usually done when there is persistent, ongoing vandalism from multiple editors. I only see two editors (or likely one logged in and one logged out) about six days ago. That's not enough to warrant protection; as I said, I'm watching the page, so I'll see if there are any further flurries of activity. —C.Fred (talk) 19:08, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

June 2014 (moved from user page)

I am lgnmrshllhlms. On Desilu Productions, it says the parents of the company. Their only parent was Gulf + Western Also, their fate was that they were purchased by Gulf + Western and renamed Paramount Television. After their defunct, Paramount Television, CBS, Desilu Too, and Lucille Ball Productions continued all Desilu Productions content.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lgnmrshllhlms (talk • contribs)

Moved from your user page. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:32, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

The Center Line: Spring 2014


Volume 7, Issue 2 • Spring 2014 • About the Newsletter
Departments Assessment roundup Portal selected articles and pictures	Features Under a moonlit (and lightning-quick) sky: Lua, , and what's next The new and improved HWY Cup Making shields 101 The Maple Syrup Report	State and national updates Project news in brief Five years ago... A chat with our newest USRD members
Archives • Newsroom • Full Issue • Shortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS

—MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:05, 8 June 2014 (UTC) on behalf of Imzadi1979

Filucz2004

He's returned under a new account. See the details here. Blatant block evasion. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 22:43, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

@XXSNUGGUMSXX: Blatant enough that I blocked him. —C.Fred (talk) 19:33, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you sir. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 20:12, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Boards

Hi Fred,

Reg Boards.ie changes - what configures a primary source of information (versus a secondary source) for the edit, so that the insertion complies with Wikipedia regulations? In the case of this article, edits were made based on primary source of information - the terms and conditions of the company.

And if certain aspects of a Wikipedia entry are disputed by owners of a company who are worried about leaks and whistle blowers, how can we make sure that the factual information remains in Wikipedia and the political interests and disputes are not getting in the way of real information reaching the lay public?

I would appreciate your help on this matter.

Kind regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 0102April0102 (talk • contribs) 23:42, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Replied at your talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 13:59, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi, the birth year of my sister Kriti Sanon is 1989. I correct it again and again but my changes get rejected. The wrong birth year is creating a lot of confusion among her fans..kindly accept my changes and correct the birth year to 1989.Nupursanon (talk) 10:34, 10 June 2014 (UTC) look at This pdf file.. ceodelhi.gov.in/.../AC59/A0590132.pdf look for address 306-B ...you would get the proof of Kriti Sanon's age ..she is 24 and will turn 25 on 27th July.. Her birth year is 1989. Kindly accept this change. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nupursanon (talk • contribs) 10:50, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Replied at your talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 13:59, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Jhinwar split

Hi

Actually India is very vast.Their are lakes and farms in north and dry desert in west and plain lands in central and west.So people from north have different clan and caste.That's why I want to keep Kashyap Rajputs of North and West different.Because they are different in each and every fact.Be it social status, languages, culture.I want the correct knowledge to be spread out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greatvirgo (talk • contribs) 17:50, 10 June 2014‎ (UTC)

@Greatvirgo: Then I suggest discussing it at Talk:Jhinwar to see if there's support for a split. —C.Fred (talk) 17:54, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Why dont you just take the page off.Trust me.Being Indian there are always going have different opinions. Why dont you keep kashayp as kashyap and keep kashyap rajputs the way its correct as I am uploading — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greatvirgo (talk • contribs) 17:58, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the page- 1984 anti-Sikh riots

yes, indeed neutrality should be maintained. Then, why are you removing my edits which were aimed at maintaining neutrality.

1984 anti-Sikh riots page mentions that: The Central Bureau of Investigation, the main Indian investigating agency, is of the opinion that the acts of violence were organized with the support from the then Delhi police officials and the central government headed by Indira Gandhi's son, Rajiv Gandhi.[7] Rajiv Gandhi was sworn in as Prime Minister after his mother's death and, when asked about the riots, said "when a big tree falls, the earth shakes".[8]

Genocide page of Wikipedia mentions that: Genocide is the systematic destruction of all or part of a racial, ethnic, religious or national group via the (a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; or (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

So, now it is clearly proved that page should be named as 1984 Sikh Genocide.

Please, check the discussion page 1984 anti-Sikh riots article. there are various people demanding the change of the article name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unvog (talk • contribs) 04:39, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Merge

I don't think the TDAS and TDPI articles should be merged since their content are completely different and their airdates are so far apart that they might as well serves a different series, especially since the size of TDAS or TDPI is no bigger than Season 4, and that has its own article. Giggett (talk) 17:47, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

@Giggett: The issue I have is out-of-universe notability. The articles cannot be just a regurgitation of plot points, character descriptions, and episode outcomes. There needs to be some meat to the article in terms of writing about the production of the show or its relevance in the real world. Further, other TV shows in the project use the one-article-per-season approach: consider Battlestar Galactica (season 2). —C.Fred (talk) 17:51, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Okay you are right. I'll begin the merge process then and join the production and cast sections together since those are all out-of-universe. The infoboxes and episode tables will have to be merged into one also. Also, the color will be orange for the whole season and have a airdate of Jan 2014 to whenever TDPI is done in Canada. As for the character sections, I'll reduce those sections to a simple sentences and maybe join them with the cast sections, but seeing that the TDAS has source for every character, what should we do about all those sources? Giggett (talk) 17:58, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Also, you mind deleting the Total Drama: Pahkitew Island article and redirecting it to Total Drama (season 5) since most of the information from the old article is already on the new one? Also, I already moved all the Total Drama All-Stars article history to the new article so no need to worry about that. Giggett (talk) 20:52, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I have not deleted it, since that page has the history for the TDPI content. I've done a null edit to the season 5 article to note that. —C.Fred (talk) 20:58, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Okay, and what should we do with their corresponding episode articles, should I merge those into one big 26 episode article? Giggett (talk) 21:24, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Since it's one season, yep. —C.Fred (talk) 23:14, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Okay then, I went ahead and merged List of Total Drama All-Stars episodes and List of Total Drama: Pahkitew Island episodes together into one big article, so can you go ahead and delete all of the article content of the original TDAS episode article and then redirect like you did with the TDPI season article? I don't want to do it myself since it might be reverted by a bot. Giggett (talk) 23:27, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Done. The merge probably should have gone the other way there, but oh well. —C.Fred (talk) 00:06, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

We have a problem, turns out that the merging of the two articles also merged all the images into one location, and now people are saying that there are too many images in the article and that they want it deleted. Come here and explain the situation please. I don't think all the logos and cast images should be deleted since they were all needed in their proper single articles before the merge. Giggett (talk) 17:55, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Hannah Montana

As you're probably aware, the Hannah Montana season articles have remained relatively stable (by Wikipedia standarss) for some time, partly at least due to the notes that we added and the references that we left in the article. However, we now have a relatively inexperienced editor making some problematic changes, removing notes and references because the episode have aired. The issue now is Disney's spelling of "Love That Let's [sic] Go". He has deleted the Disney citation that was the authoritative reference for the episode title, as aired, that was used in the article, but which is now dead. He's also restored a claim very similar to one that Ii just deleted because it had been challenged for four years. As you were one of the article editors at the time the episode aired, your input would be appreciated. This particular editor has caused some issues at Glee episode articles recently so I doubt he'll go away quietly. I've asked him to discuss on the article's talk page, but so far he hasn't done so. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:40, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot to update this. He still seems to be pushing his view though, making the original title the alternate title. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:59, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

We got a problem

Turns out that a vandal moved the Total Drama article all over the place and then non-admins tried to fix it and in result we got a bunch of fake articles with the full article history while the real original article is just a redirect now. So can you please delete this article to make way so you can move this article back to it's original? Giggett (talk) 13:40, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

It looks like the original article history wound up at Stop ! Total Drama Presents: The Ridonculous Race; it's now back at the original title. Let me know if I missed anything in the fixing. —C.Fred (talk) 13:50, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

CSD

I was just trying to figure out what CSD criteria The Income Tax Preparer when I saw you tagged it in the meantime. It doesn't actually seem to be advertising/promoting anything in particular, but the tone and content are completely unencyclopedic (WP:NOT issues galore). It likewise doesn't precisely duplicate Registered Tax Return Preparer. Nor does it fit into any of the A7 categories. Thoughts? --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 02:23, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: There were a couple of external links, and that's why I went the G11 route. It felt like a vehicle for referral links. —C.Fred (talk) 02:25, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I didn't click them, but the URLs didn't seem that way to me. It just seemed like ... a really inappropriate bit of text (a how-to, original research, and whatnot). --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 02:33, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Erra (band)

What is it with you guys who kept deleting that page over and over again. Its rather annoying that people tries to discredit a group of artists and it also harms public knowledge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NotyetaMentat (talk • contribs) 18:56, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

@NotyetaMentat: We're not trying to discredit them. The article you have created has not shown that they are a notable band; only notable bands may have articles. —C.Fred (talk) 00:10, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Panorama Tower

Hi Fred I reloaded the NE view of the Panorama Tower on. " contribute an image. " but I did not replace it on the article in Wikipedia Let me know how this pic can re appear as someone recently removed it ... You may want to check on Curb Miami more of my images were uploaded by their writer Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cosicher (talk • contribs) 19:07, 15 June 2014‎ (UTC)

@Cosicher: If the images are on Curb Miami, make sure you have clearly stated there that the images are under a free license. If it looks like it's non-free, it will likely not be usable. —C.Fred (talk) 00:11, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Paul Delima Coffee

Hi C.Fred. I added a page for Paul Delima Coffee. We are a company in New York that was founded by a woman in 1906, incorporated in 1916 and has been in operation since then. I'd like to add a page on Wikipedia for this. A company founded by a woman, incorporated by her son and that has existed since 1916 is quite a feat in an of itself. I think the documentation of the history that we share here especially in Central New York is wonderful. Theodore Roosevelt once wrote a letter stating how he appreciated our efforts. Please let me know how we can become a permanent page on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.90.72.18 (talk) 14:33, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

@72.90.72.18: Nearly 100 years of existence does not make it a notable company directly, although it stands to reason that the company will have gotten enough coverage in reliable sources in that time to meet the guidelines of WP:CORP and WP:GNG. The article that was created last year did not meet those criteria; that's why it was deleted. —C.Fred (talk) 18:28, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Sahyounie

here's the proof that's there's no i please look at the picture thank you https://twitter.com/iAdore_Luke/status/434054829015445504 (Its sahyoune not sahyounie (talk) 03:28, 24 June 2014 (UTC)).

@Its sahyoune not sahyounie: Not only is there no way to prove the reliability of that image, but IDs and primary sources are not permitted per WP:BLPPRIMARY. —C.Fred (talk) 03:30, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

How much time?

Hi C.Fred, Is there a time frame here? I need more time to understand how to post a page here properly.

Sincerely, healingnow4u 06-24-14Healingnow4u (talk) 18:54, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

@Healingnow4u: A time frame for what? Speedy deletion allows for almost immediate deletion, especially in the case of copyright infringements or blatant promotion. —C.Fred (talk) 18:57, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Should I (or you) unblock?

After I saw the sock puppetry I blocked[9] for 72 hours, then noticed your warning. I've asked MaterialScientist but he hasn't responded and forgot to ask your advice? Unblock now he's served his 24 hours and hope he'll be good? Dougweller (talk) 20:51, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

@Dougweller: I didn't extend the block because s/he hadn't repeated the sockpuppetry. It's certainly within reason for you to roll your own block extension back to just 24 hours (or unblock if s/he's reached time served). —C.Fred (talk) 20:54, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

I've rolled it back to 3 hours, which is probably an extension of about 2 1/2 hours. Dougweller (talk) 21:01, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, that was a mistake. He carried on with the same edits, just a different article. He was lucky, he's only been given a 1 week block. I'd have indeff'd him as obviously WP:NOTHERE. Dougweller (talk) 19:07, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Your dachshund userbox

Hi, I just wanted to say that I've never laughed at a userbox before but, the one you've for the dachshund really made me chuckle. Very subtle.. It's great. You totally nailed that one. :) dsprc ^[talk] 05:00, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Stole it for my userpage, must get a pic of my dog. Hope you don't mind. Dougweller (talk) 21:10, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

{{subst:Dougweller}} Go right ahead; I don't mind at all. Nor is the pic one of my dog; I'm using free clip art. I should swap the pic on my userpage out with a pic of my dog, though. Hrm... —C.Fred (talk) 01:59, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

BNE Scam

I was a victim of BNE's scam as many others were and continue to be. The scam is well documented and like it or not, it's part of BNE's history. The facts of this scam should be added to his wiki page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smitrovich (talk • contribs) 02:58, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

@Smitrovich: In other words, you just admitted you have a conflict of interest with the subject. As a result, you should not be editing his article. You may propose edits at the talk page, but you need to make sure to have strong sources that are independent of the situation. —C.Fred (talk) 03:01, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

The person who created the wiki page and is undoing all the edits is BNE himself. I would say that is a conflict of interest. I am only interested in the facts around the scam being added to BNEs history. One of those facts is that Charity:Water returned the $35,000.00 donation and ordered BNE by legal action to remove all mention of their organization from his websites due to this scam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smitrovich (talk • contribs)

@Smitrovich: Multiple editors have created the edits and undone the page. Are you really asserting that all of them are BNE? —C.Fred (talk) 03:08, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

User "Louiesan" is BNE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smitrovich (talk • contribs) 03:10, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

@Smitrovich: What about the four other editors? —C.Fred (talk) 03:15, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I see several users attempting to add cited facts about the scam to the wiki page, and I see Louiesan undoing them. Smitrovich (talk) 03:21, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

BNE

Hello C.Fred. I have added further citations to the BNE thread, including one from StreetArtNews, the #1 Urban Art news site, plus a statement from Charity:Water, the 501(c)3 organization in the middle of this scam. I don't understand why the scam controversy is being blocked, especially since it is the defining moment in BNE's career and is 100% legitimate. Banksy said he was used by BNE to scam thousands of people out of hundreds of thousands of dollars. PayPal froze BNE account because they had so many scam complaints. This is a legitimate news story with hundreds of articles written about it online. It is clear that friends of BNE (or BNE himself) are trying to remove the content becuase the scam is being investigated by the authorities,

thx — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sonicyouthbh1 (talk • contribs) 02:14, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. And I have read all the iterations of the various updates to the BNE entry—they are factual and backed up with legitimate citations. I really question why these edits are being removed without care for the facts. Smitrovich (talk) 03:39, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

BNE Scam edits

Dear Sir

I hold that the edit I made to replace the 'contested' information is factual and true to the best of my knowledge. I am aware that multiple editors have been involved in contesting the information, just as multiple editors (including myself) have sought to preserve what we believe to be factual and has been widely reported by many websites.

I don't understand why the edits are now being blocked. I understand that in your opinion there is an 'orchestrated effort to post contested information' , but with the organized responses of the counter-editors, is it unreasonable to consider that perhaps there is an equally orchestrated effort to contest the material in question, and that it is perhaps being orchestrated by a party who is not objective? BNE has a history of deleting and blocking messages made by those he has allegedly scammed and, whilst not all these editors are likely to be him, it is highly likely that he is one of the main parties contesting the information here and quite possible that the other editors are affiliates.

Why is one group able to contest the information and another group denied the chance to repeatedly contest that act?

Kind regards Otomo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Otomochaser (talk • contribs) 03:40, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

@Otomochaser: As I noted in the WP:BLPN case about the article, "widely reported by many websites" is not the same thing as getting coverage in reliable sources. The biographies of living persons policy says to err on the side of caution: the more serious a claim, the stronger the sources need to be. For an assertion of running a major scam, the source really needs to be a newspaper or similar publication with a good reputation for fact checking—not somebody's personal blog or a website that posts a disclaimer that its material may not be accurate and it doesn't run corrections.

I also point out that the BLPN case was brought by one of the editors trying to add the material: they invited the scrutiny onto the edits themselves. They should've been prepared for the genie let out of the bottle by the report (or the boomerang effect). —C.Fred (talk) 03:52, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I fail to see how the citations provided do not meet the standards for identifying reliable sources as defined in the link above. Smitrovich (talk) 04:02, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I have not seen the article to which you refer, but I shall check it out. I also understand your position on this as laid out in your message above. I can't argue with it, I get why you needed to remove my edit. I shan't attempt to post the same contested information again, until such time as it can be sourced to a reputable publication at which point I trust it will be allowed to remain. Not that I can repost it anyway, since the page has been put into protection mode. I now understand your reasons for that, however, so thank you for your explanation on this matter.

Kind regards, Otomo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Otomochaser (talk • contribs) 04:05, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I have "no horse in this contest"... did not get "scammed" but what the other edits say is true - if you take the time to search google you will find dozens of articles that speak of the scam. That being said, is there a way to contest your decision and bring in another moderate the dispute? 24.97.4.148 (talk) 19:13, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

what about Complex Magazine as a citation? They are a major news magazine. http://www.complex.com/art-design/2014/03/banksy-bne-collaboration-fake

Hi Fred, Thanks for protecting the page. I just wanted to let you know that the "scam" narrative was originally propagated by the cited website, animalnewyork.com. The very few other blogs that wrote about this simply copy and pasted the Animal story without doing any fact checking. No real media outlet has covered this. BNE worked with Animal in 2009 and had a falling out with them. The person making edits is an employee and founder of animalnewyork.com. The cited article and wiki edits are an attempt to discredit BNE and incite an unwarranted police investigation. These edits and the proganda contained within the 3 online articles written by animalnewyork are harrassment motivated by a personal beef. With kind regards, @Louiesan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Louiesan (talk • contribs) 22:53, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Furthermore, the Complex article sited above was not only a copy and paste of the Animal article, the Animal employee harassing BNE is also a former employee of Complex. Proof here: http://www.complex.com/pop-culture/2010/01/animal-instinct-bucky-turcos-greatest-internet-moments — Preceding unsigned comment added by Louiesan (talk • contribs) 01:18, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

What about BNE's own admission that the claims of a Banksy claim were fraudulent (his apology on his website has since been taken down, or Banksy's PR rep. stating that it was a scam? Or one of the artist involved, Faile, stating it was a scam after they asked BNE to give out 100 COA's to prove only 100 shirts were sold, which he refused to do, then Faile asking BNE to take down any mention of their involvement because of the scam? Also, paypal froze BNE's account because of so many complaints. THIS IS A SERIOUS, AND VERY ILLEGAL SCAM PERPETRATED BY BNE AND SHOULD BE PART OF HIS BIOGRAPHY. IT IS BY FAR THE INCIDENT THAT HE IS MOST WIDELY KNOWN FOR. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.76.37.21 (talk) 03:13, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

If it's "the incident that he is most widely known for", then you should be able to easily find some major-media news sources that have covered it. —C.Fred (talk) 03:15, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Find me an article on BNE that DOESN'T mention the scam, C.Fred. Why do I have the feeling you are friends with BNE? Can we bring in another moderator, since I believe you are being biased.

BNE conducted mail, wire, and presumably tax fraud by refusing to admit how many shirts sold and only reporting the sale of 100 when clearly more were sold. He is NOT a non-profit and should be paying tax on these sales

The only hit on Google News for the the terms "bne" and "t-shirt" is the animalnewyork.com. In other words, no major-media news sources exist for it. Per WP:BLP, you need to cite a source before you make an allegation, even on a talk page; your allegations of mail fraud should likely be removed. —C.Fred (talk) 04:17, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

There are plenty of legit art magazines (with employed staff) who reported on this, but since they are not WSJ or MSNBC, you refuse to acknowledge them. Please show me where in wikipedia's guidelines it says that only "major-media news sources" can be accepted as citations. You can't because it doesn't exist. You are showing that it is your own bias that is preventing the facts from being published. How do we get another moderator involved who will look at the facts objectively? Smitrovich (talk) 04:34, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Another admin has already opined that the sources that User:Sonicyouthbh1 added do not meet the reliability criteria. Since no experienced users have come to the defence of the sources, I'd say that's a pretty clear indicator that the sources aren't reliable. Also, Sonicyouthbh1 made that appeal at the biographies of living people noticeboard—a widely-watched noticeboard. So, I'd say plenty of extra eyes have looked at the situation. —C.Fred (talk) 06:32, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

As another user stated, pulling off the Banksy scam is what BNE is most known for. Clearly you and this other admin are not qualified to moderate entries related to street art. If so, you would know all about this. And you would be familiar with the sources. Got to say, this pretty much validates what people continually say about wikipedia being factually inaccurate. Smitrovich (talk) 01:04, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

It is highly probable that the harassing edits and comments on talk are coming from the same person using multiple user names and probably multiple IP addresses. Louiesan (talk) 03:32, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

not true - wikipedia can see your IP address and will not allow one user to edit under multiple names. Louiesan is BNE and is trying to erase this information because of the rumors that law enforcement is becoming involved. all info or questions were also erased from his Instagram account. All victims of the scam are being asked to report to local and nation authorities — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.76.37.21 (talk) 22:44, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

@74.76.37.21: A couple of things. First, Wikipedia can see the IP addresses that users use. However, this is available to only a limited subset of users, and they do not, as a matter of practice, use the ability without solid justification for checking. Second, be very careful asserting what the offline identify of a user is. Any attempt to reveal personal information, whether accurate or not, could give rise to a block for attempted outing. Third, WP:BLP applies even to user talk pages. Rumours that "law enforcement is becoming involved", as you said, should be mentioned only when clarified as rumours, and they really shouldn't be mentioned at all. Fourth, I'm not sure what action on an Instagram account has to do with anything on Wikipedia.

Given that you keep mentioning potential law enforcement involvement, it's probably a good idea if you read through WP:BLP and WP:NLT. —C.Fred (talk) 23:18, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Trolling

I have gotten your msg about an edit war . I did not initiate the war. The other person did so and he is HARASSING me with it. Maybe you can tell him to stop!! This is getting ridiculous and childish!! Im new here and wish the other guy would stop targeting me every chance he gets. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hypervalentanion (talk • contribs) 05:01, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

@Hypervalentanion: The message was about your conduct, not the other user's. Regardless of who initiated the war, you participated in it. Also, I don't see any evidence that he's targeting you, so much as you both have the same page on your watchlist or are otherwise interested in it. —C.Fred (talk) 05:04, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Winterberg Article

I removed the content and restored sourced content an editor took out in his attempt to make Winterberg look like a Nazi. Wikipedia is not a Tabloid and Winterberg is a living person, which means he is due a certain amount of respect. If you follow the edits this editor has made he has tried multiple times to make him look like a Nazi with inappropriate edits.

Ludmilla112 (talk) 16:24, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Quincy Troupe

Starting a person's career section with the most controversial aspect of it seems libelous, no, for someone who's still alive.--Aichik (talk) 20:46, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

@Aichik: Not if it's the only thing in the article tied to a reliable source! —C.Fred (talk) 20:55, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

In your opinion. If he were an author about a important book on dachshunds you'd agree with me. Take care.--Aichik (talk) 21:15, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Should I start a block request to the IP adress?

Hello C.Fred, First of all, thank you for removing the personal attacks on my talk page.(1, 2). The user has attacked me with swear words calling me "son of a prostitute, "son of a dog" and also a very bad word which I can not translate on your talk page. He also said I didn't write about a news situation that is already in the article. So there is false accusations and swear word usage. What do you think? Thanks for taking your time to read my message.Rivaner (talk) 14:37, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

@Rivaner: The IP has been quiet since 08:30 UTC today, so it's unlikely that it will be blocked just for today's activity. It would take a long-term pattern to show the IP is being used exclusively or primarily by a single person. That said, I have the IP's talk page on my watch list. If there are further incidents and any user (including you) leaves the IP a warning message, I'll see that the warning has been given. And if you think it really is starting to be a trend from this IP, leave me another message, and I'll take a look again.

The problem with IP blocks is there can be collateral damage where innocent people get blocked. That's why IP blocks tend to be short-term until a longer-term pattern emerges. —C.Fred (talk) 14:45, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

OK then, I'll post a warning on the IP adress' talk page and see where it goes from there. Thanks for your explanation and help.Rivaner (talk) 14:47, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

@Rivaner: If it's for the messages the IP left on your user talk, I've already warned them for that. —C.Fred (talk) 14:48, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I just saw that! Thanks for that too.Rivaner (talk) 14:49, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Rich Piana page

it says you deleted the page for Rich Piana, is it possible you could reactivate it or do i have too start a new one???

from Chris Bullard — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris bullard01 (talk • contribs) 09:02, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

@Chris bullard01: All that was in the article was a list of competitions he entered. I suggest that you start a draft of the article at Draft:Rich Piana. Work on it there, making sure he's clearly shown to be a notable person and that reliable sources are cited in the article. Once you think the article is up to speed, send me another message. I'll review and either give pointers or move it to the main encyclopedia. —C.Fred (talk) 13:33, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Vocelli Pizza

Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we publish the opinions only of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves. Proper sourcing always depends on context; common sense and editorial judgment are an indispensable part of the process. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moldytoaster (talk • contribs) 17:58, 14 July 2014‎(UTC)

Saif Ali Khan

Regarding your edit [10] at Saif Ali Khan, this is properly sourced information about his Afghan connection through his father. If the same source is used for his mother's ethnic background then why do you remove the same source revealing his father's ethnic background? Wikipedia should be neutral and if sources say he is of Afghan heritage then we add that information without needing approval from editors who happen to be anti-Afghan. The other editor (Saladin1987) is obviously anti-Afghan (his own state of mind and his actions have clearly revealed this). How can you expect such an editor to agree on adding Khan's Afghan heritage in talk page? Khan is proud of being Afghan and nobody has ever disputed his heritage so there is no need to get any consensus in order to add someone's verified (undisputed) heritage in an article. You are not being neutral at all.--39.47.29.108 (talk) 20:50, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

@39.47.29.108: One of the things I noted with your edit was the weak wording. You mentioned that he was reported as being Afghan; that wording casts doubt onto the claim. As for it not being disputed, it has been disputed: by User:Saladin1987. Even though there are only two of you involved, I still recommend that you go to the talk page and get support for the change. Best as I can tell, you're adding the text to the article, so that's why the burden to get consensus lies with you. —C.Fred (talk) 20:57, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

The sources state:

"In June 2005, Mansoor Ali Khan was arrested for poaching an endangered Blackbuck. He was released on bail after two days in jail. Ancestors of Saif Ali Khan came from Afghanistan 532 years ago. The family belongs to Bhadech clan. The first ruler in the family was Sardar Shams Khan who was born in 1190 and died in 1280. IAK Pataudi was married to the daughter of last Nawab of Bhopal Sajida Sultan in 1939. Nawab Hamiduallah Khan had two daughters. Therefore, he declared his elder daughter Abida Sultan as his successor but Abida shifted to Pakistan at the time of partition. The government took charge of the entire property of Hamidullah. Sajida went to court against it. After a long battle, Pataudi’s mother was considered to be the successor of Nawab Hamidullah in 1961. And this is how, her son Mansoor Ali Khan Pataudi got the entire property. It was his love for Haryana that when he decided to contest Lok Sabha elections, he chose to contest from Gurgaon seat in 1971 though he didn’t win the elections. He also tried from Bhopal twice but failed."

--- http://daily.bhaskar.com/article/HAR-the-afghanistan-connection-with-saif-ali-khans-pataudi-family-and-his-begum-kare-4349905-PHO.html#seq=11

"I feel very comfortable living here. My forefathers came here from Afghanistan during the time of the Lodis and established themselves after Aurangazeb died. Pataudi was set up as a principality by the English. ... FIVE HUNDRED years ago, Mansur Ali Khan's ancestors came from Afghanistan, equipped with superb skills in horsemanship, and looking for greener pastures. Salamat Khan, his forefather arrived in India in 1480 A.D. with his clan during the time of Bahlul, an Afghan of the Lodi tribe, says Tiger's uncle in his book on the history of the family. Bahlul was governor of the Punjab and later ruled Delhi. A mass migration of Afghans to India took place during his time. Salamat Khan's family was chosen to quell the Mevati tribe.

--- http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/mag/2003/08/03/stories/2003080300740800.htm

How can Saladin1987 dispute this information? Is there a source that says Khan's father is of another background? No. Did Khan ever deny being of Afghan heritage? No. A good article is one that reveals background of father and mother... not only mother.--39.47.29.108 (talk) 21:15, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

@39.47.29.108: There is an issue with the Manual of Style that may also be in play. If what is now Afghanistan was not called Afghanistan then, we need to go by the name at the time or use a phrase like "what is present-day Afghanistan". This is an issue with a lot of ice hockey articles: a player who hails from what is now a city in Russia or Belarus would be listed as being born in the USSR, because that was the name of the country at the time. —C.Fred (talk) 21:26, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

The sources are clearly referring to what is the modern state of Afghanistan when it mentions "Afghanistan"... they are not talking about a place that was called Afghanistan 500 years ago. Btw, there was no 3rd world country Pakistan 500 years ago. Afghanistan and India were not separate countries, they were both one cultural territory, people moved freely (there was no visa requirement or anything).--39.47.29.108 (talk) 21:29, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

you cant use Afghan word as its a nationality now and there was no Afghanistan until 1800s, but there were empires and we cant use their names. Also to be an afghan he at least needs to speak either Dari or Pashto but he doesnt understand any of those two languages. In india every khan calls himself a pathan but i have never heard people calling themselves Afghan. Also for example qureshis and zaidis are arab surnames amongst Pakistani and Afghan people so if some body says my Ancestors came from Saudi Arab so should we mention he has saudi arabian just because he beleives his ancestors came from that place . the answer is no.. Afghan is nationality and saif ali khan is a indian national . Also Afghanistan seems like super power in your version and was present in the world since begining of time. Also Mentioning ethnicity is not right we should also remove her mothers ethnicity as people look at his work rather than where his ancestors came from.. also if we go by your logic then every Syed would be an arabSaladin1987 13:34, 15 July 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saladin1987 (talk • contribs)

I repeat my previous comment: I suggest the two of you discuss this matter at the talk page of the article to get a broad consensus on how to proceed. —C.Fred (talk) 13:39, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Please restore pokepasta

Please restore my fan made subject called pokepasta. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iloveharrystyles01 (talk • contribs) 21:09, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

@Iloveharrystyles01: You'll need to state how it's notable web content. As a rule, anything "fan made" is not going to be notable. —C.Fred (talk) 21:11, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

CFred I actually am a member on creepypata.wiki.com and I did the pokepastas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iloveharrystyles01 (talk • contribs) 21:16, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

@Iloveharrystyles01: Again, you'll need to show that secondary sources have covered Pokepasta enough to demonstrate notability. Since you have a conflict of interest with the subject, you probably shouldn't create the page. —C.Fred (talk) 21:21, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

@[:User:C.Fred] Do you know that I have autism? I got the pokepasta from here: http://creepypasta.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Pok%C3%A9Mon — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iloveharrystyles01 (talk • contribs) 21:25, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)@Iloveharrystyles01:Whatever you have is irrelevant. Is there a newspaper or magazine article, academic journal article, or scholarly book demonstrating that anyone besides you cares that it exists? Ian.thomson (talk) 21:51, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't preferably think so

I believe the link I added on was appropriate for the encyclopedia page ( Fantage ) and I don't think that should have been removed. It really was irrelevant to leave a message. And anywho, what's the point of being on a encyclopedia page for viewing of children. Please DONT respond, and this was also for the laughs of others. Gosh.

Thank You Mr. C.Fred, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fizzy284 (talk • contribs) 04:11, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

regarding Emi•Neu•Web

I'm still working on this article. And this article has relevance for students who may want to gather information about the environmental organization Emi•Neu•Web which there may be very little material about. This organization is very different from Greenpeace and other environmental organization as the idea of this organization is entirely new and adapted to our time (2014). We have not seen environmental organizations such as this before and therefore it may seem interesting to know the difference beetween thia and already known brand such as Greenpeace. Where do I argue for its relevance? I'm new at this. --Wickname (talk) 18:10, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

@Wickname: Then you should cite secondary sources that have written about Emi•Neu•Web. Per WP:GNG, one indicator that a subject is notable is that it has gotten significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Conversely, the absence of such sources is a presumption that the subject is not notable. —C.Fred (talk) 18:11, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Okey. The secondary source are coming. Give me some time. --Wickname (talk) 18:14, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

B.N.E. (Artist) t-shirts

Dear C. Fred,

I added a very factual paragraph to the article on B.N.E. (artist) about the t-shirts he recently released. I did not make any negative claims, nor did I insert any opinions. You state that claims need to be backed up with reliable sources - fair point, but how exactly does one add a source for "he released t-shirts with Shepard Fairey, Invader and FAILE". He did, honestly, there is nothing secret about that.

In addition, what do you consider a 'reliable' source?

Is this a reliable source? http://www.freshnessmag.com/2014/03/13/bne-water-x-shepard-fairey-x-invader-x-faile-artists-4-water-collection/

Or what about this? http://hypebeast.com/2014/3/banksy-teams-up-with-bne-for-world-water-day

Again, everything I stated was factual and unbiased, however...

I am assuming the answer is no, those are not reliable sources, which I can understand, but that doesn't mean something didn't happen or isn't true, right? So please help me in updating the BNE article regarding the t-shirts that were sold, cause that information is certainly Wikipedia-worthy.

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.20.172.185 (talk) 14:25, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

There has been noticeboard discussion about this at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive202#Artist deleting negative info from their entry. I think there was discussion elsewhere, but I'm not finding it. In a nutshell, concerns have been raised by other editors that the material added to B.N.E. (artist) regarding the t-shirt scam allegations came from a non-neutral and non-reliable source. To satisfy the BLP concerns, you'd need to find New York Times-grade journalistic publications covering the alleged scam; blog-grade websites will not suffice. —C.Fred (talk) 14:50, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback. However, I do not intend to claim the t-shirts were a 'scam', nor did I use that word. I simply want to add that he released several t-shirt collaborations with well-known street artists, including Shepard Fairey, Invader and FAILE. Additionally, he attempted to release a t-shirt together with Banksy, a claim he unfortunately had to withdraw later on. That's 100% the truth.

Shepard Fairey, for example, posted on his official website about it here: http://www.obeygiant.com/headlines/shepard-fairey-x-charitywater-t-shirt

Faile posted on their official Facebook about it here: https://www.facebook.com/FaileArt/posts/644069412326341

I believe Invader also posted about it on his official social media outlets.

Additionally, Archive.org's way-back machine shows the t-shirts up for sale (or at that point: sold out) and shows the statement BNE made, in which he withdrew working together with Banksy, although he had initially thought so. https://web.archive.org/web/20140516213027/http://bne.org/

Would to way-back machine suffice as a source for that information? (or put differently: BNE's own website)

Thank you again

178.20.172.185 (talk) 16:28, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

No. You will need secondary sources, not sources connected to the situation (BNE or the collaborators). —C.Fred (talk) 17:53, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

According to this logic the website of a famous person stating his or her age is not a valid source for that person's age, but an article on The New York Times website which states his/her age is (even when the latter merely uses the former as its source). Seems like a very tricky rule. Thank you for helping me though, even when I'm a little bummed that it seems I won't be contributing to Wikipedia (at least this time around). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.20.172.185 (talk) 18:31, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Lutheran Historical Institute

I run the Lutheran Historical Institute, I am the executive director. I would like it on Wikipedia, because all of the other affiliated institutions are already on Wikipedia.

Thanks, Dr. G.W. Grams — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gwgrams (talk • contribs) 18:49, 22 July 2014‎ (UTC)

I've replied at your talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 18:59, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Thank you so much for the quick intervention in stopping vandalism and personal attacks by 64.134.127.27. I had reported the same user earlier for vandalism and sock puppetry at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Shulinjiang/Archive , he hasn't learned his lesson and keeps coming back to launch personal attacks. Pvpoodle (talk) 01:06, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

he is back with his racially motivated personal attacks. 64.134.162.154 and 64.134.171.42 and 75.68.76.26, could you please do something about this such as Wikipedia:RD2 ? thank you, Pvpoodle (talk) 03:59, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Christina Aguilera

Thank you for your input, fan. I cannot, however, let those lies remain on the biography. XOXO - Legendtina — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaga690 (talk • contribs) 00:46, 24 July 2014‎ (UTC)

Reply at your talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 00:51, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Someone attacking you in "Hot In Herre"

Please keep close eye on the article for Nelly's "Hot In Herre". A poorly-sourced editorial (some sources are deleted tweets and others are dated 2015 & 2016) about Sasha Grey's marketing stunt and her intent for the hashtags keeps being restored by an unknown individual. This editorial attacks you by name and refers to "The conspiracy and manipulation of truth surrounding Sasha's takeover are current and Wikipedia editors are also guilty of poor review; users such as C.Fred have altered verifiable information, and instead placed false information, ignoring the facts." -bleak_fire_ (talk) 01:45, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Malachi York

Fred what you have on your page is not fact, just opinion based from unreliable sources. My statements are just as valid as yours, if you call him a criminal but I say he is not that is it. http://www.nuwaubianfacts.com/jacob%20york.htm go to this website and just have a listen. This is one of many sites showing the Anti-Integrity of our Judicial system, the length of which they will go to silence a man who provides hope for others, whether right or wrong. All I ask is for you to see the website, then realize the allegations are not proven therefore alleged. Many innocent people are imprisoned and many are not. If you are Overseeing all of Wikipedia like an Officer then you might as well write whatever you want. If you see something you don't like then you change it back then you are defeating the purpose of Wikipedia. Check out the website please, I would like your feedback as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.57.136.14 (talk) 16:19, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Please review the guidelines for reliable sources and why we have built the article on sources from major newspapers and other sources with a reputation for editorial review and fact-checking. —C.Fred (talk) 16:21, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

NASH GRIER

I removed Nash Grier's birthdate because we need to show on that Nash Grier Wikipedia page his REAL date not "16/17" PLEASE DO NOT UNDO MY REVISION. I gave my sources before and someone else undid it. He use to state it on his website.

So, in conclusion, no birthdate will be posted on his page.

Frenchman101

@Frenchman101: The sources you gave were not reliable. The best we have is a range of 365 days based on a date reported in a news article. Established practice with other biographies is to report the range like that if it's the most accurate information we have. If you disagree, you need to discuss it on the article's talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 18:24, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Total Drama

I just wanted to discuss your revision on my edit on Total Drama. In my opinion, you can, from the source say the Chris McLean will still be the main host of Total Drama. On the source, it says "The Ridonculous Race does have its own host all I can say for now is that his name will be Don and I hope you like him." That tells me from "its own host" that Chris McLean will still host Total Drama and Don will only be part of the Ridonculous Race. I do not want to edit war, nor do I want to have a dispute. I just want to friendly discuss this to come to a conclusion. I hope that you will be able to explain to me how the source doesn't give the removed information away. It would be greatly appreciated if you pinged me in your response. Thanks in advance. --Mmddyy28 (Contact Me Here) 20:23, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Possible help

C.Fred, would you mind helping out with this FAC given your work on the article? SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 21:00, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Let me know....

....How to become an administrator in the future.

-Pigolt1on1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pigolt1on1 (talk • contribs) 13:26, 26 July 2014‎ (UTC)

@Pigolt1on1: Well, you'll need to get experience (you don't have any mainspace edits so far), and you'll need to get familiarity with the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia—including knowing to sign your post fully and paying attention to information message boxes at the top of pages, which include things like, in the case of my page, instructions to add new messages to the bottom of the page. —C.Fred (talk) 13:35, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Okay

-Pigolt1on1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pigolt1on1 (talk • contribs) 13:41, 26 July 2014‎ (UTC)

Friendly Reminder

I was just wondering if we could discuss the Total Drama message I left yesterday? --Mmddyy28 (Contact Me Here) 23:22, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Wogrart

hey c.fred you did make a mistake on Total Drama (no offense). in team participation the show the final team they were on and Cameron was on the villainous vultures as he switched in episode five and dawn who have and a red X instead of green check. im gonna undo your do I just wanted to tell you what I think was wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wogrart (talk • contribs) 05:09, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Japanese School in Bucharest:"Archive.is" links

Hi C.Fred,

Thank you for this edit you made to Japanese School in Bucharest. 4linkeseite was correct that "archive.is" links are not currently permitted on Wikipedia: See this RFC and WP:Link rot#Internet archives for details. Where 4linkeseite erred was by removing the entire citation, not just the "archive.is" link, and by not leaving an edit sum or a talk page post explaining their edit. I tried to explain this on their talk page. The "archive.is" links do need to be removed and {{deadlinks}} should be added if appropriate. I can do that if you want, but it makes no difference to me either way. FWIW, there is another ongoing RFC regarding "archive.is", and a consensus may be reached which allows the usage of "archive.is"; however, they shouldn't be used until that time. If you wish to discuss, please do so here. Thanks. - Marchjuly (talk) 00:36, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: Had he just replaced the link with another, there wouldn't be a problem. The problem was, he was just deleting the archive.is linksey had removed—or worse, in some cases, deleting entire references or blocks of text. Given that at least one user has been discussed at AN/I recently for wholesale removal of archive.is links, and given the edits that removed material other than archive.is links, that's why I reverted wholesale and treated all the edits as disruptive. —C.Fred (talk) 01:57, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry C.Fred if it sounded like I was accusing you of doing something out of order because that certainly wasn't my intent. Moreover, I wasn't aware of any AN/I regarding deleting "archive.is" links, etc. involving 4linkeseite or anyone other editor. I was just assuming good faith on their part and pointed out on their talk page that the lack of an edit sum or talk page post explaining their edit could become problematic. I figured I give them a chance rectify this themselves by a dummy edit. It only dawned on me that they had actually removed entire citations, which was totally wrong, after seeing your edit, which was totally justified. I still think the "archive.is" links need to be removed. If archived links other than "archive.is" can be found, then they should be added instead. If, however, no archived links can be found, then {{deadlink}} should be added. This is just link clean up, so it makes no difference to me who does it, but it is something that should be done. Again, sorry if I gave you the wrong impression.

- Marchjuly (talk) 02:49, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Apologies

My sincere apologies for the useless false information about that last post. I will be on my best not to do it again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ocrampo (talk • contribs) 15:45, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Mowry

Hi. I don't know what went wrong. It looked good on the preview so any help to migrate it over would be appreciated. About his title. George E. Mowry is what is on most of his books. His middle name is Edwin which is rarely used. Oh, I see you came to the same conclusion. Any other questions? Danncampbell (talk) 17:03, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Stephen McNeil

Hi C.Fred, I was wondering if I could get some advice from you on a situation I seem to find myself in today in regards to the article on Stephen McNeil, the Premier of Nova Scotia. Several days ago, an IP editor made this edit to the article[11], consisting of removing content without explaining why. It was on my watch list, so about an hour later I reverted the edit leaving an edit summary explaining that I reverted "unexplained removal of sourced information", as I thought that was the right thing to do. Then last night, I was alerted to a newspaper article from The Chronicle Herald, which pretty much stunned me. It appears somebody (not me) ran to the media complaining that somebody with a government IP was behind the removal I reverted. I never expected such a routine edit would make the news, but now that it has, I don't know how I'm supposed to react. The article did not refer to me directly, just as "another user" but the names of other editors did get printed. Is there any advice you can give me on this, like should I refrain from reverting or even editing that article all together. I have always edited articles related to all politics in Nova Scotia in a neutral manner and have never ran into any trouble with my edits in the 6 years I have been editing, but if the media are going to be watching what goes on with that article I want to be very careful. I also point out that I had no idea the IP I was reverting had any connection to the Government of Nova Scotia until I read that in the newspaper article. It's possible I'm making this out to be more than what it is, but reading about an edit I made in the newspaper was not something I expected to be doing. Thank you in advance for any help you can give me. Cmr08 (talk) 19:11, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

@Cmr08: I don't blame you for being caught a little off-guard; imagine what happened to me when I was referred to by username on (US) National Public Radio! As for the Stephen McNeil article, I'd suggest proceeding just like you always have, since I assume you consider how WP:BLP applies to all the edits you make. It probably doesn't hurt to err on the side of caution with edits, but I wouldn't completely back away from editing the article either. I'd also make sure to discuss on the talk page anything that generated much dissent. (These are all things I did related to the Gabrielle Giffords article; the edits on that article led to my mention in the NPR interview.)

If there's a pattern of suspect edits from IP addresses, particularly ones associated with the government, then you might want to report the situation to WP:BLPN. That will get more users looking at the situation, particularly ones who are familiar with sensitive BLP issues. —C.Fred (talk) 19:29, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I think the big problem there is not the IP edits but a number of accounts that were created close together with the intent of turning the article into a fan site praising the subject and calling anything other than the praise an attack on the subject. One editor even left an edit summary thanking other members for alerting her to the personal attacks that were taking place against the premier. Anyways, thanks for getting back to me, I'm still going to watch this article and see what happens in the future. Cmr08 (talk) 21:28, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

More Mowry

C.Fred, your speedy deletion of George mowry was entirely improper. The A10 (duplicate article) speedy deletion may only be used on articles with implausible titles. A different capitalization is not. I recreated it as a redirect. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 14:28, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

@Oiyarbepsy: Technically, it could have been G12. I know server space is cheap, but I don't see why we would need what would now be three copies of the article, all created due to improper cut-and-paste moves. And yes, I probably should have created a redirect. —C.Fred (talk) 15:36, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Page deleted

please don't delete my page. please — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daksh305 (talk • contribs) 18:52, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Reply at your talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 18:54, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Daksh is notable & famous person — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daksh305 (talk • contribs) 18:58, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Fred, Thank You for the notice... Please Don't Delete!

I am not sure what exactly is wrong. But will drop everything right now and look it over and try to eliminate anything wrong. Please if you would, send me another email and simply tell me what is not to your liking! Thank You! PANDAMAN — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.95.37.92 (talk) 02:54, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Brand.com socks

Hi. Did you mean to block HOT.hot.HEATers? They have a completely opposite POV to the other socks. BetsMetsnJets is surely a duck though and not blocked... SmartSE (talk) 20:20, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

@SmartSE: BetsMetsnJets got the benefit of the doubt because of an edit summary and an edit elsewhere. HOT.hot.HEATers, even though he's playing the other side of the coin, I still see similarities, and the edit feels more abusive than really constructive. —C.Fred (talk) 20:43, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Ok thanks for the explanation. HOT.hot.HEATers's didn't exactly look as if they were going to be doing any constructive editing around here! SmartSE (talk) 22:13, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Sockpuppet abuse?

Hello — I noticed you recently added temporary semi-protection to TPG Telecom to address the storm of vandalism within the past 24 hours. There may be more to this: Did you notice how many of the malicious edits made the same kind of change to the article and used the same style of edit summary, yet came from different registered accounts and IP addresses? (page history here) I'm relatively inexperienced as a sockpuppet spotter, but these contributors look curiously alike:

Not yet blocked

Browning30 (talk · contribs · account creation)
Eggplant001 (talk · contribs · account creation)

3-day block

83.84.13.193 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Indefinite block

139.193.227.144 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
I eat turds (talk · contribs · account creation)
KFC is good (talk · contribs · account creation)
Squishy sausage (talk · contribs · account creation)

All five of the registered accounts were created on the day of the vandalism. Six of the seven IDs were used only to vandalize TPG Telecom; the seventh had also vandalized a few other articles earlier, but all seven, registered and IP, are vandalism-only IDs.

Would you think that anything further should be done here? Is this the kind of evidence needed at WP:SPI?

Thanks for taking the time to look at this. Unician ∇ 13:19, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

@Unician: Good catch! They all committed the same type of vandalism, so I blocked the two yet-unblocked registered accounts as well. I had only focused on the most recently-active accounts and hadn't looked further back in the page history. —C.Fred (talk) 15:44, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Question

Hi C. Fred,

I work for the McCain Institute and am currently trying to update our wikipedia page with the latest content. When trying to do so I was blocked several times and now the page is locked. Please instruct me on how to proceed.

Commsintern (talk) 19:43, 5 August 2014 (UTC) Commsintern

@Commsintern: Greetings! First, to my knowledge, nobody has been blocked over the edits to the McCain Institute article, although one editor (you?) has gotten a final warning over the persistent copyright infringements. The page was protected because two accounts, including yours, were adding material that violated the copyrights of the institute: the material was copied directly from their website with no evidence of permission or a compatible license.

There are two ways to proceed with editing the article:

Write summaries of the activities in your own words, not words that are copyrighted by the institute. This is the better approach from the standpoint of ease of licensing, plus you're able to make sure the text is as neutral as possible.
Have somebody from the institute email the Volunteer Response Team stating that they are donating those descriptions under a free license such as Creative Commons 3.0. Why email? It's easier to make sure that the sender is who they claim to be; there's no way to verify your claim of being an employee just by corresponding on talk pages. If the text is donated, 'the donation is irrevocable; the donated text can be used for any purpose, including commercial re-use, and can be edited extensively, especially to get out some of the promotional tone of the website (practically every organization puffs itself when talking about itself; Wikipedia does not exist to mirror other websites).

In either case, expect the text to be edited heavily by other editors for tone, style, and clarity. Also expect statements to be changed based on what secondary sources say about the subject: WP:Verifiability always favours independent sources over primary sources.

Could not find 3% rule in Wikipedia Terms of Use

Hello C. Fred and thank you for at least reaching out. I could not find the 3% rule in the Terms of Use. If you could provide the official rule from Wikipedia that states this, I would gladly look into it, however I found no such official rule.

Joncmaxwell on 8/2/14 at 12:59pm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joncmaxwell (talk • contribs) 17:59, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

@Joncmaxwell: It's not an explicityly-stated rule so much as it's established practice among editors of election articles. —C.Fred (talk) 18:05, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

@C.Fred How convenient. No explicitly-state rule... it's just something that wikipedia editors "do". Kathie Glass gets 2.19% of her last election, and the rule is set to 3%. Why not set it to 25% if it's to "reduce clutter" in the infobox? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joncmaxwell (talk • contribs) 18:11, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

@Joncmaxwell: I'd thought the threshold was 5%, but I'm still looking. —C.Fred (talk) 18:14, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

@Joncmaxwell: You actually think this guideline was set in place because of this rather trivial election? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:16, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

@NeilN: I think it was put in place for a healthy reason of reducing "clutter" but at the same time it also hides information from voters in an election season. I believe any candidate of the Green Party, Constitution Party, Socialist Party, Republican Party, Democrat Party or Flying Spaghetti Monster Party should be equally represented on election pages PRIOR to the end of the election. --Joncmaxwell (talk) 18:21, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

@Joncmaxwell: Wikipedia articles aren't voter information packets. They're supposed to cover only the notable facts of an election and that goes double for infoboxes. For example, I believe there were 16 candidates in my city's last mayoral election. 11 of them got less than 1% of the vote. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:28, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

@NeilN: That's an opinion until you can provide documentation of these rules. It's fair, since I am also stating my opinion on how election pages should be handled in hopes we can find a resolution to this dispute. Maybe the reason why all those mayoral candidates got 1% of the vote was because they weren't listed on the wikipedia page? Regardless of your view, there are 2 things people will hit first online when seeking candidate information. Google > Wikipedia. --Joncmaxwell (talk) 18:35, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm looking through the archives of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums. It looks like 5% is a widely-used rule of thumb but hasn't been either accepted or rejected as a project guideline. —C.Fred (talk) 18:39, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

@C.Fred: 3 people discussing is hardly consensus. (side note: ctrl f is a wonderful thing). I couldn't even find 5% in the entire archive. --Joncmaxwell (talk) 18:48, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

@C.Fred, Joncmaxwell, and Ratemonth: I disagree with the arbitrary practice of not allowing a picture of a candidate who does not have 3%. If she had not run in 2010, and did not have results from that race, how would you know where she stood? Is it just that you automatically suppress independent and third party candidates? But regardless, Kathie Glass meets your 3% rule. She got 4% or 5% in this poll for the 2014 race from the Texas Tribune. ^[1] --tgglass — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tgglass (talk • contribs) 00:12, 3 August 2014‎ (UTC)

References

^ https://www.texastribune.org/2013/11/04/uttt-poll-governor-race-abbott-leads-davis-6/

@Tgglass: Now, a source saying she's polling at 5% changes things. That's an argument for putting her in the infobox (or it's tipped me from leaving her out to having no opinion). —C.Fred (talk) 00:28, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

...Though just as a reminder, this is only discussion about the issue at my talk page. This in no way is indicative of the opinions of all editors of the article (i.e., don't cite this as consensus—not that I think any consensus has been reached here). —C.Fred (talk) 14:29, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

re An article that's already gone through AfD can't be subsequently PRODded

Oh, right, of course. I didn't know that but it makes good sense. Thanks for the tip and sorry you had to fix my error, will now take the article to AfD. Herostratus (talk) 20:57, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

The Pinkprint

It would be appreciated if you looked over and voted on the move request for "The Pink Print" to the "The Pinkprint". Up to this point there hasn't been a direct response as to which spelling was correct. Nicki Minaj herself clarified the question directly stating it was written, "The Pinkprint", (https://twitter.com/NICKIMINAJ/status/497117375712329728). Leave either your support or opposition for the move here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Pink_Print#Requested_move_06_August_2014. Thank you for your time, KaneZolanski (talk) 00:12, 7 August 2014 (UTC).

sorry

It may be confusing and the 2012 crime is 0.8, and I don't know how to cite my sources can you help me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CALGARY ROCKS (talk • contribs) 01:16, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

== explanation ==
What is the problem , that the content of my article is similar to other article of wikipedia ?

the content in my page is very easy to understand the beginners of education and student, the page five pillars of islam is lot of explanation, so please justify my article. --@#009# 17:29, 7 August 2014 (UTC) thanks to the information to you give me --@#009# 17:29, 7 August 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asmk1990 (talk • contribs)

@Asmk1990: An explanation for beginners is outside the scope of the project. The introduction to Islam should present a basic primer on the subject. Likewise, the introduction to Five Pillars of Islam should present a basic overview. We do not, as a matter of practice, set up articles to act as introductions to topics—and if we did, we would use a clearer name like Overview of Islam rather than the pillars of islam. —C.Fred (talk) 17:41, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Fred, Thanks for the notice, Please go ahead and delete

Sorry about the non-notable article. I'll re-work it through the proper channels / wizards. Please delete it. Gdeseingalt (talk) 23:38, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the edit

Please delete the GTU page. Thanks! Gdeseingalt (talk) 23:39, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Question about a talk page

Hey, I am new to this …. I made an error on a talk page and then deleted it and then it was fully deleted.

I would like the info that was in the talk page to begin with… I read that only administrators have access to deleted content. Could you get it for me?

Is was from this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bond_New_York_Real_Estate

BNewYork, 8/10/2014 BondNewYork (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 04:11, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Deleted Article/Page

Why was my page deleted when I have cited verifiable source as well as discussed importance of the person. --Adrienne M. Coins 05:00, 8 August 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acoins601 (talk • contribs) (talk)

@Acoins601: None of the reliable sources cited discussed Coins at all. Further, one role as an extra is not enough to qualify as a notable person. —C.Fred (talk) 05:04, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

So what is considered a reliable source if none of the sources I've noted were one? Adrienne M. Coins 05:08, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

@Acoins601: The subject's own website is not sufficient to establish notability. A link to the video itself doesn't make clear who is in the video. What would be a reliable source would be a news article written about her. —C.Fred (talk) 05:10, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

@C.Fred: Thanks!—ACoins601 (talk) 06:09, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Okay thanks!--Adrienne M. Coins — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acoins601 (talk • contribs) 05:16, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

(stalking) @Acoins601: - even if there was sufficient coverage in reliable sources (such as articles about you in major national newspapers or magazines where you are the subject matter), you would be still be strongly advised not to create the article in any case, as you have a clear and obvious conflict of interest. If you start appearing in the news a lot, chances are somebody else will create an article about you anyway. Also, an article about yourself can be problematic, and I can make a strong case why you are probably better off not having one. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:55, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: Okay! I understand the conflict of interest. Thanks a bunch! I will just wait until I am broadcast more on television. I will give it due time. —Acoins601 (talk)

Moved from top of page

Hello C.Fred Thank you for assistance regarding the entry Jeremy Reingold , world record holder 200m individual medley that you archived. The issue was whether he was Jewish or not as it needed a publication saying that . So here at Swimming South Africa we got hold of him ( [email protected]) as all publications don't speak of religion and now may not in South Africa under our new constitution. He was Barmtzvah'd at Claremont Synagogue , Cape Town South Africa under Rabbi Mervis Orthodox, but can verify that himself at his own mail address. Hope you will assist us in re instating his listing , thanking you in advance , Kobus Smit, Archivist Swimming South Africa— Preceding unsigned comment added by Accuratehistory101 (talk • contribs)

@Accuratehistory101: Sorry, but Wikipedia articles may not rely on original research. We cannot use your personal interview of Reingold or direct contact with him.

That said, if South Africa has a Jewish Sports Hall of Fame that he's a member of, then his listing there would be sufficient to verify his religion. —C.Fred (talk) 17:37, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Alush Gavazaj

...has now been recreated as Alush.Gavazaj. Might want to SALT that too. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 10:19, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Tha Carter V

The song "Side Bitch" and "Tina Turn Up" are both confirmed songs on Tha Carter V from lil Wayne's show weezy Wednesdays. Detail and mannie fresh also confirmed being on the album(both work with Cash Money). Soulja Boy also confirmed through an interview that he produced a song for Tha Carter V featuring Justin Bieber — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheCreature6 (talk • contribs) 22:45, 16 August 2014‎ (UTC)

@TheCreature6: Lil Wayne does not qualify as a reliable source. Other participating artists' statements do serve as a self-published source, which is reasonable to verify their participation. However, you didn't cite any of those sources in your edits. —C.Fred (talk) 23:25, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

FC Bears

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bears_FC I dont understand you what kind conflict of interest? Everything have neutral view help me what I can to do to fix this problem — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bears1996 (talk • contribs) 07:48, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Reply at your talk page, since it's in response to a message and username warning I left. Please continue the thread there. —C.Fred (talk) 14:21, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

iPhone 6

The iPhone 6 redirect cannot go inside the RfD template or else the redirect will not work, so I simply took it out Giggett (talk) 17:09, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

@Giggett: The redirect shouldn't work directly: people trying to follow the redirect should be made aware of the RfD discussion. —C.Fred (talk) 17:21, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Further, WP:RFD#HOWTO says to put the redirect inside the template. —C.Fred (talk) 17:25, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Admin rights

Hi, do you have admin rights on Wikipedia? I know and feel comfortable here without any personal attacks, keep up the good work! I would do it for main space edits also with the indeed undo tool! :) --Allen ^talk 06:15, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Posible hoax?

Hi CFred, I just came across this article that looks like a complete hoax, and wasn't sure how to react and was hoping you could take a look. It's 2016 Little League World Series. The lead states that the tournament was played from Aug 15 to 25, 2016, and has complete scores and even mentions a no-hitter, but it's still 2014. I did notice that the editors first edit to Wikipedia was to attack you[12], so I figured you would be the best person to mention this to. Thanks. Cmr08 (talk) 04:11, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Looks like this has been taken care of by another editor, since it's now a red-link. Cmr08 (talk) 08:25, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

(:

TranquilHope (talk) 19:30, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Bears FC

I change username to trobinson66 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bears1996 (talk • contribs) 12:11, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

@Bears1996: Have you put in a username change request yet? It doesn't look like you have; I don't see anything at Wikipedia:Changing username/Simple. —C.Fred (talk) 12:32, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

...Ah, because I see what happened: you've just started using a new account. —C.Fred (talk) 12:35, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

FC Bears

Independent editors do not care about this article I work hard on this artice and please if you can not ask ;Independent editors; to reviewed this article please leave me to work — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trobinson66 (talk • contribs) 14:10, 23 August 2014‎ (UTC)

IP User Vandalism

I noticed that several months ago you protected the sea gate police department page because of persistent vandalism and sock puppetry. I have noticed recently that someone has been doing the same thing on the Law enforcement in New York City with relation to the Sea Gate Police Department. I'm not sure if you are and admin but I know you have experience with this sock puppetry and was wondering if you could help. SantiLak (talk) 06:43, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

@SantiLak: Yep, it looks like the same editor is back: I see the similarities in the edits. I've got the page you mentioned on my watchlist, so if I see the edits continue, I'll semi-protect the page again. —C.Fred (talk) 14:32, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

When we remove tag from FC Bears

If you have any questions you can ask on [email protected] ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trobinson66 (talk • contribs) 14:39, 24 August 2014‎ (UTC)

@Trobinson66: No. For conversations about Wikipedia articles, I prefer to have them on Wikipedia talk pages. There are only limited situations when I carry out conversations via email.

Second, that email address confirms that you have a conflict of interest with the article. The removal of the tag is contingent on independent editors with no connection to the club reviewing the text and determining it's neutral. —C.Fred (talk) 15:01, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

When we can expect that Independent editors,day, week etc.. I think nobody care about our article except us? I ask you that because we feel very ashamed , when people see that tag. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trobinson66 (talk • contribs) 15:34, 24 August 2014‎ (UTC)

@Trobinson66: There's at least one other editor looking at things. I don't think we've got a severe enough problem that we need to open a report to the conflict of interest noticeboard, though. —C.Fred (talk) 16:12, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Joshua Vescovi for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Joshua Vescovi is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Jrcla2 (talk) 20:18, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

I appreciate your input in regards to Etizolam. Your monitoring of said article would be very much appreciated if you could find the time to do so.

-Nthill

Nthill (talk) 21:43, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Etizolam

I've listed a source of a arrest for etizolam that had 4 counts of possession it is a unauthorized drug in the U.S and is subject to 4 counts as stated in my source

What more do I need ?

And also recreational use if you do your research it's being used recreational for years now and there has been talk all over forums, blogs and pics online What kind of source do I need for that ?

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jschemgeneration (talk • contribs) 20:16, 24 August 2014‎ (UTC)

@Jschemgeneration: Actually, your text had indicate that possession is legal in the US. I've changed that. It's not a Schedule IV drug, as those drugs are recognized as having medical uses in the US. Per the cited source: "He had in his possession Etizolam, a benzodiazepine that police said is not authorized for use in the United States, according to the report."[13]

As for recreational use, blogs, forums and pics are not reliable sources. If there's newspaper coverage of the recreational use of the drug, then it can be mentioned in the article. —C.Fred (talk) 20:21, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

So in your opinion what should the legal status section say ? I think that arrest should be mentioned because there are ppl purchasing this thinking there is no penalty if it is caught in they possession

I think the public should know what they are getting there self into If it's ok to add this info let me know and you also have my permission to add it yourself — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jschemgeneration (talk • contribs) 11:23, 25 August 2014‎ (UTC)

Good question. The issue is, what do reliable sources say? The current information is not cited and should be. The arrest for possession is cited but challenged. I've asked at Talk:Etizolam to get input from other editors on how we should proceed. —C.Fred (talk) 18:12, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Suzannah Lipscomb

Can you please explain why you tell me to find other references for the subjects date of birth, but when I add another ref, you report me to an admin and the ref is deleted? (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajz1978 (talk • contribs) 20:43, 26 August 2014‎ (UTC)

@Ajz1978: I said you should probably not add the date, but before you try to start discussion on adding it, you need to present multiple, reliable sources at the talk page. I also advised Mdann52 of your edits because he's the OTRS volunteer that handled the ticket for Lipscomb's article, so he'd be familiar with the email and other not-generally-accessible information that was reviewed when he reviewed the ticket's request. —C.Fred (talk) 20:51, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Can you please advise if it can be inserted into the article that she was a child actor and appeared in 'The house of Eliott' and 'witchcraft'? References: http://www.talktalk.co.uk/tv-guide/content/jr8zy/the-house-of-eliott and http://m.imdb.com/title/tt0196214/fullcredits/cast?ref_=m_ttfc_3 (UTC)

@Ajz1978: IMDB is not a WP:RS and an appearance of unknown significance in one episode doesn't exactly make her a "child actor". Was her performance reviewed? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:48, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I think some actors would describe themselves as such with lesser TV appearances. If you don't like the term 'child actor' could it be stated that in her early life she appeared in episodes of TV series? (UTC)

I have another ref for the witchcraft series if the IMDB is not allowed http://www.eofftv.com/w/wit/witchcraft_1992_main.htm (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajz1978 (talk • contribs)

Eofftv.com doesn't appear to be much more reliable. —C.Fred (talk) 02:41, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

How about http://www.artistdirect.com/nad/store/movies/title/0,,2338629,00.html (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.67.233.200 (talk)

Again, I would oppose such an addition to the article unless you can find an actual review of her performance. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 08:45, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Why would you oppose the addition? Is it a violation of the OTRS? Why is this article so special that nothing can be added to it? The same objections are not raised in other articles. (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajz1978 (talk • contribs)

Nothing to do with OTRS. I would say the same thing about any subject whose appearance in a TV series/movie is only denoted by an entry in a database. If you disagree, suggest you take it up on the article's talk page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:47, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

One of the tricky things with databases is making sure that it's the same person and not just a person with the same name. Databases don't always give that assurance. A review should hopefully give enough context about the person that we can link it together. —C.Fred (talk) 15:21, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Phil Savage (baseball) for deletion

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

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Jrcla2 (talk) 14:00, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Utah Jynx

Hi C.Fred; I've returned from my slumber here just to revert this [14]. Yes, the editor supplied an acceptable source, but I think it's not even close to meriting mention, and am concerned that the long term objective is to use Wikipedia to grind an axe with the individual. Though I admit trying to sneak something in on cookie dough malfeasance is funny. You've been helpful with the article, and if you think I've been overzealous restore whatever you find appropriate. Thanks and cheers, JNW (talk) 03:51, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

No Hard feelings

Hey man, no hard feelings about the deletion of the POET Technologies Wikipedia. Hey, I wasn't aware of the copy write rule and that all of the content had to be re worded in order to meet the Wikipedia standured. Thank you for the education all be it a little rough around the rear end. In the future I will do my best to apply what you have brought to my attention in this life lesson. Thank you. Question, would it have made any difference if the article had been written using the same article formatting and content with more 3rd party references? MJB an imagination of little renown 03:19, 2 September 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JordanBaldwin (talk • contribs)

@JordanBaldwin: If by formatting, you mean the layout of the article, then probably not: that's part of what contributed to the advertising tone of the article. If by content, you mean the text, then absolutely not: the article can use ideas from another site, but it can't use words from it. —C.Fred (talk) 03:33, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Why delete article

Why do you think Sindikatu should be deleted? There was was no stated reason for the request to delete the article. It seems more like vandalism to me... could you tell your reasons why the article should be delete? — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiTrollTerminator (talk • contribs) 00:10, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

@WikiTrollTerminator: While "this apparently reeks of an elaborate hoax, not to mention that similar articles have been deleted before for the same reasons" may not be the strongest reason for the request, it's a reason. I don't see it as a bad-faith nomination, so the AfD should run its course. —C.Fred (talk) 00:13, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

As it may but sindikato is not a total hoax, its in the Cebuano Tagalog dictionary which translate to Syndicate,this gangs mentioned in the article does truly exists the citations alone gives a clear view on the nature of this organized crime groups the news reports are not an elaborate hoaxes it is back up by the news media in the Philippines, please dont believe that there is no big agglomerate of syndicate groups operating in the Philippines this is exactly what they want anonymity so that they could go on with criminal activities unnoticed and unrestrained,i for one will try to expose their heinous activities Chveawful (talk) 12:28, 31 August 2014‎ (UTC)

At ANI it's been suggested WTT is a sock of this editor:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Malusia22/Archive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 14:15, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

The Miniatures Page

C. Fred

Thanks again for the advice this last couple of weeks. I have learned a lot.

Crow the Saint (talk) 01:02, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I will place references on the site after the next edit. It seems that you have been removing a lot of these edits that are factual and referenced. Please detail why that is being done.

Crow the Saint (talk) 06:42, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

@Crow the Saint: Forum postings are not reliable sources. The source for the assertion that members were banned for no reason is a discussion forum: this is not a reliable source. The claim that the staff have no experience in war is weak: just because they don't mention an interest in it in their profiles doesn't mean they aren't. —C.Fred (talk) 18:03, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Also, because of the underlying issue with no evidence of coverage in independent, reliable sources, I've nominated the article for deletion. —C.Fred (talk) 18:11, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes we agree then. there are only self-promotional references. Where we differ is that the references to the masthead type references (such as the listing of the editors) are NOT forum posts. They are clearly intended to show who the editorial staff are. As such they are self-referential, but are not unreliable.

Crow the Saint (talk) 20:42, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Apparently we're the same person

Per [15]. I've reverted their edits again, issued another warning and requested page protection. This has probably gone on long enough. Thanks, JNW (talk) 14:43, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Debito Arudou page

Thanks for intervening in what looks like the beginning of an edit war. Could you please tell me how to "get a consensus" on an unresolvable issue? I dont think the person who is acting as the guardian of the Debito.org wiki entry is editing in good faith, because if it is an edit that puts Arudou in a positive light, it gets extra scrutiny (such as for "wordiness"), but criticism of Arudou gets looser editing (they can be as wordy as they like, and critics arguments get more developed than Arudou's arguments under the ruse that Arudou's are "self published" (even if theyre in his published Japan Times newspaper column)). I think we need some mediation out of fairness.Mister Mtzplk (talk) 00:17, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

@Mister Mtzplk: To gain consensus, the starting place is the talk page for the article (Talk:Debito Arudou). The discussion will focus on whether inclusion is justified per Wikipedia policies (which include WP:Reliable sources and the section on self-published sources). If it turns into a discussion between just two of you, you can seek a third opinion. If there's wider participation but consensus is not reached, then you could request comments from a wider range of editors.

The rule of thumb is that if there is a change to a page where there is not consensus to make a change, the status-quo will prevail. So, if you can't gather consensus to support the addition, the article will stay with it out. —C.Fred (talk) 00:58, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I understand. Thanks very much.Mister Mtzplk (talk) 01:27, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

History merge

Obviously you are more experienced at doing this. I tried doing a history merge and the software didn't like it. Is there a way (or should we) merge the recent contributions at Songs of Innocence to Songs of Innocence (album)? Thanks for the help — MusikAnimal ^talk 19:22, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

@MusikAnimal: Are there too many edits at Songs of Innocence to delete it? I had no trouble with deleting and restoring the content into Songs of Innocence (album). —C.Fred (talk) 19:25, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

No, I don't believe so, I'm just unfamiliar with this process. I tried to merge the history like so, but the software won't allow the edits I want to be merged. How would one go about doing that? — MusikAnimal ^talk 19:29, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

@MusikAnimal: I deleted the target page, moved the page to the now empty space, restored the deleted revisions, and edited an old version to get the correct version current. —C.Fred (talk) 19:32, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I think I follow. Problem is edit rate is high at the moment... maybe create protect while carefully restoring the deleted revisions (someone may recreate the article in the interim)? Mind taking care of it once more? I will watch and learn :) — MusikAnimal ^talk 19:37, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

@MusikAnimal: It's a mess. The existing Songs of Innocence needs history-merged into Songs of Innocence and Experience before the content from Songs of Innocence (album) can get moved in; I'm not sure what the most efficient way to clean this one up is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by C.Fred (talk • contribs)

Just to ensure I'm being clear, I was thinking we could merge the last 8 revisions of Songs of Innocence to Songs of Innocence (album), not Songs of Innocence (album) into Songs of Innocence. The inessential truth is that this would put my edit as the first at Songs of Innocence (album) :) So I could delete Songs of Innocence (album), then move Songs of Innocence there, then restore the deleted contributions? — MusikAnimal ^talk 20:00, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Was there really anything written there to improve the article, or is it the kind of thing that could get speedy deleted A10 for duplicating already-existing content? —C.Fred (talk) 20:01, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

There's nothing at Songs of Innocence that isn't now at Songs of Innocence (album). It's just a matter of where the article started. I started it at Songs of Innocence when another user started it at Songs of Innocence (U2 album) (which you moved to Songs of Innocence (album)) — MusikAnimal ^talk 20:04, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

And that's my point. Unless we're going to move SoI(a) to SoI, or unless there's content at SoI that's been used at SoI(a) where we need to give credit, let's just leave it as-is for now. —C.Fred (talk) 20:10, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Arbèr Prekazi SPI

As one of the more involved admins in this case, could you take a look at the most recent suspected sock Kznnd (talk · contribs). Thanks in advance. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:10, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

@Sir Sputnik: I'm not 100% convinced that it's a sock, but it's more likely than not. I certainly have my reservations about the account, even if I haven't seen the smoking-gun edit I'm looking for. —C.Fred (talk) 23:16, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

The smoking gun edit is this one. As I've pointed out in the SPI, this article creation fits perfectly into the pattern of past socks creating unsourced articles on unnotable footballers who are signed to, but have not played for KF Tirana, not to mention the fact that it's not the first time that this person has created this article and that another sock, Tirana ffff (talk · contribs), has attempted to interfere with the deletion process. Sir Sputnik (talk) 06:22, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Mariah Carey's singles pages

Can you keep an eye on every pages if any users or IPs adding "adult contemporary" in the infobox? Adult contemporary is a radio format. 183.171.166.180 (talk) 15:18, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

A pie for you!

Thank you for reverting the vandalism to Talk:Spite (punk band). For some reason this article has been the target of an exceptional amount of vandalism. Kzooman (talk) 19:05, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Jared Myers

Jared Myers is highly notable (MattS25 (talk) 03:43, 14 September 2014 (UTC)) He is a signed artist with Quinn Record in St. Louis, Missouri. At this label he has professionally released 2 full albums "Courage" and "Confidence". He also wears a gold chain and posses increased amounts of "swag" (per general population), therefore making him popular notable alumni. I strongly suggest this edit be accepted.(MattS25 (talk) 03:50, 14 September 2014 (UTC))

@MattS25: Having released two albums does not necessarily make an individual a notable musician. At this time, it does not appear that Jared Myers is notable. —C.Fred (talk) 03:53, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

He also gives numerous live performances to crowds of over 500. Rob Wort is recognized by exactly 0 baseball fans and has not played a single game higher than single A yet he is a notable alumni. Lots of people are found singing the lyrics to Jared Myers' original "St. Louis" and "confidence". If Jared is not notable than Rob Wort is not notable. (MattS25 (talk) 04:04, 14 September 2014 (UTC))

Other stuff exists. Myers' notability has to be considered on its own merits, not on whether somebody else has an article. —C.Fred (talk) 04:07, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't believe one can judge until listening to an album in full. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPkHB97v-7M he even does rap battles! He also has low self-esteem so please have a heart. It would behoove you to add Jared Myers as a notable alumni.(MattS25 (talk) 04:11, 14 September 2014 (UTC))

Then please provide a couple of reliable sources that have written about Myers. —C.Fred (talk) 04:12, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Please provide a couple of reliable sources that have written about Rob Wort.(MattS25 (talk) 04:15, 14 September 2014 (UTC))

Since he's redlinked, I've removed him from the list. —C.Fred (talk) 04:18, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Y'all need some Jesus! Have a heart man. How is he ever gonna make it big if you delete him for being redlinked? He is throwing his gold chain down the drain and ripping down the Justin Beiber posters. His inspiration is now officially gone. I was just trying to be nice. Poor Rob Wort and Jared Myers.(MattS25 (talk) 04:23, 14 September 2014 (UTC))

That's not our problem. After he's become notable, then he can get mentioned on Wikipedia. —C.Fred (talk) 04:24, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Can I add Justin Schleuter then? He is the only known human filter. That's gotta count for something. He was also on Zoey 101 as Mark Del Figgalo.(MattS25 (talk) 04:30, 14 September 2014 (UTC))

Nope. —C.Fred (talk) 04:31, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Mark Del Figgalo is not notable? What's next Barrack Obama?(MattS25 (talk) 04:33, 14 September 2014 (UTC))

He got hit with a meat stick for crying out loud! That's very notable. Justin is the only human that can reach speeds of 1500 RPM.(MattS25 (talk) 04:38, 14 September 2014 (UTC))

Wondafrash teklemariam

that you reverted at Amharic language - did you notice the post at ANI - this is indefinitely blocked USer:Til Eulenspiegel who on being blocked 'retired', said he was reporting all sorts of people to the WMF, started socking via an IP range and when that was blocked via proxies. I'm thinking it's community ban time which will also bring this to the attention of more editors, as this won't stop and will be across a wide range of articles. Dougweller (talk) 05:53, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Your comments would be appreciated

As an former regular editor of Hannah Montana articles, your comments at Talk:List of Hannah Montana episodes#Films would be appreciated. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:16, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

JoinTial

Hi,

Is posting personal attacks on talk page might want to pull that as well. Amortias (T)(C) 22:13, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Howell North School Colors

C. Fred, Trying my best to actually find a verifiable link to a website that clearly shows grey has since been added to the colors of the school;white would not be accurate, I live around the area in which this school is located and have recently seen the uniforms for sports teams include a variant of some pale grey. If you could help to find an acceptable link, it would be much appreciated.NorthI44 (talk) 17:50, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

@NorthI44: Including a color in the uniform is not the same as having the color as an official school color. As far as reliable sources, this is one case where the school's website is acceptable as a source: if the school publishes in text what the school colors are, we can go with that. Otherwise, local newspapers might be useful as a source. Maxpreps shows the colors as black and gold; Maxpreps, in my experience, is a useful resource and has valid information. —C.Fred (talk) 17:55, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

C. Fred, I understand, it's more or less a very new addition in colors, but it is "technically" considered a color by the school, however; it happens not to be listed on any website unfortunately. It's not altogether inaccurate, but it's hard to find any viable source at this point in time.NorthI44 (talk) 18:01, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Fulham Railway Bridge/Putney Railway Bridge

Hello C.Fred. My name is Alison Price. I use Wikipedia a lot, but I'm very new to making changes. I live in Putney and I know from local knowledge that the bridge described and photographed on Wikipedia as "Fulham Railway Bridge" is in fact "Putney Railway Bridge". I tried to edit the page, but you removed my changes, so I think it's best if I leave you this note and you can change it yourself if you're satisfied my contribution is accurate. Alison Rhianwen Price (talk) 22:02, 14 September 2014 (UTC) Alison Rhianwen Price 14 Sept 2014

@Alison Rhianwen Price: On what published reliable source is your information based? First-hand knowledge isn't sufficient for articles. Further, do your edits refer to the bridge being written about or in the pictures? —C.Fred (talk) 22:05, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

My comments refer to both the bridge being written about and the bridge in the pictures. It's listed as Putney Railway Bridge on the Port of London Authority website (in the travel section, sub-section Thames Bridges). Does that count as a reliable source? Alison Rhianwen Price (talk) 01:00, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

@Alison Rhianwen Price: So you're saying the two bridges are the Putney Bridge and the Putney Railway Bridge? It's pretty clear there are two adjacent bridges. —C.Fred (talk) 02:12, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I went to the bridge today and there's a plaque on it that says it is actually called Fulham Railway Bridge. So I was wrong and obviously the Port of London Authority website is wrong and wherever I read that it was called Putney Railway Bridge is wrong. So it's good that you stopped me changing the entry on Wikipedia and I'm really, really sorry - that's all I can say. A lot of people round here call it Putney Railway Bridge. Alison Rhianwen Price (talk) 20:33, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Improper page move from article space to user space

Hi User:Gounc123 has moved Talk:2014 Oklahoma Sooners football team to User:2014 Oklahoma Sooners football team which is a user name that dose not exist and I'm not sure how to handle this normally I would just move it back but seeing as this user name is not registered I don't want to do something that could mess something else up. Could you take a look at it.--Dcheagle • talk • contribs 20:37, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Never mind it looks like you beat me to it.--Dcheagle • talk • contribs 20:40, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

@Dcheagle: I saw your message and cleaned it up. —C.Fred (talk) 20:42, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Ok thanks.--Dcheagle • talk • contribs 20:42, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Panderichthys4144

Remember the IP that kept recreating redirect pages into stubs? I've found a user who makes very similar edits to the same sort of pages. Here are some revisions: from IP address from suspected sockpuppet. The pages that the person keeps editing and edit warring on are on the same topic (bog bodies) and they are formatted the same, which strongly indicates block evasion. They've also claimed other user's reverts are vandalism and even gave a personal attack in one instance. They are currently blocked for a day for edit warrinbg, but I believe that the user is a sockpuppet of the IP. Care to check it out? --GouramiWatcher^pride 01:15, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Aaliyah 'split'

Hi C.Fred
As you are #2 editor on Aaliyah (and conveniently an Admin) I thought you might be interested in a 'new' page John.james250 has created, Death of Aaliyah. They appear to have just lifted the text word-for word from Aaliyahs page. I notified them of the need for maintaining attribution, (here), but they have now deleted' (here) most of the 'death' related text from Aaliyah. Not sure how to handle this, or what policies are involved. How notable does a death have to be to have its own page for example? I was originally tempted to just re-direct it back to Aaliyah, but now the situation is a little more complex. Just FYI. --220 of ^Borg 18:17, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

@220 of Borg: I don't think the split is unreasonable. Nonetheless, I've highlighted it at Talk:Aaliyah#Split of death from article? to see if there's enough opposition to roll it back in. —C.Fred (talk) 18:23, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Okay, we'll see what happens! :-) - 220 of ^Borg 18:32, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Articles

I didn't know who to bring it up but it's amazing that two articles about the same thing co-existed for so long. They need to be merged into one and it doesn't seem like anyone is doing it. Enigma^msg 03:15, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

@Enigmaman: I don't see where anybody has proposed a merger. —C.Fred (talk) 03:16, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't either. The only proposal was to merge one into a different article. [16] But apparently no one ever noticed that there were two long lists about the exact same thing, and this has gone on for 8 years. Enigma^msg 03:18, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Also, the two lists are oriented differently. One lists all the schools and what their mascots are; the sort order is by school. In the other list, the sort order is by mascot, so one can see, for instance, who all the teams are nicknamed Eagles. —C.Fred (talk) 03:31, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorting by school makes more sense. Then at the bottom, there could be a list of how many schools with each name. Like "Tigers have X schools with that nickname, as follows", "Bears have..." Enigma^msg 04:13, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Which is way too long for one article: hence the split to two. —C.Fred (talk) 04:14, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

It was split? Doesn't appear that way to me. [17] Looks like someone started the article unaware of the pre-existing one. Enigma^msg 04:58, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you

C.Fred, Thanks for your edits on my talk page, my userpage and also "signing" for the other user. Unfortunately, my message is not just for thanking you, I am need your comment on something. Do you think these warnings are enough to request a block? All my requests have been denied, this time I wanted to make sure. Thanks for your time spent on reading my message and also thanks for your edits on my user-related pages.Rivaner (talk) 19:45, 20 September 2014 (UTC) Also, we're trying to reach a consensus on some issue, so I think while in the middle of talks I can't or I shouldn't request a block in the middle of reaching a consensus. Just wanted to make sure. Thanks.Rivaner (talk) 19:48, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Update

He did the same thing again. Also he forgot to sign the post again even though he was warned about it before twice. Rivaner (talk) 14:04, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! --Acetotyce (talk) 21:51, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello, edit at Rosh Hashanah

Your edit at Rosh Hashanah was not very helpful. You could have checked the RS, and proposed a re-wording. I would be happy to add this important information with a re-wording. How about this? Rosh Hashanah (Hebrew: רֹאשׁ הַשָּׁנָה, literally "head of the year"), 1st of Tisherai, is venerated today as the Jewish New Year. ^[1] Perhaps you do not like the word venerated? How about celebrated? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theredheifer (talk • contribs) 19:00, 23 September 2014‎ (UTC)

References

^ http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/jewish-world-features/.premium-1.615883

@Theredheifer: True. However, there was a sentence fragment that needed fixed and the unexplained change of Yom Teruah to just Yom, so that's why I reverted rather than just fix. —C.Fred (talk) 19:16, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Fc Bears New Squad

Fc Bears New Squad Please upload http://www.footballzz.com/equipa.php?id=22026&epoca_id=0

For all information about FC Bears Bahamas you can contact direct on [email protected] , and [email protected] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trobinson66 (talk • contribs) 12:16, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

We use published sources to allow the material to be verified. We do not contact sources directly. I suspect the club would not want to answer a request from every reader of the page to verify facts. —C.Fred (talk) 12:20, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

FC Bears

Fred my friend how I can protected and lock the page FC Bears from vandalism some users? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trobinson66 (talk • contribs) 13:18, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

@Trobinson66: There has been no vandalism to the article. There have been no bad-faith edits (though your removal of the roster was viewed as such until you explained it). —C.Fred (talk) 14:19, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Enjolras

Hello. I was wondering why Enjolras, kept getting changed back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VinceProvaire (talk • contribs) 18:36, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

@VinceProvaire: If you're referring to my edit, it's because there's nothing else in the article to indicate there was an intimate relationship between the two characters. —C.Fred (talk) 18:39, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

The Center Line: Summer 2014


Volume 7, Issue 3 • Summer 2014 • About the Newsletter
Departments Assessment roundup Portal selected articles and pictures	Features The U.S. Roads Portal: A great gateway to the project HWY Cup a success in improving the articles of WikiProject Highways	State and national updates None submitted
Archives • Newsroom • Full Issue • Shortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS

—MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Imzadi1979, 21:50, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

cherokee indian reference

http://centralca.cherokee.org/Cherokee-Timeline

the first Europeans who encountered the Cherokee were Spaniards their description is skin color ranges from negro black to fair ...this is located on the offical cherokee nations page circa 1540 a.d

here is also another reference this is factual history this description can be found every where. http://wsharing.com/WScherokeeTimeline.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Historicfuture12 (talk • contribs)

Since this mirrors the posts you made to Talk:Cherokee, please keep the discussion there. I've replied there myself. —C.Fred (talk) 16:40, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

please delete the picture of usdi aniyunwiya healer

please delete the picture of usdi — Preceding unsigned comment added by Historicfuture12 (talk • contribs) 16:17, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I'd deleted it yesterday due to the lack of evidence of a free license. —C.Fred (talk) 16:41, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mike Baggz, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page D-Block. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:15, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Law Enforcement in New York City

The user is at it again, so far only one edit that changed Sea Gate Police Department to Sea Gate Department on the Law enforcement in New York City page but I just wanted to let you know about the changes. Thanks! - SantiLak (talk) 03:33, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Now it is persistent ip hopping. - SantiLak (talk) 05:13, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Wow, my learning curve is faster than I thought

I submitted an article and found out it was immediately tagged for speedy deletion. It was suggested that I edit the talk page for the article. I did that without delay only to return and find the article already deleted. Perhaps I chose the wrong topic. It was something I thought had potential interest to a wide variety of people and something I knew enough about that I wanted to research it further. There are lesser articles than what I had planned for this one on Wikipedia. Here is the reference to what I put on the talk page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ron_Boozell_(Bend,_Oregon)

I'm new to wikipedia. This is a little disconcerting but I believe Wikipedia is a an extremely worthwhile resource and want to continue to be involved. While I'm positive you were right in what you did, it would be nice to have a few minutes to make my case before something I wrote was deleted. Please realize that people are learning and that something like this can come across as a major turnoff. I'll take it in stride but I do worry about others who may not be as thick skinned and could be good contributors over time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bearsnob (talk • contribs) 20:20, 11 October 2014‎ (UTC)

@Bearsnob: I didn't delete the article; another editor did. The tag was to alert you to the fact that major changes were needed to keep the article from being deleted: you needed to show that the subject is a significant person per Wikipedia standards. No such assertion of significance was made, and the article did not cite reliable sources. I'm not surprised the article was deleted.

I also note that you all but admitted the topic isn't notable in your talk page message. If you wanted to practice Wikipedia formatting, you should have set up a user page or sandbox to work on it. If you wanted to develop an article, you should have done so in your user space or in Draft: space. If you want the article on Boozell restored to either of those places, I'll be glad to. However, be advised that the article will need significant improvement before it can be moved to or recreated in article space; if it were recreated there now, it would get deleted again. —C.Fred (talk) 20:51, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I guess I need to learn a lot more and will take your input to heart. It seems that time isn't given to make "major revisions" and so I'll need to make a better start next time. Bearsnob (talk) 21:13, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

re full protect

Hi Fred! Thank you for the cookies :) May I know how to give full protection to my articles? I have been typing ======== , but Im guessing its not thed correct way to protect an article? Thank you in advance!

PS : How do I insert photos? Thanks again!

Numbered list item

SolivenGirl (talk) 16:29, 14 October 2014 (UTC)SolivenGirl

@SolivenGirl: Full protection of articles can only be done by administrators, and it is only done when there has been persistent disruption to an article. As a non-administrator, you would not be able to edit any fully-protected articles. So, you probably don't need to do that to any articles you're working on.

As for inserting photos, if it's a photo that's already uploaded, just link to it like you would an article, but making sure to start with "File:". For instance, the code [[File:Example.jpg|right]] generates the image seen at right. If it's an image that isn't on Wikipedia (or Wikimedia Commons) yet, you'll need to upload it. If it's your image, you can place it under a free license, so you should upload it to Commons. If it's a non-free image like an album cover, those may be uploaded to Wikipedia, but there are limits on where such an image can be used. If there's a specific image you want to use, ask for help, and we can help you figure out where and how to upload it. —C.Fred (talk) 17:13, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the 3RR noticeboard report

Hi, I misspelled your username in the 3RR noticeboard report I filed. Sorry about that. --Richard Yin (talk) 18:42, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

@Richard Yin: I didn't even notice. No offence, but I didn't even notice your post. I had been watching the article and that IP's talk page already, so I knew s/he'd violated 3RR and had made the decision to block him/her before I saw the thread. —C.Fred (talk) 18:45, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

[1] ttps://www.texastribune.org/2013/11/04/uttt-poll-governor-race-abbott-leads-davis-6/

[2] ttp://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/jewish-world-features/.premium-1.615883

[1]

[1]

Deleted non-profit page

Page Deletion Spherexx

Hello...

Endorsement

Writer199

Re-added page to PE Exam page

Socks of indef blocked User:Altimgamr

Lexus

Hi from the College Football Playoff

Cagan´s definition of hyperinflation is not followed by any country.

regarding the editing in page "shiva'

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Current members, Madison Rising, 2014.jpg

Liliane Bettencourt

LamborghiniBot

FYI

Def of hyperinflation in IAS 29 Par 3 (e)

Request for comment

TheLittleDuke

Saba University edit

Speedy deletion of Anguish Sublime page

Giggett

FASTigerETURNS

World Tomorrow

100s Wiki Page

Zielfahrzeug 68

Help Please

Your input could help at ANI

Request for article protection

June 2014 (moved from user page)

The Center Line: Spring 2014

Filucz2004

Boards

Jhinwar split

Regarding the page- 1984 anti-Sikh riots

Merge

Hannah Montana

We got a problem

CSD

Erra (band)

Panorama Tower

Paul Delima Coffee

Sahyounie

How much time?

Should I (or you) unblock?

Your dachshund userbox

BNE Scam

BNE

BNE Scam edits

Trolling

Winterberg Article

Quincy Troupe

Advertisement

Should I start a block request to the IP adress?

Rich Piana page

Vocelli Pizza

Saif Ali Khan

Please restore pokepasta

I don't preferably think so

regarding Emi•Neu•Web

B.N.E. (Artist) t-shirts

Lutheran Historical Institute

A barnstar for you!

Christina Aguilera

Someone attacking you in "Hot In Herre"

Malachi York

NASH GRIER

Total Drama

Possible help

Let me know....

Friendly Reminder

Wogrart

Japanese School in Bucharest:"Archive.is" links

Apologies

Mowry

Stephen McNeil

More Mowry

Page deleted

Hi Fred, Thank You for the notice... Please Don't Delete!

Brand.com socks

Sockpuppet abuse?