User talk:C.Fred/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

New page on artist Julie Casper Roth

Hi C. Fred, I was just using the Penny Arcade entry as a template to make sure my formatting was correct. I saved it while still editing. I will re-submit with the completely new content. Thanks, Perkip — Preceding unsigned comment added by Perkip (talk • contribs) 03:36, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

"Blank" in popular culture

Are you aware of any "_____ in popular culture" articles that have been singled out as being of particularly good quality? For the most part, at least in my experience, such articles are generally a mess of un- or poorly-referenced material, trivia, and speculation. But, this is not necessarily so in all cases. Has any such article ever made it to FA or GA status? I ask not out of mere curiosity, but because I am working on such an article, and I am looking for some good examples to use as a guide. Any help you can offer would be greatly appreciated. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 05:13, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Latif Yahia - please lock and revert

Hi, I see you've been doing some oversight of the Latif Yahia page. I request then, can you please either Protect an ACCURATE version, or speedily delete it? It seems all my work as sussing out and citing evidence is being deleted and then obscured by a "random IP account" and some AMA2010 (nonexistent) account. My work was all cited, and expressed the facts, but even my additions of words "alleged" and "claims" are being deleted.

Judging by what I've found, it looks like the person himself is editing his page (and all pages pertaining to the things he claims) to try and spread misinformation and create 'facts', to give legitimacy to his tales. This Latif Yahia character wrote a book with fantastical claims which was interesting enough to get a movie made. Though producers are quoted as not caring whether the story is true or not, but WIKI needs to actually care though- perpetrating these allegatons as Factual when there is lots of evidence contradicting this claim -yet no evidence supporting it- is deplorable. (and potentially illegal, though Hussein is now dead)

Even though I'm not convinced this Yahia guy even deserves a wiki page (as a hoaxster?), I prefer page protection, indefinitely, as it seems the author of the book is trying to promote himself and his story as fact; and I'm guessing if the page is deleted, it would get put back up by another "random IP user". Plus, the story of this deceit IS fact, and documented, and should be told :)

Thanks! Trickietrickie (talk) 09:55, 06 January 2012 (UTC)

-Update-

Looked into the recent 'edits to the page': it appears 'someone' is creating accounts ("AMA2010", "TVNEWSTALK11")which sound legit, then using those accounts to edit information. This page really needs to get reverted back to my edit (ie: undone changed by these couple accounts, and Protected--to battle this slew of misinformation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trickietrickie (talk • contribs) 10:15, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

-Second Update-

I erased request for speedy delete, in favor of cleaning up, then locking the page. Informed admin: Fastily about this as well- but as you seem to have experience with this page, I am keeping you most informed: Users: "81.83.157.57", "AMA2010", "2.49.216.202", and "TVNEWS11" appear to be created for the sole purpose of spreading misinformation about this person, erasing CITED information about the topic (ie: my research), and promoting a book and movie about the claims (ahem personal gain, if this person is, or works for Mr. Yahia). I tried to undo some of the 'fake user' edits, but it got to be tedious, and I figure you admins can do it easier anyways. Thanks!

So, my Request:

Roll page back, or at least undo/revert the changes made by these 4 'accounts' (Users: "81.83.157.57", "AMA2010", "2.49.216.202", and "TVNEWS11"), recovering my research and work on the controversial nature of the credibility of this character, then please LOCK the page. Looking back at the page history, there have been waay too many unsubstantiated claims, too many edits by IP-users, and too much misinformation documented only by press releases reporting on a movie or novel, both of which are unsubstantiated, and trying to push that as fact/reality. Basically, it is my opinion that this con-artist is making a mockery of wikipedia, reinventing his claims as 'truths'.

The whole reason I have an account here is because I was so outraged when I looked up this information, then did my own research -and found wikipedia to have dropped the ball on this. As in, been manipulated and compromised. This is actually kind of annoying, as this entity seems to be dishonestly editing the Uday Hussein page, the Political Decoy page, and inserting his book link to the official "Devil's Double" movie page.

Thank you! :)

Trickietrickie (talk) 11:36, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

This is a case where both sides needs to follow the neutrality guidelines. I agree there was too much puff for the films; I've pared that back. I also don't see any sources that have disproven Yahia's claims. The only source I see calls out reporters for not vetting it, not that he's actually vetted it and found it wanting. If that's buried further in the Guardian article, feel free to point me to the text passage where it happens.

I don't think the situation warrants protection yet; I think it warrants discussion on the talk page by both sides of the issue. Only if there is stubborn editing without discussion or clear abuse of multiple accounts will the page be locked. —C.Fred (talk) 14:23, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for the response. If you review my work, I have followed neutrality guidelines- and never presented information which was not uncited, and never presented allegation as fact. Unfortunately, this page keeps being systematically scrubbed by dubious accounts -as you can see it was just scrubbed again, today. You Claim it doesn't warrant protection yet, but please take the time to look through the page history, and see that there have been over 500 revisions made to this page in 2 years, most of these by IP accounts. And many of them to remove the very information I put up Last month. Thus there is a very long history of abuse, scrubbbing and removal of Substantiated, CITED material. All these removals done without notation. If this is not a classic case of a page needing to be protected, please tell me what is!

This seems to be a case where one of the 'sides' (Likely Mr. Yehia himself) is trying to push a profit-making self-aggrandising commercial agenda. Also some nonsensical personal blog message to journalists keeps getting inserted (very petty and unprofessional) which leads me to believe this account is being edited by Yahia himself. In my defense, I provided information and documentation of all additions I made to this page, which were all subsequently erased by these 4 seemingly fraudulent accounts. (as you would see in my edits.) Erased with NO notes, nor justifications.

In an article that keep being removed by these 'fake accounts', investigative reporter Ed Caesar from the UK got curious and went to lengths to fact-check and attempt to corroborate the fantastical claims by this person (Yahia). And we know that per Wiki guidelines, fantastical claims must be corroborated by fantastic documentation. What the reporter uncovered was actually, many testaments to the contrary. (Caesar, Ed. "The Double Dealer". The Sunday Times. Retrieved 6 January 2012.)

Thus, even though the burden of proof is supposedly on the claimant, *I* will corroborate *my* claim.

What resulted was (i'll try to keep it short):

• interviews with 2 named people within Hussein's inner circle, who are on record saying Uday never used doubles, and Latif had been formerly arrested for trying to impersonate Uday Hussein.
• interview with a compound guard working for the family for much of the Hussein regime, also claiming Uday never used doubles.
• uncovering of 1990 documentation (a letter addressed to Hussein) of arrest of Latif for impersonation of Hussein.
• interview with Bob Baer, CIA overseer of that region at that time, who is on record saying he personally knew of every asset in the region, and neither he nor his staff had any knowledge of Latif whatsoever, and to their knowledge Uday did not use doubles. This also flies in the face of Latif's claim that the CIA helped him escape.
• interview with Hussein personal Doctor/Surgeon who worked at hospital over times claimed by Latif, recorded saying he never performed alleged surgery nor ever heard of this being performed.
• interview with Irish ex-wife (lesser importance) who is recorded as saying Latif used a false name and made up persona when they met and started dating.

This evidence is overwhelming in the contrary, that these claims by Latif are fantastical. Yet in my edit, I left both sides up and only reported on the doubt cast, with edits, and an "Allegations of Fabrication" section. I believe this keeps the Neutrality. Yet this is being repeatedly SCRUBBED by one of these questionable Accounts. With no notes added.

This page needs to be locked as it's my conviction that it is being used as a personal PR campaign by named entity to scrub reality and attempt to profit. When these couple accounts are not being used ("AMA2010" and "TVNEWS11") IP accounts are created to edit content. Please address this.

thank you! -forgive the non-use of talkback templates. I have not yet figured out how all of that wiki stuff works... Trickietrickie (talk) 19:01, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I've added a paragraph to the Life section of the article based on Caesar's story. I think that's the better place to handle it than the Film section. However, I have just warned TVNEWS11 for deleting the material without explanation. —C.Fred (talk) 19:25, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to my world. :) If TVNEWS11 doesn't change it, there will be a random IP user created to edit the content. Note- The rebuttal to information was not supposed to be in the film section, the film section only added that the film itself rekindled interest in the topic (which is evidenced by the authors which have written about the alleged hoax directly due to the film. And specific criticism of the press/media for not substantiating these claims before covering them as fact. Unfortunately, the film section was the only section I was able to retrieve. I am currently re-editing the page to reinstate a section highlighting this alleged hoax. Called "Allegations of Fabrication". Which I am about to add.

thanks for looking more deeply into this Trickietrickie (talk) 20:24, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

whew.. I have finally finished, hopefully accurately editing this entry to address need for verifiable sourcing of claims and and showing the opposing side of the argument. I also edited weasel words and re-edited intro to reflect unsubstantiated claims. Added subsection 1.1 regarding the allegations he made all this up.

Unfortunately The life section still reads like it's from a movie script, and I have trouble accepting news articles reporting on his own claims about himself as "verified sourcing".

Question: does this person even warrant a wiki biography page? As famous for a one-time incident, which is alleged and unsubstantiated, would it be more pertinent to link name to movie? Or possibly famous rather, for the claims themselves- and getting the media to report as fact, without verfication... but, does that deserve a wiki bio? I'm not fully convinced.

That said, thank you for your assistance in helping me learn more about the wiki system and the rules. And taking the time to look more deeply into this troubling account of a possible attempt to scrub history. :):)

Please keep an eye on this, as I suspect very soon more attempts will be made to scrub this page, and erase valid SOURCED material.

Trickietrickie (talk) 21:42, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Latif Yahia page: Your fave guy is at it again

This account TVNEWS11 is again going through and systematically obfuscating intelligence, erasing cited material, making changes with no notes and adding unsubstantiated claims, ad-hominem attacks, et al. (defensive arguing on the actual page itself!) Again NO effort is being made whatsoever to use the discussions.

This is completely unprofessional and ridiculous. Please handle this. A blanket undo of TVNEWS11 would be great, rollback would be nice. With some form of semi-protected page. A block for this repeated perpetrator would be even nicer.

yours in annoyance, Trickietrickie (talk) 00:58, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Are not ad-hominem attacks vandalism? Are not unsubstantiated claims on a living-person bio vandalism? Is not erasure of properly CITED information vandalism? Is the repeated scrubbing of a page to reflect only one claim with no real corroboration not vandalism? Have you not read the articles I have cited? (Especially Ed Caesar's). Wiki is being made a mockery of, please do your part to put an end to this.

Trickietrickie (talk) 01:44, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Smarties

Thanks for clarifying that. 98.71.248.24 (talk) 14:43, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

All-American Boys Chorus proposed deletion

The rule for challeging a proposed deletion is: "You may remove this message if you improve the article or otherwise object to deletion for any reason" Necrothesp didn't improve the article nor mention mention any reason! He should only tell his disagreement on the article's Talk page. WIkipedia has rules. Let's abide by them. 87.67.128.56 (talk)

He did mention a reason: "can't see any good reason to delete it." Weak as it may be, that's a sufficient reason to oppose the proposed deletion. The instructions at WP:Proposed deletion note that the editor who removes the proposed deletion tag is encouraged to explain his objections, but he's not required to.

If you had an account, I would suggest that you nominate the article for deletion. However, only registered accounts may create the discussion pages within the WP:Articles for deletion process. —C.Fred (talk) 15:01, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

"Weak", that's an understatement ! Well, I supposed Necrothesp never had to write an essay... Anyway, thanks for your reply and suggestion. 87.67.128.56 (talk) 15:14, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

And see your talk page; I've specifically invited you and Necrothesp to join the discussion I've started at Talk:All-American Boys Chorus. —C.Fred (talk) 16:19, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I beg to differ.

You shouldn't be deleting hard work. Student Government officials are noteable and have been used in other Secondary School websites. Go look around to any YRDSB School page. Now please stop. --Voldemorto (talk) 04:16, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

More and more Latif Yahia

Hello. I noticed you'd blocked User:TVNEWS11 and also warned User:AMA2010 over edits at Latif Yahia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). I just wanted to let you know it's come to another 3 reverts; I'm at 2 and can't do much about the blanking for now. AMA2010 has also, in my opinion, vandalized Talk:Latif Yahia with non-responsive copies of swaths of text. AMA2010 seems to be the same user as TVNEWS11, so another user and I have posted at WP:Sockpuppet investigations/TVNEWS11; feel free to chime in if you care to. Just a friendly note, in case you weren't fed up already :) Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 06:50, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Looks like it's been handled for now. Please disregard above. And thank you for helping out with TVNEWS. JFHJr (㊟) 16:25, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Why the nonstandard title?

Is there a particular reason you went with Daniel Ortiz (Paintball Player) rather than the more standard, per the MOS, Daniel Ortiz (paintball player)? —C.Fred (talk) 15:46, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

No specific reason. The two pages needed to be merged to keep their page history consistent, but i just followed the order in which they were tagged without considering the MOS. Can just be changed, if you wish. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 15:54, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

The page never delete?

Fred one question, when I search in google "Daniel Ortiz paintball player" still appear the page that I ask for eliminate, the page never delete completely? because if that page appear first than the new page the problem wont resolve never... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paintballxtreme (talk • contribs) 16:30, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

See your talk page. The short answer is, if you'd left it as a redirect, it might have not shown up. However, your request for deletion was enough content that Google picked it up. Since the page is now deleted, there's no new content for Google to replace its cached version with. —C.Fred (talk) 16:33, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for all

Thanks for teach me man, now I learn more of wikipedia, because of you my account not is blocked now thanks, last question, how can I create a redirect? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paintballxtreme (talk • contribs) 16:45, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Adrian Edmondson

You have commented on an edit made to a page about me. I have tried a number of channels to try and remove factual inaccuracies about me on this page, all to no avail. How do I do it? Do you know? Can you help? Where can I be verified as myself??? They're not huge lies, it's just the boring kind of stuff I'm bored of answering whenever I'm interviewed... Cheers, Adrian Edmondson — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.178.225 (talk) 00:12, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Please send email to the address listed in the message I placed at User talk:Adrianedmondson. —C.Fred (talk) 00:14, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I am Lena Arice Lucas. I own the copyright.

You booted me of Wikipedia.

You should not have.

I am creating a article about myself, because I am sick and may die very soon and want to exist more (I already do, Google me) in cyberspace before that happens.

I had just finished the text, and was figuring out how to edit and add photos, and you "vanquished" me.

How can I (or you?) let the silly brainless "bots/machines" know that I own EVERYTHING? Images, content, text, music (yes, I compose music, too).

I have permission from ME to use my own property.

How can I keep more "good intentioned ones" like yourself from making me disappear?

Thanks,

Lena Arice Lucas

[email redacted]

Website:

Lena Arice Lucas

Urok2uc (talk) 00:47, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Permission was not the reason that the article was deleted. It was deleted because:

1. It was written in an excessively promotional tone (blatant advertising).
2. It failed to demonstrate that Lena Arice Lucas is a notable person.

Had you cited some of the places you're written about on the internet, if they're reliable sources such as newspapers, magazines, and the like, that would've preserved the article. Had the article been written in a neutral, informative tone instead of like it was copied from the website (tone being the issue, not permission), that would've helped to keep the article around.

Finally, you should acquaint yourself with the guidelines on autobiographies. It's not impossible to write an article about yourself or a subject with which you have a conflict of interest, but it requires that you cite independent sources, especially to demonstrate your notability. —C.Fred (talk) 00:55, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, but no thanks.

Okay you got it man. Whatever you folks in "wiki-land" say... Maybe if you made it easier to post our articles you wouldnt have to play big brother so much.

God bless — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davegunn99 (talk • contribs) 04:12, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Mail

Hello, C.Fred. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Thank you for the email message, Achitnis (talk · contribs). It is curious that you only replied after another editor attempted to change the article about you (Atul Chitnis). It calls into question what the relationship is between that account and yours, and whether Shres nh7 (talk · contribs) is editing not so much on your behalf but with some relationship to you where (s)he has a conflict of interest. —C.Fred (talk) 16:00, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing to "call into question" - there is a well documented connection between me and that editor (see RadioVeRVe), and the editor did NOT attempt to add material - he simply pointed out that it was a bad faith edit and reinstated previously and unchallenged (and in most cases, properly referenced) material. And are you saying that anyone who is connected to me automatically becomes ineligible to point out something like this? I hope not. Achitnis (talk) 16:07, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Except the material was challenged and was unreferenced. There's no grandfather clause, where if material has been in an article for x period time without being challenged that it's irrefutable. Material, such as the biography, was duly removed for not citing reliable sources. The edit was not carried out in bad faith—especially since there were edit summaries explaining why the edits were made.

Just to clarify, are you admitting that Shres nh7 does have a conflict of interest with you? —C.Fred (talk) 16:20, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I dont think you really answered my questions in email - is there a reason for that? And do you mean to say that (for example) the section on music was unreferenced? It did not appear to be. And how exactly do you reference personal biography details? Where do I send you a scan of my passport? Achitnis (talk) 16:25, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I didn't want to reveal the content of your email without clear permission from you. If you'd like, I'll go through it point-by-point, but it will be late tonight (UTC) that I do it.

As for personal biography details, the standard rules of reliable sources apply. A scan of a passport would likely not be accepted as a source; public records are typically not accepted. —C.Fred (talk) 16:30, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

(sigh) Why do I have to go through all this every few years? Why didn't someone just delete the article when I asked for it to be deleted? (see the archives of the talk page). OK, here's an entry in the Science Photo library which, I believe, was created BEFORE the wikipedia article. I could of course point you at my own official bio, but am I authoritative enough to speak about my own birth date and place? I wonder... Achitnis (talk) 16:47, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Just because the user and I know each other does not imply Conflict of Interest. So no, there is no CoI. Achitnis (talk) 16:25, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Casually knowing each other does not imply a conflict of interest. The nature of the relationship could lead to one. There is one article that I edit carefully because the subject is a friend I've known for a large portion of my life; even though I don't have a business or family relationship with him, I have a conflict of interest. I'd say the same standard holds here—and even if there is no conflict in fact, there is conflict in appearance due to the pattern of edits and how quickly you emailed after his edits were reverted. —C.Fred (talk) 16:30, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I am NOT exactly new to Wikipedia, and I DO know all this. And I still maintain that unless he added something like "he is God, and must be worshipped" (in fact he added NOTHING), there is no CoI. He merely reverted the edits, and when it was again reverted by you, mailed me about this entire matter, and I mailed you. Believe me, this is NOT the first time I have had to do this. I don't mind the article being deleted, but I DO mind it being unrepresentative of me and my work. Achitnis (talk) 16:47, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Then you probably know about the autobiography policy already and who to contact. You likely know about WP:BLP and the requirements for sourcing material. And, I'm sure, you know that you don't own an article, even one about you. So I'm not sure what more I can add here. —C.Fred (talk) 17:13, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Talk Back

Hi Fred, just dropping by to let you know I responded to your comment on my talk page (I guess you're probably watching it anyway).
Cheers Spitfire^Tally-ho! 18:39, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Please

Please delete the article of Daniel Ortiz, people still editing and know is consider to delete and I know that people still disturbing so please eliminate, I'm giving you the permission to do it, because I really don't know if you need the permission to do it, Daniel Ortiz (paintball player) this is the article, I placed the tag for deletion... Paintballxtreme (talk) 19:47, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

A cowgirl

Hi C.Fred. Just letting you know that I have declined A cowgirl's unblock request. Elockid ^(Talk) 15:33, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

COI revisited

Bian lian again - he appears not to quite grasp what COI means (sigh). Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:35, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Akhmetov

I'm having a problem with the unencyclopedic tone being used by Orekhova on the Akhmetov article and before we butt heads I figured I'd ask. On the recent edits I tried to remove his long list of "quotes" from Akhmetov regarding charity. I see this as undue weight and that it reeks of Orekhova being a PR person for the guy (which is why his focus in edits is on Akhmetov or his related companies - ex. putting in his bio that his company always pays its taxes on time and in full? what?). Am I allowed to delete this block of poorly translated quotes about the "systemic approach" and the happiness of a child? --Львівське (говорити) 14:44, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

USS Oak Hill

On USS Oak Hill (LSD-51), this user is claiming I am placing unsourced negative comments. I am the spouse of a sailor on the USS Oak Hill. I live in Norfolk Virginia, unlike this other individual. I personally witnessed these two sailors and the reaction of the crowd. Not everyone reacted in a positive manner. Many were disgusted by the act, as commented, and many did not applaud. You can look at any blog sites throughout the net and see how many do not agree with the event, but from the personal attendance of this, the information posted is not accurate and false.User:liquid_cells[[User talk:liquid_cells] 8:58 pm, 24 January 2012 (EST)

Please don't use misleading titles like you did. Calabe1992 02:04, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, was coping and pasting. The title is besides the point. The point is the USS OAK HILL page is providing FALSE information. I was personally there and providing first had source as to what occurred that day, unlike others who are editing who were not there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Liquid cells (talk • contribs) 02:08, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

It's not necessarily providing false information, if the Japan Times reported that the kiss was met with cheering. The article is providing the information that was reported in secondary sources. Wikipedia prefers published reliable sources over first-hand accounts and original research. —C.Fred (talk) 02:10, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

How can anyone provide information if people keep deleting what happened. This is not neutrality if witnesses are silenced.( Liquid cells (talk) 02:14, 25 January 2012 (UTC) liquid_cells)

If you can cite a verifiable source other than yourself. Calabe1992 02:19, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Justin Beber

Hi,I m Mukta Sawant from India. And thinking of creating Wikiproject page 4 Justin Bieber.If u wish 2 help me reply it on ur page & pls I wanna Listen yes (116.203.68.29 (talk) 12:48, 25 January 2012 (UTC))

Luminox

Hey the first paragraph that was on the page is wrong! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zhunter2 (talk • contribs) 04:43, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Then you should have rewritten it instead of deleting it. —C.Fred (talk) 04:44, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

New Article version

Daniel Ortiz Mora was born on January 11, 1996 in Maracaibo. Is a professional paintball player from Venezuela that won the CSP 2010 when he was only 14 years old. In his young age has been considered one of the best Latin American players of paintball. He usually plays in middle superior position.

==Professional paintball career==

He start his professional paintball career when he was 14. He enroll in a paintball tournament in Cucuta and after winning this one was invited to participate in the CSP 2010 in the city of Bogotá, he won this tournament with his Colombian team Wild Dogs. Actually is the younger player from Venezuela that won a professional paintball tournament and is the younger player that won the CSP in the open category.

Later, he back to Venezuela and received an offer of $10,000 by his old team Wolf-Blood, he accept the offer and in his first tournament he won the CSP Venezuela 2011 in the open category of speedball after winning the team Piratas de la adrenalina. He gave up his contract with Wolf Blood because he received an offer from Los Angeles Ironmen.

In 2011 when he plays with Ironmen he was invited to the PSP Galveston Open but he could not go and his team was disqualified after losing against Dynasty in final rounds. He was invited too for the PSP World Cup Chicago but neither could attend.

In 2011 when he won the 3rd place in the circuit in Medellin, Colombia was offered to him a contract with DYE Precision.

He was picked in the participant list of CSP Brasil 2012, CSP Argentina 2012 and CSP Chile 2012.

===World Paintball Rankings===

Actually is in two world paintball rankings:

• He is in the #4 position with Los Angeles Ironmen in the Paintball Sports Promotions Rank (PSP).
• He is in the #4 position with Wild Dogs of Colombia in the South American Paintball Circuit Rank (CSP)

==Teams that he had belonged==

Throughout his career he has belonged to five teams:

• The Wolf-Blood which actually play in Venezuela.
• The Rhinos Paintball which he used to play in Colombia.
• The Wild Dogs which actually play in Colombia.
• The Los Angeles Ironmen which rejected because he could not attend all the games.
• Is the captain of the Paintball Selection of Venezuela.

==References==

==External links==

• Venezuela Paintball League
• Official Paintball Store of Venezuela
• Team Ironmen Website
• PSP World Cup Website

---

THIS IS THE NEW ARTICLE'S VERSION, PLEASE SAY TO ME IF THIS VERSION COMPROBE THAT HE IS RELEVANT... Paintballxtreme (talk) 20:22, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Nothing in the article shows that he is a notable athlete. There are no reliable sources cited that support the text; the sources are either blogs or do not mention Ortiz. Finally, this version is essentially the same as the one that the community discussed and decided to delete via the discussion at WP:Articles for deletion/Daniel Ortiz (paintball player). There is community consensus to delete this article, so it will not be recreated (and any attempts to recreate it will/have been deleted under speedy deletion criterion G4). —C.Fred (talk) 22:37, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

If you are around ...

I am having problems locating an active admin, and I cannot easily take this situation to WP:WQA because there are some revdels involved (my talk page, 23 January). Any chance that you could take a look at the short thread on Favonian's page, here? - Sitush (talk) 03:29, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not in a position to rangeblock if he's IP hopping, but I just gave a level 3 warning for the personal attacks, and I'm ready to block that IP if there's another attack. —C.Fred (talk) 03:34, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. He does appear to be hopping between at least two IPs and both are being disruptive (most of their article edits are being reverted) - it is a bit of a nuisance & I can see that there may become a need to semi-PP a shed-load of articles. However, having another person step in, as you have done, might just do the trick. - Sitush (talk) 03:37, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Just to let you know

Hi. Since I found you online, could you have a look at Volkan of Sarek (talk · contribs). Looks like an imposter of SarekOfVulcan. — Abhishek  ^Talk 17:54, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of page Phillip Klinger

Please do not delete my page on Phillip Klinger, whilst I appreciate I did not add any references the fact you can find no listings of the company is of no suprise to me, I was Mr Klinger's Secretary for 14 years, until 2011, the company is not listed anywhere except in Israel, despite not having an office there, as few English/French/Spanish speakers around the world speak Hebrew.

Please undelete it NOW! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Badgerkli (talk • contribs) 21:35, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

See advice on your talk page re conflict of interest. —C.Fred (talk) 22:03, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Whilst I appreciate your great concern for neutrality and I'm sure your trying your best to make wikipedia a better place I completely disagree with you, my article was not in the least biased and anything I did say was fact which can be verified through referencing sources - which as I said I would be happy to add if my article was undeleted and I was able to get to it!!

If you have a particular problem then I suggest you tell me the exact line and I will either dleete or edit or reference the information as I see fit.

Frankly the fact, after so much work, this article has been deleted is a great disrespect to me and is certainly not making wikipedia a better place. I'm sure that you mean well and will allow me to edit the page and make it even more neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Badgerkli (talk • contribs) 22:10, 28 January 2012‎ (UTC)

That's why we recommend keeping an offline copy of your work before you upload it to Wikipedia. That said, the offer that Shimgray made on your talk page stands from me too: provide reliable secondary sources that verify at least some of the key claims about Klinger, and I will restore the page. —C.Fred (talk) 22:18, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Phillip Klinger

I have provided a list of sources on his talk page. Now, you're here to do a job which I totally understand but please do just undelete it and stop changing the subject to minor things. I would very much appreciate the undeletion and will put as many references and changes in it to keep you happy. Badgerkli (talk) 22:24, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

User:ATWA WOLF

This blocked editor ic back agan at User:72.79.209.33, having previously used User:72.79.222.182. Any chance of a range block or other suitable measure? Thanks, Sparthorse (talk) 22:27, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Also, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/ATWA_WOLF, sadly. Best, Sparthorse (talk) 22:42, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I've noted the IPs at that investigation. —C.Fred (talk) 22:46, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

As a 'heads-up', there was a poorly submitted request for mediation regarding this. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Pending#Helter_Skelter_.28Manson_scenario.29 --Tgeairn (talk) 23:48, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Phillip Klinger

I have provided sources, now suddenly, when you relaise what I am saying is true and i have perfectly reasonable sources you have nothing to say!? How about you just undelete the article and admit that I have sources afterall. No harm done, we can all be happy and friends. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Badgerkli (talk • contribs) 22:37, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

See my comment on the other user's talk page, where I replied—and note that my reply indicated that one of the sources was clearly inadmissible. —C.Fred (talk) 22:41, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Helter Skelter (Manson scenario)". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 4 February 2012.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 23:48, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Derek McCall

Thanks for saving me the PROD. I was trying to work out the MiLB notability guidelines & debating PROD myself. I think being drafted is enough to evade an A7 but I had no idea what might make him notable. StarM 02:29, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

why did you delete my page?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bloodlycans (talk • contribs) 04:38, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

who do you think you are sir?!? Bloodlycans (talk) 04:46, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Helter Skelter (Manson scenario), to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, WGFinley (talk) 23:08, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

USRD WikiProject Newsletter, Winter 2012

Volume 5, Issue 1 • Winter 2011 • About the Newsletter
This edition is going out to all USRD WikiProject members (current, former, or potential) in addition to other subscribers as part of a roll call to update the participants list. Anyone that would like to continue to receive this newsletter in the future needs to update the subscription list if they are not already subscribed.
Departments Assessment roundup Portal selected articles and pictures	Features U.S. Roads consolidates M-6 article makes headlines Planning Department debuts Stub drive concludes early, successfully Editorial	State and national updates Project news Task force reports for MD, MI, PA, and VA
Archives • Newsroom • Full Issue • Shortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS

—Imzadi 1979 → 21:58, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Taxicab Confessions

Would the original contract from Broadway Video suffice? HacksBack (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:30, 5 February 2012 (UTC).

The original contract from Broadway Video would not suffice. It would still be a primary source. Articles should be based on secondary sources.

Besides, if your assertions are correct, the original contract would not mention the successor show, so I don't see how it would prove anything other than that McConnell developed a similar show. (Note: this message was also left on your talk page. Please continue this discussion there.) —C.Fred (talk) 05:37, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

The original contract proves I came up with the show first and thus have ownership rights. Taxicab confessions is an exact duplicate of the original treatment presented to Broadway Video minus the focus on freakiness. BV in fact presented the concept to HBO, granted I have no exact proof, only what was represented over the phone, by Jim Beiderman. Are you suggesting there is no relevance to a contract showing prior ownership of this concept? How can you say the BV contracted drafted by BV is not a reliable secondary source????? HacksBack (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:58, 5 February 2012 (UTC).

Thank you

Thank you for the comment you just added to my talk page.[1]. I was just in the process of writing a post for that editors talk page explaining what my edits were all about. I find it odd that a new user would jump in an make the wholesale reverts and leave such a warning only minutes after registering, almost as if the account was created for the sole purpose of making the reverts. I do however find the warning offensive, because I have been editing for several years and haven't made a single edit with the intent of slapping other editors in the face. My intentions have only been to improve the article, and do appreciate your quick action to correct this on my talk page. Thanks. Cmr08 (talk) 21:25, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I find the edits odd too. While I'm assuming good faith, I won't rule out what you mentioned: that the account was created for the sole purpose of those edits. Glad to be able to help. —C.Fred (talk) 21:46, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

BMAI

Why did you delete my new page for BMAI? Im an advisor with obvious permission, part of the organization and you took liberty to just delete without any warning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Msealy (talk • contribs) 23:34, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

It is not clear that you are an advisor or part of the organization, and nowhere on the BMAI website was it made clear that they are giving away this material. —C.Fred (talk) 23:38, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I am a board advisor with BMAI, the organization you decided to delete my write up on. Completely unwarranted to arbitrarily delete. Whats your problem? (Msealy (talk) 23:45, 5 February 2012 (UTC))

You deleted my copy. I need a copy back. (Msealy (talk) 00:03, 6 February 2012 (UTC)) Appears your right here in North Carolina.

Save my time. Ive made my representations and know what my permissions are. Who is your Attorney so we can have ours contact so we can place our information on Wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Msealy (talk • contribs) 00:08, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Any office personnel can contact Wikipedia—the email address is on the message left on your talk page–to make clear that BMAI is donating the material. However, it may still be deleted as blatant promotion.

Please also use Wikipedia's dispute resolution processes. Bringing your attorneys into the picture could be perceived as a legal threat. Legal threats are not allowed and could result in your account being blocked summarily. —C.Fred (talk) 00:12, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Assistance with tags at top of new entry

Dear C. Fred,

I am a very new user attempting to find my way through the Wiki guidelines, codes, etc. Someone created a page for "Angeles Arrien" years ago, and had linked her books to Amazon, etc. I added content yesterday to represent her books and was following the methods used by earlier authors (link books to Amazon, publishers etc.) believing that by adding more links to outside sources, the Orphan flag would go away, and not realizing that I might be violating the Wiki standards of "neutrality". I am a close source, have worked for Angeles for for a number of years and she requested I go online to make entries as she mainly wishes to have the site represent her work more accurately than what was entered years ago. And I would like to comply with the rules of Wikipedia, and want to maintain some integrity around the entries for accuracy.

The entry for Angeles Arrien is now flagged with both an orphan tag and another tag warning that someone may have a close connection and the information requires cleanup. Can you assist in letting us know what is needed to remove the tags/banners at the top of the page; or needs to be corrected? I spent hours trying to understand the Wiki guidelines and codes, and am so discouraged we are seriously considering taking the site down completely.

With gratitude, AArrien (talk) 19:48, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

A couple of things. First, the orphan flag is reflective of the number of links in to the article. If Arrien isn't mentioned in other articles, that's what that flag represents.

Second, the conflict of interest tag is there because of your heavy editing of the article. Once some independent editors (ones without connections to Arrien) have reviewed the text, that one will go away.

Finally, it's unlikely that you'd be able to request the article be removed. Articles are sometimes removed at the request of the subject, but it's not normal procedure and would require unusual intervention. WP:Autobiography has more information on that. It's possible that the article could be deleted within normal processes if Arrien isn't deemed to be a notable person; however, the fact that the article has hung around this long suggests that she is. —C.Fred (talk) 02:41, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Karen Handel

I added no commentary to Karen Handel's page, only facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smorriss4 (talk • contribs) 22:20, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Begiinning

Hello C.Fred

I am finding my way into the complexities of Wikipedia.

A question - will you be my editor for additions and changes that I make to Wikipedia sites are there other particular editors for particular sites?

Another question. Is it possible to communicate in private? I don't use Facebook, Twitter, etc., which seem rather public.

Thank you and best wishes JSLUCAS75 (talk) 02:23, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

MSU Interview

Dear C.Fred,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, were it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.

So a few things about the interviews:

• Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
• Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
• All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
• All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
• The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.

Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 02:32, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you

Hello Fred

In my first User talk to you (above) I omitted to say 'Thank you' for setting up my User talk page.

John — Preceding unsigned comment added by JSLUCAS75 (talk • contribs) 22:49, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Future Museum SW

Hi Fred, thanks for your useful input regarding my acxount. I'm just a photographer for my local council and take images of objects - I have no curatorial input etc with the Future Museum project, so I don't believe there is any professional interest. I've registered the account solely to keep track of the images I created for the site.

FutureMuseumSW (talk) 17:29, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll reply to this on your talk page, as it will lead to you needing to change your username. —C.Fred (talk) 17:38, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I fully support Ian.thomson

I fully support Ian.thomson. SaibAbaVenkatesh (talk) 21:27, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

With all due respect, I don't care whom you support or oppose with respect to the Shramana article. All I'm interested in is that the edit warring stops and that discussion on the reasons—based on Wikipedia policy—for including/excluding the text in question proceeds on the talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 22:03, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Sure, this is not an article on Shamanism. This is not rocket science. SaibAbaVenkatesh (talk) 22:15, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I tried to do the right thing in a messy situation. It would appear that others think differently. I have, and never did have, any particular opinion regarding the content and indeed acknowledged that it is not something regarding which I have any great deal of background knowledge. There was clearly on ongoing edit war situation and no-one (including what I would consider to be reasonably experienced editors) was taking it to the appropriate venue, ie: Talk:Shramana before first getting their kick in. There were and still are antagonistic conversations dotted here, there and thither. I made it abundantly clear that I had no opinion but that the thing needed to be discussed and that continued inserts/reverts merely muddied the waters. Basically, take to it the right place and discuss it properly. I've been told off for doing that and for insisting that others do the same. So be it. I will not bother in future. I still believe that in circumstances such as this the solution is to talk through the options rather than battle via use of edit summaries. It has always worked for me in the past and in this instance I did go to the trouble of explaining to the various protagonists that there was a need for focused discussion but it appears not to have worked out how it was intended. If I really say what I mean then, yes, I am somewhat pissed off by the developments and the angst directed at me, but I'll live with it. - Sitush (talk) 01:21, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Message to Fred

Hello Fred, i saw the Edit War tag on my talk page.

I put in additional content under a new section just ONCE. When Saibaba Venkatesh deleted it, i reinstated it with a message for him, not to delete / move content until admin decide on it. So, is this sufficient for you to issue an edit warning?

The topic is still being resolved and is under discussion - please see this discussion here- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Shramana

May i know what gives Saibaba Venkatesh the right to delete an entire section without a reason? May i know why Saibaba Venkatesh does not get a warning for Edit War? --= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 04:19, 11 February 2012 (UTC)Mayasutra

Need help with move

We currently need help with moving "Sonic the Hedgehog 2 (16-bit)" to simply "Sonic the Hedgehog 2" as it redirects to the same article. But we need an admin. Would you help us?Lucia Black (talk) 22:21, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I've looked at it, and it's not a clear-cut move. I've also turned Sonic the Hedgehog 2 back into a disambiguation page between the Sonic the Hedgehog 2 (8-bit) and Sonic the Hedgehog 2 (16-bit) articles. —C.Fred (talk) 22:26, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Vekatesh Saibaba=

Saibaba Venkatesh deleted an entire section again, without a reason. He did this despite the ongoing discussions. Please see his messages and personal insult (idiot) on this page -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Shramana

Saibaba Venkates not only broke the three-revert rule within 24 hours, but also indulged in insulting. Now please play your role as an impartial admin. Am copying this to user Sitush as well. --= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 05:06, 11 February 2012 (UTC)Mayasutra

Reply about editing of Emile Haynie's page.

Thank you for contacting me. I realize I have an extremely close personal relationship with the subject, Emile Haynie, (I am his mother) which is why I limited my edits to to correct errors, using pure factual information derived from an obvious source -- using the album cover and liner notes to clarify that Emile was sole producer of Lana Del Rey's "Born to Die" (when he was listed on the Wikipedia page with Jeff Bhasker). I used liner notes to acknowledge the roles that Bhasker and others played. I also contributed his correct birth date (which was listed as 1969). I feel his accomplishments are outstanding for someone who is 31 and not 42! His correct birth date is July 13, 1980. I would never edit content that might inflate his status or mislead readers in any way. Thanks again, and I will not contribute further information unless I see an outright error. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sylvie33 (talk • contribs) 16:11, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Shramana

I see that the debate is rumbling on! At least there is now a discussion, which was the intent of the recent fracas that resulted in your notes on my talk page. I apologise for any mistakes that I may have made in trying to achieve that end, and my recusal from the discussion is based entirely on something that I said at the outset: it is not a subject with which I am familiar but there was long-term warring and there was removal of sourced content. I hope that you can assist in fixing the underlying issues - it is good that an experienced admin is involved. - Sitush (talk) 01:42, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

A brownie for you!

Thanks! Wrightwood906 (talk) 02:12, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Sweetheart Cup Company

Please explain why the article says "This article or section may have been copied and pasted from a source, possibly in violation of Wikipedia's copyright policy. Please remedy this by editing this article to remove any non-free copyrighted content and attributing free content correctly, or flagging the content for deletion. (February 2012)"

Some portions of the article came from answers.com. Do I need to add this under references or footnotes? Las1385 (talk) 03:30, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Ideally, you should rewrite those passages in your own words. The formatting was such that the text gave the appearance that it was copied from Sweetheart's/Solo's website. It also needs overhauled for tone; it reads more like promotional material from the company than a neutral encyclopedia article. —C.Fred (talk) 03:34, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll work on modifying the sections from answers.com, but it is my understanding that this material is available for this kind of use under a GNU license without copyright infringement. I'm not sure what you meant by the formatting? Do you mean the headings? Nothing came from Sweetheart's/Solo's website, just answers.com, modified and corrected based upon my personal knowledge and input from family members. I am a member of the Shapiro family and my family knows more than anyone else about Sweetheart's history. As for the tone, can you give an example of where the style seems too promotional? Las1385 (talk) 03:48, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

please quit deleting my page

u obviously dont know a thing about NINJAS and there originAaron reidhead (talk) 09:00, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Apology about Shramana article

Please accept my apologies for having been rude on the Shramana talk page. Am very sorry sir. Unfortunately, since Venkatesh kept deleting despite the ongoing discussion, i assumed i too needed to be aggressive. Sadly, i saw this message User_talk:Sitush#Saibaba_Venkatesh after responding aggressively to you here Talk:Shramana#Reply_to_IndianChronicles.

I read this discussion Talk:Shamanism just now. Sorry i was not aware this topic was discussed on wiki earlier either.

Researchers have varying opinions about the terms Shramana and Shaman, apparently since research on migration patterns and linguistics (ie., similarities shared by linguistic groups), is still ongoing. The current similarity is brought out more in terms of identical roles played by a sramana and a shaman, in what came to constitute the underlying "tradition" in emerging/dominant religions/cultures.

However, this is an emerging (new) topic of research. I have no idea about wiki policies on emerging topics. These are the primary books i had referred to:
1) Religion and Anthropology, by Brian Morris (anthropologist) [Its a fascinating read]
2) Syncretism of Buddhism and Shamanism in Korea, by Hyun-key Kim Hogarth
3) The Madness of the Saints: Ecstatic Religion in Bengal, by June McDaniel
4) Sramana-Shaman: etymology of the word Shaman, by S. M. Shirokogoroff and ND Mironov.
5) Shamanism: critical concepts in sociology, by Andrei Znamenski
6) Mongolian studies, Volume 7, Published for the Mongolia Society by Research Center for Language and Semiotic Studies, Indiana University, 1981.

Thanks. --= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 13:34, 13 February 2012 (UTC)Mayasutra

List of iCarly episodes

Regarding this edit, the episode is sourced to a fan site, http://miranda-cosgrove.us/?p=771, so it's not a reliable source. --AussieLegend (talk) 13:59, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

If you could highlight that in your edit summary if you remove the episode entirely, or explain that on the talk page, I would appreciate it—and it will make it a lot easier to remove it as unverified if (when?) it gets readded. —C.Fred (talk) 14:01, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I noted that when I first removed it in this edit. I also notified the editor on his talk page,[2], after I had warned him about inaccurate edit summaries,[3] and before I asked him to discuss his edits on the article's talk page, which I did at the same time I was warning him about edit-warring.[4] That didn't stop him restoring it, and I doubt it will again. He's been quite troublesome and has already been blocked for it. --AussieLegend (talk) 14:12, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Mea culpa. It had scrolled down the edit history far enough that I missed it. —C.Fred (talk) 14:13, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, he's been a busy boy. Refuses to discuss, just reverts. --AussieLegend (talk) 14:15, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I can't tell if it's just one or more than one, based on today's edit history. —C.Fred (talk) 14:17, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

He's made 7 reverts in less than 24 hours. --AussieLegend (talk) 15:15, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Brodie mcallister

Hello! I tagged the article as G4 as it was recently deleted A7, the editor then recreated the page. If the article is salvagable, great... but I just wanted to explain my G4. Thanks! --Tgeairn (talk) 01:32, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

CSD G4 only applies if the article was deleted by discussion: WP:Articles for deletion (AfD) or, if it's a very old article, VfD. It does not apply in cases of speedy deletion or proposed deletion. —C.Fred (talk) 01:37, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

AH! I should have known that, and now I do. Thank you, it all makes sense now. Happy Editing! --Tgeairn (talk) 01:39, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Ontario Nature

Hi,

I'm trying to update the content for Ontario Nature in Wikipedia. I'm new to Wikipedia, but work for Ontario Nature and would like to make the content current and accurate. I'm going to include references, so you can check accuracy.

Please let me know if there's anything else I should be doing to make this work.

Thanks,

John — Preceding unsigned comment added by Onjohn (talk • contribs) 21:44, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Am disturbed that Wiki pages have been taken over...

I am concerned that the very good standing that Wiki gets by default almost, certainly did by me until I clued up, is open to abuse of the subtle, evil kind. I have studied cancer and various alternative therapies. All relevant Wiki entries to all that I have studied seem to be written and controlled by very biased and deceptive authors. I am saddened that this is possible with such an amazing resource as Wiki provides. I suspect the NCI, the FDA, big pharma and such organizations as are financially benefiting from there own cancer treatments. This is serious corruption and is leading to the unnecesary death of hundreds of thousands of cancer sufferers. Wikipedia should not be used, abused this way and should take its own measures not to be used or abuse for such financial gains of unscrupulous organisations, even if it means limited info on the subject. At least minimal info that is informative only and not biased or judgemental should be allowed. The bots can't distinguish the subtle lies and deciet and influence by omission or comission in such language as has been used in these biased and misleading articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.200.176.72 (talk) 21:52, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

That's why the articles are built based on reliable sources and are vetted by experienced and, for the most part, independent editors. —C.Fred (talk) 22:03, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

To the original poster: There seems to be a lot of confused thinking in the original post. The National Cancer Institute and Food & Drug Administration are arms of the federal government. They are funded by American taxpayers, and do not market or sell pharmaceuticals. It therefore seems unclear how they "financially benefit from their own cancer treatments". Pharmaceutical companies certainly benefit directly from the sales of drugs they produce, and this creates a conflict of interest which is well-recognized but, unfortunately, often poorly managed.

That said, there's an interesting double standard at work here. The marketers of "alternative" cancer cures are free to sell whatever nostrum they dream up without any sort of oversight or regulation, whereas the pharmaceutical industry has to formally study the safety and efficacy of its products before they can make a dime. Do you think the marketers of the Gerson Therapy (for example) are immune to financial considerations or corruption? Would it interest you to hear of documented instances in which marketers of alternative "cures" have come to Wikipedia to put a positive (if not downright dishonest) spin on their products?

It's always amazed me that people capable of such drug-industry paranoia are incapable of applying the same critical approach to the alternative-medicine industry. MastCell ^Talk 22:40, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Muggins Mountain

I changed the Muggins Mountain Wilderness article because both wilderness.net and the BLM website have it listed without the "s". Please review and allow my edits.thirdofjuly 2/25/12Thirdofjuly (talk) 20:15, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Did I miss one? I agree that it is Muggins Mountain Wilderness, but as I noted at your talk page, the mountain range is still the Muggins Mountains. —C.Fred (talk) 20:35, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Looks good. Thank you. thirdofjuly 2/25/12Thirdofjuly (talk) 20:41, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I find it weird

That you do not allow Ariana Grande's entry to include her full name Ariana Joan Grande-Butera (http://twitter.com/#!/ArianaGrande/media/slideshow?url=http%3A%2F%2Ftwitpic.com%2F8fcs90) but you allow the entry Elizabeth Gillies to have her full name Elizabeth Egan Gillies when there is no link to refer Gillies' middle name at all.69.137.229.200 (talk) 17:55, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Other stuff exists. And besides, there has been a link all along for Gillies' middle name: it was just in the infobox, not the main text. —C.Fred (talk) 19:53, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Eugene Plotkin AfD

You may want to re-evaluate your rationale; two editors cut the article down to a stub in order to influence a consensus towards deletion via gaming, when the article was actually more well sourced originally. Nate • (chatter) 00:39, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. I've struck my prior comment and am re-evaluating. —C.Fred (talk) 01:14, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Answer to copyright question

I have answered a question of yours on my talk page: [[5]] Mveric (talk) 04:28, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

TrancerCZ

User:TrancerCZ is still readding his comments to Talk:Acid throwing, and has ignored both your comment on alk:Violence against women and both our warnings on his talk page. This guy looks like he's intent on using wikipedia as a forum, any thoughts--Cailil ^talk 22:54, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

User name

Hello C.Fred. Thank you for your welcome. I am gradually getting the gist of things. One thing that I have discovered, however, is that my user name is inappropriate in being 'bold'and apparently near to my real name. Should I abandon my existing user name and begin with another more appropriate one?</nowiki>JSLUCAS75 (talk) 07:22, 29 February 2012 (UTC)</nowiki>

World UFO Day Links

Two links of the same site indeed could look suspicious to you, I fully understand where you're coming from. However, this is the official site dedicated to World UFO day, and it simply holds the best and most complete information. This article is a stub and the Wikipedia page could really be much better if someone would look into this site I guess. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DraekDesigner (talk • contribs) 03:42, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

The website is already linked; we don't usually link to subpages of an already-linked site, and I don't see a reason for an exception here. —C.Fred (talk) 03:47, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Arukan

The article on Arukan was not a blatant hoax. The term arukan is used in this meaning in the Phillipine TV series Wako Wako (see [6]). It might qualify for deletion as a non-notable neologism, but not as a hoax. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:12, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Arguably it qualified as vandalism: the user had recreated the page multiple times and refused to provide any sources, documentation, or explanation of where the information came from. —C.Fred (talk) 15:14, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Kineti-Go

Hi CFRED,

I tried to add a few links to clear up the notability flag that you raised on the Kineti-Go page. However, they were removed by the bot. What else can I do clear up the notability thing?

As for conflict of interest- yes, that part is true, but I believe that my article is purely factual and there is no marketing slant whatsoever. Just the facts as Wikipedia requires. There are well over a thousand of our games out there and Kineti-Go is a part of the fabric America now. There is no way around it. Should I find someone else to edit this page? As a matter of fact, our games are much better known than many of the other action/dexterity games that have Wikipedia entries.

Please advise.

Thanks,

Mike Mstromberg (talk) 15:34, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Contest deletion of page

I was creating a page of a new company, and you deleted it, i politely request, why?(mrtrevortutoring) Editor0000001 (talk) 00:38, 4 March 2012 (UTC)Editor0000001

Because it appeared to be a test page. There was no content to indicate what the subject was. —C.Fred (talk) 00:48, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, that was temporary, wikipedia had blocked the external company web address so i was testing another url to see if it would work, i did not know whether or not the wikipedia filter worked in the sand-box too Editor0000001 (talk) 00:53, 4 March 2012 (UTC)editor0000001

You'll need to work on the article further. I've tagged it as spam and as a non-notable company. —C.Fred (talk) 00:56, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

it may not be notable to you, but to croftoners(people who live in the area this company covers) will probably would want to know about the head mr.trevor to check his autheticy and could find that on his companies page, with a biography in it.

It's not whether it's notable to me; it's whether it's notable per Wikipedia's standards. Nothing in the article asserts anything that would meet WP:CORP; that's why the article was deleted. —C.Fred (talk) 01:26, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

IP's removing content at Malaysia national football team

Hi. There is another IP, 115.135.68.62 (talk · contribs · info · WHOIS), that has removed the same content on the Malaysia national football team article as the IP you recently blocked, 115.134.113.243 (talk · contribs · info · WHOIS). Perhaps the same person? Banana Fingers (talk) 15:12, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

It wouldn't surprise me. It's an old enough edit that it's not worth doing anything about right now, other than I'll keep keeping an eye on the article. —C.Fred (talk) 15:16, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Apparently I wasn't keeping a close enough eye to see that the material had been removed and not restored. C.Fred whacks himself with a trout. Sorry about that. —C.Fred (talk) 16:38, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

It's all good. lol. Banana Fingers (talk) 18:02, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

readyflowers

Hi there,

Firstly, sorry about entering in the wrong place for pier talk. Just wondering if you could help clean this page. I'm new and it's drawn quite a bit of my time, I feel like I am in a battle with this one. I've been accussed by the owners of being a competitor and being completely bias. I hope I haven't, it's just the article just isn't right which is why I was trying to get a peer review.

Any help you can provide would be very well received thank you

Jackobs (talk) 03:24, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

• • • C.Fred - the request for clean up and contribution was made by me Jackobs not [[User:Thegarty|Thegarty].

Why is this taking so much of your time Jackobs? Why are you so concerned about this one article? If the article isn't right, please state your case in the talk page and don't vandalise the page itself. C.Fred, are you the right person to look into this vandalism and why this user is so obsessed with this page? Thegarty (talk) 03:39, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I GIVE UP !!! The wiki page for Readyflowers is fiercly governed by Thegarty & FloristExpert (I think they are the same person and Thegarty is the owner of the company). Even my request to have a Peer Request has now been corrupted by them. My last comment on this matter as that this needs to be looked at by a Senior Wiki Administrator. Newbies have no hope in cleaning this page up. Jackobs (talk) 04:40, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't see where you made a request for peer review. I saw FloristExpert put the tag in a message, and I saw you try to claim that message as your own. —C.Fred (talk) 04:52, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

And I checked the history on the peer review request, and FloristExpert started that one also. —C.Fred (talk) 04:55, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

• (cur | prev) 03:18, 9 March 2012‎ C.Fred (talk | contribs)‎ . . (5,630 bytes) (-119)‎ . . (rm misplaced attempt to request peer review) (undo)
• (cur | prev) 03:05, 9 March 2012‎ Jackobs (talk | contribs)‎ . . (5,749 bytes) (+108)‎ . . (Request for Pier Review of article please) (undo)
• (cur | prev) 03:03, 9 March 2012‎ Jackobs (talk | contribs)‎ . . (5,641 bytes) (+11)‎ . . (Request for Pier Review of article please) (undo)
• (cur | prev) 01:51, 9 March 2012‎ FloristExpert (talk | contribs)‎ . . (5,630 bytes) (-119)‎ . . (undo)
• (cur | prev) 23:51, 8 March 2012‎ Jackobs (talk | contribs)‎ . . (5,749 bytes) (+119)‎ . . (Page requires major clean up and Pier Review please Jackobs (talk) 05:06, 9 March 2012 (UTC)) (undo)

Problem probably comes from me not signing properly - my bad (but I thought the above would show I put the request in). I wrote a message direct to you (see above) and then saw you have left a notification on the Readyflowers Talk with request for Peer Review on FloristExpert. Obviously, I should have been more clear about what I was requesting. It would be extreemly unlikely that FloristExpert (aka Hegarty who owns the company) will be providing transparent Peer process. Regardless, best I step down as I am well and truly over this wiki page. The Peer Review was a last gasp attempt by me at getting help to resolve. thanks for your time. Jackobs (talk) 05:01, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

And from you attempting to put the peer review template on the face of the article, when it needs to go on the talk page. FloristExpert was the first user to do that, and is so far the only editor to Wikipedia:Peer review/Ready Flowers/archive1. —C.Fred (talk) 05:11, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Deletion Contest for IMVUBreakdown

Why was this page deleted? I made this and it was made personally for me. - GothixIMVU

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

— Preceding unsigned comment added by GothixIMVU (talk • contribs) 15:42, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Merci beaucoup

These female officials are working in a four-official system; the two middle officials are the referees, identifiable by their orange armbands

The Red Maple Leaf Award Merci beaucoup pour avoir ajouter un meilleur commentaire davantage pertinent. Je m'excuse sincerement de ne pas bien parler la langue anglaise mais j'ai pensé que ma photo sera bien sur la page. Avec ce laurier de la feuille d'érable canadienne, je vous félicite et apprécie votre travail , --Vieux supporteur de hockey féminin (talk) 15:52, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

AFD on Skype version history

Hi C.Fred :) Thanks for the note on the AFD, I'd like to ask your opinion as to whether you feel it is prudent to shut the AFD until the G12 CSD process check is completed, or whether it is OK to leave it open and see which one comes to fruition first? Many thanks,  BarkingFish  21:37, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

What's likely to happen is that the AfD will close with a result of speedy delete. —C.Fred (talk) 21:38, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

2012 Manning sweepstakes

Thanks for your help on the appropriateness of deleting the 2012 Manning sweepstakes article. I've started an AFD discussion; it'd be great if you could weigh in over there, too. Terence7 (talk) 02:52, 11 March 2012 (UTC) Ha, you're one step ahead of me! Thanks. Terence7 (talk) 02:52, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

User Deletion: PGPlanners

There is no intent to promote a group. The name (and the somewhat accidental plural) got carried over from a blog. PGPlanners (talk) 03:49, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Disney

The CBS news story does not have all the information, as you should know. News stories are rarely accurate. I asked if you work for Disney, no response. Do you have relatives that work there? I can send you my bona fides if you are sincere in knowing the real story. Otherwise, please butt out. I have my reputation and dignity at stake, what is your interest in this particular story? The truth is Disney is spinning this story to their advantage, and I am trying to get my side known. The guard in question is guilty of three offenses 1) Disturbing the peace by using fighting words 2) Assault and battery possibly with a deadly weapon) and 3) Inciting a riot. Why no mention of the beer swilling mob that attacked me from behind?Victor5812 (talk) 16:41, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

First, you never asked me if I worked for Disney; you asked an anonymous editor (IP address/not signed in). No, I do not have any connection to Disney or this story. You do—which means you have a conflict of interest with the article.

First, I did contact you via mytalk, but the message is mysteriously no longer there. Second, since I have no way of verifying whether you work for Disney or not, you should recuse yourself from this topic. Third, you don't even follow your ownj guidelines by talking to me first before reverting the article, nor have you assumed I am acting in good faith. You are a lousy editor, I don't like you, and maybe you should get a life besides harassing people here.Victor5812 (talk) 19:10, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

If you have issues with how the story is presented, you can discuss it at Talk:Incidents at Disneyland Resort. If you revert the article again, I will probably refer the case to the conflict of interest noticeboard to get a wider range of editors looking at the situation. Granted, that will also put your claims out a little more widely on Wikipedia, so I'm not doing that at this point. —C.Fred (talk) 17:35, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Kamala Lopez Page

User is repeatedly putting a birth year for Kamala Lopez. The person obviously has some kind of personal vendetta. I suspect that it is Jeanmarie Simpson. There is plenty of evidence in the history of this page that this woman has some kind of personal problem that she is trying to take out on Ms. Lopez by vandalizing the Wikipedia page. This is not in the spirit of Wikipedia to take out your personal problems on another person's page. Please look into this further before you allow her to put false information up about Ms. Lopez. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chesterfieldman (talk • contribs) 02:42, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Since I've just blocked you for edit warring, I will reply on your talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 02:45, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

This is SO obviously someone close to the subject, if not the subject herself. Allegations against a living person, in this case, Jeanmarie Simpson, are taken very seriously. I suggest, C.Fred, that you delete that reference. Josiewarvelle (talk) 16:18, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Huh? How is Lopez's age an allegation against Jeanmarie Simpson? I don't see that connection at all. —C.Fred (talk) 00:37, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry - in a rush. It's not the age of Lopez that is an allegation. On one of the talk pages the editor accuses Simpson of repeatedly posting false content. Fuhghettaboutit deleted one incident, but another survives. I don't have time to find it now - sorry for the confusion. Josiewarvelle (talk) 01:49, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Other ChronicalUsual socks

Hey, if you could block the rest of the socks listed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ChronicalUsual, that would be great. I see you've already nabbed User:Mertesack. -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:16, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Done. —C.Fred (talk) 00:34, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Much obliged. Cheers. -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:35, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Seems to be at it again. I've opened a new investigation. Wikistalking some of my edits (a number of them a few months old) and reverting them with false edit summaries like "Where are the sources?" and "rv dubious edits". I'm on my mobile now but once I'm back to a desktop machine in a couple days, I'm going to go ahead and propose a community ban. Thanks for your help with this. -Kudzu1 (talk) 14:14, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

RE: All Entries Concerning Religious Figures

Hey C.Fred

I'm suggesting that all pages relating to deities use present text in primary descriptions. E.g. "Zeus is the father of Gods and men - as opposed to was. It should be noted that regardless of numbers all deities present and past are, to this day, acknowledged and even worshipped by people the world over and many of these religious groups are growing in number and regaining validity and legal recognition (see: http://ysee.gr/index-eng.php).

As the "Jesus of Nazareth" page uses present tense in regards to him as the central figure of Christianity, so too should the present tense be used for all deities to prevent offence to those still worshipping pre-Christian Gods.

Using past tense implies that the deity in question is not a true divinity but rather a purely historical concept. In the interest of religious tolerance and equality all entries on the God, Gods and/or Goddesses of any religion should be referred to in the same fashion as one another.

Wondering how this can be achieved. I would edit them all myself (haha, granted it would take time) but many pages on deities are semi-protected (if not completely).

Cheers.

Crisscrossono (talk) 17:47, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

The best place to address this is probably via WikiProject Religion. It may be something that's been discussed before. I'd suggest looking through the project's pages and, if you don't see anything, asking the question at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion. —C.Fred (talk) 17:51, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

This article is about Universal Life Church, the paragraph you state is a disclaimer is not a disclaimer, as the other individual who took issue it was just not appropriate for the lead paragraph, of which I agreed and it was bumped down. The idea of Wikipedia and articles is to limit confusion, regarding the Universal Life Church Name. The original Universal Life Church was actually the first Roman Church of the second century, the word Universal by an ecclesiastical definition is catholic or Christian. There is nothing demeaning, or can be construed as a solicitation in that paragraph, it is responsible journalism and in line with guidelines as established by Wikipedia. It is cited by state and government agencies.Thecatholicguy (talk) 03:00, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a source for the assertion that the Universal Life Church was the name of the church—or at least is a common English name of the church—from the second century? And do you have a source that confusion exists? —C.Fred (talk) 03:02, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

La Luz

Your patience and diplomacy are highly commendable.
That sort of thing makes my blood boil.
It's good that you are dealing with the newbies and not me.
Cheers, Varlaam (talk) 03:03, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Repeated Edits.

I have recently edited Heritage Christian School (Kelowna). My last edit, consisting of information regarding the school covenant, was in my view, unbiased information. I attended this school for 12 years, and have quite a bit of knowledge surrounding its goings on. I also signed the covenant several times, and knew a few students personally who left due to religious opression. (EDITAlright, got it.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by FaithAndLight (talk • contribs) 05:04, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

You cannot add original research to the article. Any information you add about the covenant will need to be sourced to secondary sources such as newspaper articles about the school. —C.Fred (talk) 05:10, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

March 2012

Hi. Thank you for your help with the vital work of patrolling new pages. I noticed that you are not marking some of the pages you've reviewed as patrolled. Please do remember to click the 'mark this page as patrolled' link at the bottom of the new page if you have performed the standard patrolling tasks. Where appropriate, doing so saves time and work by informing fellow patrollers of your review of the page, so that they do not duplicate efforts. Thanks again for volunteering your time at the new pages patrol project. Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 18:25, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Which page wasn't marked? I know there are a few pages I have improved recently, but I don't recall seeing the link to mark the pages patrolled at the bottom of the page. —C.Fred (talk) 18:32, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

This one was not marked Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 18:35, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)I've had this issue before as well. If you tag with Twinkle, it doesn't always mark the page as patrolled. Calabe1992 18:37, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure I'd have seen the link hidden down there with the big rating box anyway. Plus, I wasn't planning on keeping the page around that long. :) —C.Fred (talk) 18:42, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

FYI

Just an FYI. I reported Thecatholicguy (talk · contribs) for violating 3RR on Universal Life Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). --Me-123567-Me (talk) 19:00, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I have also requested page protection for the article. Me-123567-Me (talk) 19:03, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

If You point out your problem maybe I can help you

Samuel Powel(III) was the grandson of Samuel Powell(I) and Abigail Wilcox. [The Pennsylvania magazine of history and biography, Volume 8, Issues 1-4, Replies. Samuel Powell (I), (Vol. vii, p. 495). —A. S. M. some investigations say he came of a Somersetshire family, many of the name, and apparently his kinsmen, being resident in the parish of North Curry and its neighborhood. Samuel Powell's aunt. Ann Powell, of North Curry, married John Parsons, of Middlezoy, at Greinton, 6 mo. 23, 1685. The places named are in Somerset (Vide Book A, p. 4, Records, Mo. Meeting of Friends, Arch Street, Philadelphia)] Samuel’s (I) father was William Powell; This William had gone up to London before the year 1681. and was then engaged in the cooperage businesss in the suburb of Southward. He was evidently a man of means, and probably left England chiefly on account of the persecution which it appears befell his family (Vide Besse's Sufferings of Friends, "Powell’s of Somerset"). He was an original purchaser of land under Penn to the extent of twelve hundred acres and over (Vide Patents, 1081 et seq., Philadelphia). His son, Samuel (I), besides inheriting paternal estate, was one of the heirs of his aunt Ann Parsons (will recorded. Philadelphia, Book C, p. 331). He was a great builder—the well-known “rich carpenter" of his day. At his death, he left a large landed estate, and the reputation of having been one of the greatest contributors to the growth of Philadelphia, and to its material and moral improvement (Pa. Gazette, July 1, 1756). His wife was Abigail, daughter of Barnabas Wilcox. By her he had a son, Samuel Powel (II) (.tic, one " 1," either for distinction from others of the name or a reversion to the spelling of former generations; vide Besse). This Samuel married Mary, daughter of Anthony Morris. 9 mo. 9, 1732. There son and the subject of This article Samuel Powel (III)

There is no history on this fellow, I pointed out his ancestry to some very important people of the founding of Philadelphia especially that of Powelton, even circumstantial evidence is better than no evidence at all. I have studied this families history in-depth and have brought to light some questions and answers, but you want to have people in the dark, until someone has something better, of course they could go to my blog, but this really isn't about content is it, because most of what I say is easily verifiable on the internet — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevin Lajiness (talk • contribs) 23:35, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying what I thought was going on here. You appear to be attempting to publish your own original research; Wikipedia is not for original research. To the extent that your information is directly sourced to publish reliable sources, it can be used. If it's your own conclusions, though, it may not. —C.Fred (talk) 00:05, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Mthatha Dam (superceded old Mtata/Umtata)

Hi C.Fred! Thanks for helping out on correcting my new article Mthatha Dam. I am (was) inexperienced on WP, should've MOVED only. Thanks anyway!

PS: the official name for all entities (dam, river, airport, hospital, school, etc) should be "Mthatha" !! It is the accepted correct spelling by the isi-Xhosa speaking people of the area - being difficult to reference. Can you give me advise?

Regards on other side of the Atlantic... Aliwal2012 (talk) 10:30, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I started searching and found some current news stories that occurred in the area; that's how I found the spelling. The other option would be if the school, hospital, airport, etc. have official websites, then the spelling used for them would work. (What an entity calls itself is usually the name we go by, unless there's some odd symbol used in the name, like with the musician P!nk.) —C.Fred (talk) 21:18, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi again C.Fred!

I just found the official name change in GOVERNMENT NOTICE dd 16 July 2004:

http://www.info.gov.za/view/DownloadFileAction?id=59811

Regards, Aliwal2012 (talk) 12:51, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

DashBOT reverts?

None of those links are dead. And since they're PWTorch links, they never will be dead either. Just pointless to archive them and make things more complicated than they need to be.TheFBH (talk) 03:47, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello Fred. I have resubmitted a page again Toucan Cove records. This time it is a little more complete, I'm sorry to say that I'm new here and I did not really know how to do the sand box thing.

I feel that some may think my summation is not worthy, but if you would kindly do a Wikipedia search of said subject, you will see a lot of recording artist Represented by Toucan Cove Records are noted here on this site, I believe my last count was around 31 different artist and/or references to Toucan Cove.

Please, If this doesn't muster for a start of my topic, I would greatly appreciate some fine direction for you for improvement. I thank you for your time and concern sir. JulieJulie ann500 (talk) 06:06, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

129.94.130.222

From the history of TeaDrinker's talk page, it may be logical to block 129.94.130.0/24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log).Jasper Deng (talk) 04:25, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Universal Life Church

If you're around could you keep an eye out? Our friend is back. I did start an RFC. Me-123567-Me (talk) 18:55, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Agoura High School

Check this out. I've never seen such breathless coverage of rent-a-cops. tedder (talk) 01:11, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Question

Hello, C.Fred, I have a question. You have recently done a couple of minor edits on the article I started, Brian Sanz. I would like to know if I could possibly go to the Wikipedia article January 9 and add Brian Sanz to the "Births" section. Thank you for your time. Soulboost (talk) 05:09, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

On Paul Petrie page

Hi Fred. Thank you so much for your comments on Paul Petrie's page. I added two 3rd party references to his work in the "Work" section and eliminated a couple of sentences that did not sound very "encyclopedic". Given these changes I also took the liberty to remove the "need more references" header you added to the section. Please, let me know if you feel more work needs to be done on this article. Again, thanks *a lot* for your help. Best Fgep (talk) 12:14, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Hi C.Fred! Unfortunately, my new page was deleted due to "(A7: Article about a company, corporation, organization, or group, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject)". I would really appreciate getting this resolved as it's a valuable resource to the voice-over industry. I referenced items including guest speakers. Could you please help me? Thank you so much in advance! Very Truly Yours, --Faithvo (talk) 18:49, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Good morning! Following up. Happy Easter! --Faithvo (talk) 15:30, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution survey

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello C.Fred. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click HERE to participate. Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 02:28, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

How to create a new category?

Hello, C.Fred. I'm interested in starting a new category. Can you help me? Josiewarvelle (talk) 16:58, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Dealing with sockpuppets

Hi Fred,

Saw your note about privacy issues. Ok, what do we do about this guy who is vandalizing our pages while usinf multiple wiki names?DazzBand (talk) 04:10, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

If it's true vandalism, warn the editor and report him to WP:AIV if he continues. If you think multiple accounts are being abused, file a report at WP:SSP. —C.Fred (talk) 04:14, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Daniel Bruno, Charles Lampkin

Hi Fred,

You deleted "Daniel Bruno, grandson" from the Charles Lampkin page just a moment ago. You wrote "non-notable relative" Please be advised that Daniel Bruno is the founder of the Charles Lampkin foundation. Kindly undo the deletion of his name.DazzBand (talk) 04:29, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

That doesn't make him notable. Further, please provide a secondary source that confirms both that Bruno is Lampkin's grandson and that he's the founder of the foundation. —C.Fred (talk) 00:39, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Fred C. Please advise if these will be acceptable: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/daniel-bruno-sanz/bad-dreams-from-my-grandf_b_250751.html and http://www.prweb.com/releases/2011/10/prweb8849744.htm and http://www.charleslampkin.org/abstract.html DazzBand (talk) 01:27, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

The second source almost contradicts your claim! It suggests that the foundation received a grant from Bruno, rather than Bruno being connected with the foundation. The first source is primary, written by Bruno (Sanz) himself. The third source is also primary and does not establish the relationship between Bruno and Lampkin. —C.Fred (talk) 02:29, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Fred. We can learn a lot from you. The first source was published in 2009 and has not been challenged; therefore we considered it as most probably true that Bruno is the grandson. If not, the foundation or survivors of Mr. Lampkin would step forward and publicly dispute Bruno. Source two announces a substantial donation and it made sense to us that said donation would be congruent with an officer's position, e.g. president of the foundation. The third source is primary; it is the actual Charles Lampkin foundation web site itself publicly reproducing the 2009 Huffington Post article by Bruno ( source 1) which would, in our view, affirm the family relationship. If this line of reasoning does not make sense, we would appreciate more guidance from you.DazzBand (talk) 03:02, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Wait a minute, why does this even matter? I mean, if I was the head of the Charles Lampkin foundation it wouldn't matter; there's no reason to list non-notable family members on Wikipedia. Saying the Lampkin foundation exists is fine, that's related to the topic Mr. Lampkin, but it's another leap from there to Bruno. See also WP:NOTINHERITED; given your conflict of interest, this is information that should be kept on the Lampkin foundation site instead of on Wikipedia. tedder (talk) 03:12, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Social Networks / BikerOrNot.com

I'm a new editor, trying to improve motorcycle articles. Are only Wikipedia articles permitted on lists? Thanks for any help you can give me. Iglooflame (talk) 01:09, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

The general rule of thumb is yes, for a list, the sites must be notable and have a Wikipedia article before it's placed on the list. For the List of social networking websites, previous discussion has established community consensus that a website must be notable enough to have a Wikipedia article to be on the list; enough non-notable sites have been added that the editors have put a notice at the top of the article, including the statement that non-notable sites will be moved from the list without warning. —C.Fred (talk) 01:12, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! I am trying desperately to understand how WP:N applies to social networking sites, as I see a lot of sites I consider not notable on the list. Yet what I would consider an extremely large and notable niche social network for bikers was recently deleted as an article and on this page. Where can I read about this consensus? I don't see anything on the talk page for List of social networking websites. Thanks again. Sorry if I'm looking for help in the wrong place. Iglooflame (talk) 01:21, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I'll take a look at the talk page. In the mean time, look at WP:GNG, the general guidelines for notability, and WP:WEB, the guidelines that apply to web content. —C.Fred (talk) 01:28, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Check the archives. I'm not seeing explicit discussion, but I'm seeing several places where it's implicit that only notable social networking websites should be on the list—and that the sites should focus on social networking. —C.Fred (talk) 01:35, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks again. Maybe I'm just bias, as a motorcycle rider, that the largest biker social network with 500,000+ members should have it's own article or at least be mentioned in a list of social networks. I'll look elsewhere to contribute. Iglooflame (talk) 01:49, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Please see Wikipedia:The answer to life, the universe, and everything. And this proposed deletion implies you don't understand what "notability" means on Wikipedia. Please start at Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. tedder (talk) 01:52, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I am a biker, and if that is a conflict of interest, I'm sorry. I was trying to take what I learned from the BikerOrNot deletion and apply it to other non-notable articles on List of social networking websites. I've read WP:N, but I'll give it another look. I'm not sure how Wikipedia:The answer to life, the universe, and everything relates to this at all, but I appreciate additional reading and feedback. Iglooflame (talk) 01:58, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

deadmau5 Circa 1998-2002

It's now a dead link, but here is an archive of the original official source. It states it's called "deadmau5 Circa 1998-2002", and provides a tracklist. --Sumguy1994 (talk) 01:38, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 21

Hi. When you recently edited List of Indiana fish and wildlife areas, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pulaski County (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 09:46, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

New User

Sorry I'm new on here and wanted to have fun I'm sorry for any problems caused. — Preceding unsigned comment added by J4k3yb0i98 (talk • contribs) 16:30, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

7eventh Time Down

NOTE: I have achieve notability for this articles inclusion on wikipedia, so will you please close the discussion.HotHat (talk) 22:12, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

The discussion will continue on from seven to ten days, after which time an administrator who has not been involved in the discussions will review, decide what the consensus of editors is based on Wikipedia guidelines and policies, and then close the discussion.

I suggest you find more and better sources to demonstrate the band's notability. —C.Fred (talk) 22:43, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

New Release Tuesday is a very popular Christian Music publication, which I think is most certainly suffice. I found another magazine to back it up with. I put in allmusic for the charts for a secondary source.HotHat (talk) 23:11, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Found a Houston Chronicle piece with them on tour with a notable band and this should satisfy No. 4.HotHat (talk) 00:02, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm on board. I've changed my not-a-vote in the AfD. —C.Fred (talk) 00:08, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Nifelheim

I am leaving you this message because I am involved in a rather contentious edit war on a page you've contributed to, or because I feel you may have perspective on the subject matter. It involves a rather rude user and I'm admittedly worn out and beginning to sound a bit rude myself. The dispute is over the reliability of a little known fanzine over blabbermouth.net. If you could join the discussion and contribute to a resolution, that would be great. --Williamsburgland (talk) 01:46, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I told Williamsburgland numerous times that Slayer is not just “a little known fanzine”, which they ignored as every other statement of mine except those that might be uncivil. And they aren’t just “beginning” to become “a bit” rude. --217/83 02:00, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I told Williamsburgland numerous times that Slayer is not just “a little known fanzine”, which they ignored as every other statement of mine except those that might be uncivil. And they aren’t just “beginning” to become “a bit” rude. --217/83 02:00, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Both editors have been blocked for edit warring, and Williamsburgland has been warned about forum shopping. (He posted the above message to at least nine talk pages.) JamesBWatson (talk) 08:03, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Ghengis Khan edit request

Sorry if that was vague, I was attempting to follow what I thought was the proper format for that request. Could you just remove that paragraph entirely? It's unreferenced, everything in it is covered elsewhere in its proper context, and it seems to have been stuck in the middle of an otherwise continuous section by a different author at a later date.

Again sorry for the confusion. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.83.30.92 (talk) 02:18, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Merge proposal

A proposal was made to merge Justin Bieber on Twitter into the Justin Bieber article. As a regular contributor to the Justin Bieber article,[7] your opinion would be appreciated. --LauraHale (talk) 02:32, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

KathyBoockvar page

C.Fred, You rejected my submission for a page for Kathy Boockvar citing copyright violation of Boockvar.com. I am the one of the owners of Boockvar.com, and was using my own site's language. This can evidenced by my email, [redacted]. Can you please correct this deletion? Thank you. Jon Blair Kathyboockvar (talk) 16:39, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Please see your talk page. There are major issues with your account. —C.Fred (talk) 16:41, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

On the matter of my page

Please stop policing the page for David Hornsby. Press looks to Wikipedia to quote birthdays... as it is incorrect thus far, i've been trying to correct. Stop taking an interest in a F level celebrity page and let a person add accurate information, even it it's not cited in TV Guide. You should be taking down malicious information... this is a small detail which you need to let go as IT'S NOT YOUR PAGE. GO POLICE SOMETHING ELSE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rufer1976 (talk • contribs) 15:41, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

The issue is, how do we know your information is correct? I've referred this matter to the biographies of living people noticeboard to see if they're willing to accept the date, or if they want something from a secondary source. —C.Fred (talk) 15:48, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

source

Cited on twitter.. http://twitter.com/#!/hornsbydavid — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rufer1976 (talk • contribs) 16:18, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

You expect that kind of comment to help you?--Bbb23 (talk) 16:22, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

City of the Falling Sky

Isn't an unremarkable ebook the same as unremarkable web content as with podcasts, webcomics etc.? West Eddy (talk) 16:28, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I missed the part about it being an e-book, so it might have qualified as web content. In the end, it didn't matter, because the text was copyvio. —C.Fred (talk) 16:33, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

USRD WikiProject Newsletter, Spring 2012

Volume 5, Issue 2 • Spring 2012 • About the Newsletter
Departments Assessment roundup Portal selected articles and pictures	Features Paving a path forward with KML Down and dirty with KML SPSs in need of removal from articles Maple Syrup Report	State and national updates Project news Task force reports for CA, DE, and MI
Archives • Newsroom • Full Issue • Shortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS

—Imzadi 1979 → 00:06, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

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

Hello. How do I trigger another review. It seems that including website content was causing an issue. Any assistance to relevant articles that you can provide would be of great help to me. Thank you in advance for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.241.172.9 (talk) 04:46, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

The problem was the lack of reliable sources. You'll need to show that they're a notable band: either by having a song on the Billboard charts or by being written about in multiple secondary sources. Magazines are generally good sources; blogs are generally not. —C.Fred (talk) 00:38, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm just the GM. I've given this task to the PR people and they'll let the fan club put that together and create an article "proper". I'm conflicted interest according to wiki standards as I've reviewed them further after encountering this difficult. I was actually trying to create 'stub' that would be expanded. But it seems that is not acceptable and a complete edited article should be submitted instead. PHATA has all the relevant information on their website and facebook fan page for the interim. Thank you for your assistance in clearing this up for me. Boy oh boy.. some folks are brutal with you admin guys. Tough job. Thanks again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EastCreekStudio (talk • contribs) 01:03, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for your quick response and help re: the page posted about my daughter. Macchismom (talk) 18:15, 3 May 2012 (UTC)macchismom

Sorry.

Sorry, please can I remove these warning and I will stop.--Deathlaser :  Chat  18:23, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

This Is Colour's wikipedia article

I can scan and show articles from Kerrang magazine and Front magazine? Tour posters?

Physically and digitally published works:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/No-Brainer-This-Is-Colour/dp/B001VLP58E/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1336144660&sr=8-1

http://itunes.apple.com/gb/album/no-brainer/id320278028 — Preceding unsigned comment added by KXcom (talk • contribs) 15:21, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

The Kerrang and Front magazine articles would be the only things that would be secondary sources; I don't know whether they'd count as reliable, though. —C.Fred (talk) 22:30, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I have since shown Malik Shabazz scans of some articles, he restored the article and simply asked me to reference the articles. KXcom (talk) 22:53, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

---

Thanks & clarifying my point of view

Hi Fred,

Thanks for your suggestions and help.

As I mentioned earlier I was active as a registered Wikipedia contributor in 2006 but I left it because I had to go overseas for my other work related projects. I used to contribute as Lomash_g, but unfortunately I forgot my password and had to create a new user name as Lomasha.

After a long gap when I came back to Wikipedia, I realized that some people had misrepresented the information by deviating from the context (i.e., of Hindu Brahmin community) with a malicious mischief. That’s why, I had to revert to the article (on Gautam Brahmins) to the earlier reasonably correct version.

As far as article on Gotama is concerned, you mentioned that the contribution I made to it appeared to carry a non-neutral point of view, and my edit had been reverted to correct the problem.

Mr. Fred, the article Gotama is a disambiguation page. It refers to the first or last name as Gotama (or Gautam or Gautama). I am wondering whether you know the history behind the name Gotama and its true meaning. I just tried to make a point why and how in current times the people have stated assuming the first or last name as Gautam. I could have provided scores of references to prove my point. But references are not provided in the disambiguation pages. There is nothing to be hurt for any individual or community as such rather it’s a matter to get enlightened for each reader. I don’t think my contribution carry a non-neutral point of view.

I would appreciate if you responded to my clarification and suggested me where (I mean at what sentence or phrase) I became non-neutral!

Lomash_g (Lomasha)Lomasha (talk) 18:32, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

---

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lomasha (talk • contribs) 16:34, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Consider this paragraph:

This name has undoubtedly a conjuring effect by virtue of the merits of the great Vedic Rishi and his illustrious descendents so much so that, numerous others have sought to please themselves assuming this name.

"Undoubtedly" according to whom? There's no reference. According to whom are his descendents "illustrious"? Are other users of the name verifiably "pleas[ing] themselves" with the name? —C.Fred (talk) 18:38, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

---

Reply

Hi Fred,

Here the name Gautam was referred to a foremost Vedic sage (Rishi in Sanskrit), who was first referred to as Gautam (also transliterated as Gautama and a vrddhi patronymic of Gotama). He was refferd to in Rgveda.

Regarding the statement - According to whom are his descendents "illustrious"? Well, there is nothing personal (or any sort of comparision) in writing this statement.

The statement refers to that there were several great and renowned Rishis in ancient India who belonged to the lineage of Sage Gautam. Some of them were: Devabaagar, AruNar, Uddhaalakar, SvEtakEtu, VaamadEvar, NachikEtas, Chirakaaree, Kripaachariar, Ekadan, Dvidan, Tridan, Goutami.

For this specific sentence, one article that can easily be referred to is available on the net itself. i.e., http://www.salagram.net/Gotras.html.

These all were renowned Vedic Rishis. Besides these, many sages or renowned persons in post-Vadic age also assumed this name in India; such as Akshapada, Siddhartha (of Buddhism), Indrabhuti (of Jainism) etc.

The other sources of references, that refers to sage Gautam and his illustrious descendents, are:

(1) Pillai, S. Devadas (1997). Indian sociology through Ghurye, a dictionary. Popular Prakashan Pvt. Ltd., 35-C, Pt. M. M. Malaviya marg, Popular Press Bldg., Tardeo, Mumbai, 1997, Page 32

(2) Basham, Arthur Llewellyn. A Cultural history of India, Clarendon Press, 1975

(3) Kosambi, Damodar Dharmananda. The Culture and Civilisation of Ancient India in Historical Outline (Routledge & Kegan Paul, London), 1965

(4) Bühler, Professor Johann Georg. The Sacred Laws of the Âryas, Vol. 1 of 2, The sacred laws of the Aryas as taught in the school of Apastamba, Gautama, Vâsishtha, and Baudhâyana, Part I: A Translation of Âpastamba and Gautama (The Dharma-sutras). Sacred Books of the East, Volume 2. www.sacred-texts.com, 1879

(5) Stenzler, Adolf Friedrich; Editor. Śrīgautamadharmaśāstram: The institutes of Gautam, Trűbner, London, UK, 1876

(6) Scharf, Peter M.; Editor. The Gautamīya-Dharmasûtra: First XML edition. Matthias H. Ahlborn, The Sanskrit Library, Providence, RI, USA, 2010

Well, what do you mean by - Are other users of the name verifiably "pleas[ing] themselves" with the name?

As you know each name has some meaning and origin associated with it in context with the culture, region, sociology and religion. If the persons assuming Gautam as their first name or their last name were not happy (or pleased) in bearing this name, then who on the earth has compelled them to continue with it. They could have changed it any time. Your statement is a bit contradictory.

Lomash_g (Lomasha) LomashaLomasha (talk) 20:43, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

---

Don't undue an edit without verifying information. That helps no one and is against terms of use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dontchamemacs (talk • contribs) 04:04, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

To the contrary, the edit of yours I reverted, even though I did verify the claim, I reverted because it violated the Wikipedia policy WP:Biographies of living persons: "Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth…" —C.Fred (talk) 11:28, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Ok, fair enough. You are right, it appears to be the policy. However, I wouldn't be able to sleep at night if I didn't at least attempt to warn readers that said person was an attempted rapist. His biography makes him sound like the second coming. If I prevented one child from becoming a victim, my work is done. As an aside, I think it's an asinine policy for Wikipedia to censor criminal records- does it make sense to you, other than to cover their asses from a possible lawsuit? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dontchamemacs (talk • contribs) 01:02, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Part of the logic is that if it's really relevant to the article, there will be a secondary source that covers the information. So, while the court record itself shouldn't be used as a source, a newspaper story about the conviction absolutely could be. —C.Fred (talk) 01:12, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

---

The World Tomorrow

Please assist in resolving this issue, and feel free to delete my newly created account. I begin work on a Sylvester Stallone film next week in Los Angeles and I simply am not interested in dealing with this matter any longer.

The original article was extant for many years and was surreptitiously given a backseat to this controversial Assange character due to the infringement on our production of the same name. Several editors have elevated his page to the number one spot and created a disimbiguation page which regulates the original to a secondary position with little visibility. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Superchargedone (talk • contribs) 03:35, 11 May 2012‎ (UTC)

Will soon rewrite and elaborate the article “Gautam Brahmins”!

Hi Fred,

I have read it somewhere (and I hope you would also accept it!) that the most vandalized articles in Wikipedia are on the topics related to the cultural, religious, social communities or individuals.

The most of the editors vandalize the chosen articles either unintentionally or intentionally. Moreover, we all know that the objective of intentional vandalism is nothing but the malicious mischief against the communities or individuals.

The stronger the geographical and sociological appeal of the subject of the article, the wider is the scope of such meddling. For example, if an article is written on Jesus Christ or Roman Catholics or Shi'ite/Sunni Muslims, the possible geographical extent of the intentional meddling could be worldwide. However, regarding the subject of the concerned article, the possible appeal is limited.

I can understand that for any Wikipedia administrator located in one corner of the world, it’s very difficult to make out the legitimacy of intention especially for an article on a subject with limited geographical and sociological appeal.

Anyway, edition/addition has been done again to the article via an unregistered account/IP. As far as the new added matter is concerned, not a single statement was referred to any reliable source. I hope by now you would have got some idea of the subject through my replies on talk pages (or you can get some vague ideas from other different sources related to Brahmins in Wikipedia itself). All the added statements were either over-panegyrical or spurious in nature. This proves that the editor was not interested at all in making any true contribution to the article nor does he seem to have any idea about the subject (or in other sense the large set of the subject, i.e. Brahmins).

I would very soon rewrite and elaborate the article by deleting this stuff and I hope you shouldn’t have any objection. Besides, this article has been infected with persistent unregistered/IPs vandalism (however, in a couple of cases registered users also meddled). I would also request for semi-protection of this article.

Thanks!

Lomash_g (Lomasha)Lomasha (talk) 19:27, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

---

The Emery/Weiner School

I am no vandalizing The Emery/Weiner School page; I am trying to correct vandalism that our students have done and you are undoing my most recent change. The school is not located in "Link Valley." It's just located in Houston. Please stop auto-blocking my edits as I actually work for the school and have to get these corrections made to the page due to GROSS vandalism that has been repeatedly done by students recently. ---Ann — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.54.53.58 (talk) 01:44, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 01:48, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

See also User talk:Annholds, apparently. tedder (talk) 02:21, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Nice job!

Good job on the swift block of Clarence. Here's an imaginary cookie. =) - Zhou Yu (talk) 02:46, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Chris Diamond 'WRESTLER'

Hey there. I saw you tagged the Chris Diamond article as an A7. I haven't been too hot with my CSD's in my time, so I was about to tag it as a BLPPROD. I saw where the article stated that he has won some (probly non-notable) heavyweight title. Just for clarification, wouldn't that be considered indicating importance? Ishdarian 04:01, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Not if the title isn't notable. And especially since the article about the wrestling promotion was just speedy deleted. —C.Fred (talk) 04:03, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Gotcha. That was my original thought process, but I second guessed myself. _{I hate being wrong...} Ishdarian 04:12, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

---

Removal of alerts at the top of the article "Gautam Brahmins"

Hi Fred,

I am wondering whether the alerts at the top of the article "Gautam Brahmins" could be removed.

Lomash_g (Lomasha) Lomasha (talk) 09:03, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Shireen Fisher

This claim in not unfounded. please go check it out. she has defended multiple sex offenders. http://www.nytimes.com/1991/03/08/news/depositions-can-be-ordeal-as-well-as-a-protection.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

http://libraries.vermont.gov/sites/libraries/files/supct/168/96-180bop.txt

Could you tell me why you pulled this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vls352 (talk • contribs) 15:00, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Because she's alive, and the location of her death was not "defended rapist Robert Percy and other sex offenders". That's what your most recent edit stated. —C.Fred (talk) 15:22, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Article Giuseppe Chirichiello

Hi C.Fred, the main reason that i tagged Giuseppe Chirichiello for CSD was because it was written by the same author User:Giuseppe chirichiello who was the subject on article he created on himslef. Users are strongly discouraged to create an autobiography on themselves as per the policy Wikipedia:Autobiography and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. They as being a new user just joined and ventured into creating an article and mainly focusing on themselves only and this is against Wikipedia's policies and guidelines as the user stands in a conflict of interest. Seeing as speedy deletion was not done, i would kindly like to know more on this different case. Thanks. TheGeneralUser (talk) 20:14, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Conflict of interest is not the same thing as blatant promotion. A user can write an article about themselves that is neutral and not filled with advertising. A user can also write a spam piece on a subject they aren't related to. It's the content of the article that's the key for the criterion for speedy deletion on spam: the first article I described would be kept, but the second would be deleted as spam. —C.Fred (talk) 21:08, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Family

Hi cfred Thanks for getting back so quick and sorry I thought this disappeared so I redid and sent another one..But I will have what will be needed to validate my posting in wilkipedia, what I will be doing is tracing my family roots starting with what I experimented with today as my intro I did not think it could be done and it does work,,I will be using and citing from the spoor family in america and on leach I will be using newspaper & magazine articles dating back to the 1600's along with obituaries for Thankful Hackett & Steenwerth also, and in it I will be able to show my ancestorial roots to the american social system as being created with the help of my family it will also include many other families due to the marrying into. This will show my heritage and connect it to american culture dating back to 1500's during the begining of the settlers and the wars and then into the revolutionary war head long into the civil war and into me here today..It will take a while to put together if there is a under construction page I can work in? would be great cause I will need to take a break from it being it will be a lot of info in a short page with citings,,Thanks for help on this and any direction u can point me in to help me set up a nice presentable page on my Family History,, it will be a great(Good)& interesting read.. (not afraid of Criticism in a constructive way like proof reading and commenting on a maybe should say it this way or put this here) :) (it was my family that was favored by Gen, Washington He considered us tall and stout..Im six four, but between me and the spoor they shrunk? so I am kinda a throw back..If this biography on me and my Family will be unacceptable please let me know before I type and arrange it all into a nice wiki page.. If u proof read it after Im done and it does not fit and I can fix please let me know also..Thanks Ted IV Tediv (talk) 00:31, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Ted Steenwerth IV speedy deletion appeal

Posted it 2wice sorry Hi cfred Thanks for getting back so quick and sorry I thought this disappeared so I redid and sent another one..But I will have what will be needed to validate my posting in wilkipedia, what I will be doing is tracing my family roots starting with what I experimented with today as my intro I did not think it could be done and it does work,,I will be using and citing from the spoor family in america and on leach I will be using newspaper & magazine articles dating back to the 1600's along with obituaries for Thankful Hackett & Steenwerth also, and in it I will be able to show my ancestorial roots to the american social system as being created with the help of my family it will also include many other families due to the marrying into. This will show my heritage and connect it to american culture dating back to 1500's during the begining of the settlers and the wars and then into the revolutionary war head long into the civil war and into me here today..It will take a while to put together if there is a under construction page I can work in? would be great cause I will need to take a break from it being it will be a lot of info in a short page with citings,,Thanks for help on this and any direction u can point me in to help me set up a nice presentable page on my Family History,, it will be a great(Good)& interesting read.. (not afraid of Criticism in a constructive way like proof reading and commenting on a maybe should say it this way or put this here) :) (it was my family that was favored by Gen, Washington He considered us tall and stout..Im six four, but between me and the spoor they shrunk? so I am kinda a throw back..If this biography on me and my Family will be unacceptable please let me know before I type and arrange it all into a nice wiki page.. If u proof read it after Im done and it does not fit and I can fix please let me know also..Thanks Ted IV Tediv (talk) 00:34, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

It would probably make great material for your own personal website, but it's not encyclopedic. The underlying question is, are you are notable person? Notability isn't inherited; you can't be notable because your family is. If you don't have a claim to significance or importance, you may not have an article.

If you do wish to try to develop something, you can do it in your user space. User:Tediv/Ted Steenwerth IV would be an acceptable title. —C.Fred (talk) 00:36, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

notable

Thanks cfred for the info and yes I am a notable person and I will use the guide lines given or the form given in the notable section where the Biography wiki pages link is thanks so much..and I have done many interviews here is a link to one such interview and can u let me know if this will be acceptable to include?http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWldFJoisrA hope it works it is an interview with Jerry Pippin and I also did several interviews with Rob McConnell of the x zone in Canada and I have written a book on it also,..Thanks again for all this info u have given me. Thanks Ted IV Tediv (talk) 00:57, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

FYI, the general rule of thumb is to never write an article about yourself.

And no, that YouTube interview does not meet the reliable source guidelines. —C.Fred (talk) 01:09, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	Thanks for your contributions, C. Fred. SwisterTwister talk 23:05, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Evil Dead

You're involved, so FYI. Thank you for your input thus far. --Williamsburgland (talk) 00:08, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi C.Fred. Would you mind keeping an eye on the above discussion? Ronnie seems a bit aggressive to me, and I'm admittedly not great at being the editor that can't be baited - it's something I'm working on. In the time being, a cool collected hand would be much appreciated (I try not to resent being told to cool off either). --Williamsburgland (talk) 22:42, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

It's on my watchlist. —C.Fred (talk) 22:47, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

I should have assumed as much. I do appreciate it, as well as any input on my wiki etiquette as well.--Williamsburgland (talk) 01:44, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Indenting

If you are following Swein..mann's indenting rules then you have it wrong. See Talk:Inductance particularly toward the bottom to see how every one else is doing it ( correctly). 212.183.128.21 (talk) 16:03, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Which looks like how I restored it. Your changes to Talk:Headlamp left adjacent comments by different editors at the same indent level; that makes it hard to tell where one comment ends and the next begins. As a result, that's not standard Wikipedia practice, although I can't find it set out in a guideline right now. —C.Fred (talk) 16:07, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

You can't find it because it isn't. Nearly everyone knows how to indent correctly which is not how you and Scwein..mann do it. The way you are doing it, makes it impossible to see who is replying to whom. Did you have a look at Talk:Inductance for a good example of how everyone else is doing it. Thought not. 212.183.128.21 (talk) 16:26, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

(Talk Page Stalker Response) Your stance on indenting is not why your edits were reverted. They were reverted because the language you used was uncivil and constituted a personal attack. Please feel free to state your case in a helpful, civil manner, but if you keep making personal attacks, you will be blocked from editing. Ebikeguy (talk) 16:30, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually, it looks like there is an essay supporting your style at WP:INDENT. That said, as noted by Ebikeguy, personal attacks are never acceptable. —C.Fred (talk) 16:32, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

I think there are sound arguments to be made in support of both indenting conventions. The linked essay espouses one opinion and I espouse the other, but this isn't a matter of "right" vs. "wrong", as there is no clear consensus or policy directive on whether priority of conspicuity should be given to the order in which comments are added or to the identity of the comment to which another comment refers. Both methods have benefits and drawbacks, as it seems. I don't think there are any sound arguments to be made in support of personal attacks or vandalism of a user page, though. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C18:16, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi, C.Fred. Thank you kindly for your quick cleanup action here, here, and here. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C17:33, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Kemp

Arthur Kemp (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

DOB - please don't add a date of birth to a BLP article without a citation - please cite it or remove it - Youreallycan 21:34, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

As I noted in my edit summary, if you'd said that was why you were removing it, I'd have taken it back out. I couldn't be sure if you were removing it for that reason or just while hacking out half of the rest of the article. —C.Fred (talk) 21:36, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

I didnt "hack out half of the rest of the article." at all - I trimmed the undue and exaggerated from the lede - you replaced it - Please cite or remove the date of birth as soon as possible - thanks.Youreallycan 21:38, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

I also added internals to create redlinks to encourage users to write the articles about his publications/to expose the lack of notability of his writings - your revert removed those internals - please replace them as soon as possible or present a reason for not doing so - thanks Youreallycan 22:13, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

His most noted works are March of the Titans: a History of the White Race and Victory or Violence: the Story of the AWB.

Also - most noted - is undue - and asserts he has lots of notable writings, whereas, they are not even wiki notable so we can easily remove the claim and replace it with, His noted works are - its just more neutral imo - Another example of the pov/npov/undue in the lede that you added is the word "prominent" in the lede - look at it and remove it and its better - he isn't prominent at all.Youreallycan 22:19, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

• You have failed to comment here or on the article talkpage and I have made an edit to replace imo the beneficial parts of your revert edit - Youreallycan 22:43, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

David Foster Wallace and the image that I have 'no' right to

I said Little Brown before, LB, I think you missed that, but anyhow I'll get you that info. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DFWthepaleking (talk • contribs) 21:30, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Replying on your talk page, where the thread has been ongoing. —C.Fred (talk) 21:35, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

DFW and the photo not even worth this shit

Why would Little Brown give me the photo, which I intened to use for a term paper, but can not use it here? Don't make sense check ypur facts — Preceding unsigned comment added by DFWthepaleking (talk • contribs)

Again, replied at your talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 21:44, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

NATIONAL SECURITY PARADIGM

What I need to do to save my articles in Wikipedia? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lipkan.vladim (talk • contribs) 14:27, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

You'd have to bring the articles in line with three Wikipedia guidelines:

1. WP:Notability: Articles must be about subjects that are notable.
2. WP:Verifiability: Information in articles must be traceable back to reliable sources that support the facts in the articles.
3. WP:No original research: Articles may not present your own ideas, interpretations, definitions, theories, or the like.

In the case of the articles you've created, they all appear to be your original research. For the articles to stay, you'll need to demonstrate that the concepts are notable and have been written about by persons other than you. —C.Fred (talk) 14:31, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I have been corrected my article Natsecurology‎

I have confirmed my original. I put isdn number of my source. Thx.Lipkan.vladim (talk) 20:04, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Having an ISBN doesn't mean you aren't still citing yourself. —C.Fred (talk) 22:17, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Response For your Threat

I already started a dispute for this page, and wrote to the editors talk page. I am trying be constructive and fair here. But my edits are keep deleted by the LardoBalsamico. So please stop threatening me. (talk) 15:41, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Responding to your talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 15:41, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for warning. I wrote something on his talk page about the issue. Thanks for cooperation. LardoBalsamico (talk) 15:47, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Page-name advice

Hi C.Fred! I figured you might be a good guy to ask for some quick, simple advice. A new user has asked me to move/rename Dan McLaughlin (photographer) (a page he created) to → "The Dan Plan"... and as much as I'd like to help him, my gut tells me it might not be such a good idea per naming convention. Do you see a problem with this requested name, or am I just over-tired and paranoid? ;)  -- WikHead (talk) 01:38, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

It comes down to what the article is about. If it's primarily about him, with enough context about his plan to not leave a gap, then it should be titled Dan McLaughlin (photographer). If it's primarily about the plan, with just enough context about him to not leave a gap, then it can be titled The Dan Plan. It also comes down to which is more notable: the man or the plan? —C.Fred (talk) 01:59, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

LOL good answer! I will take your advice wisely and keep this in mind as I carefully review and sift through. My willingness to help this guy is somewhat cramping my skull, as I'm not at all familiar with the topics covered in the article. Thank you kindly for your response, stay well! :)  -- WikHead (talk) 02:11, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually, while I have your attention, I should perhaps use this opportunity to think out loud and go off topic. Every time I see your user-name, I can't help but think of the guy from BTO. Could this be how your user-name came about, or is it completely unrelated? :)  -- WikHead (talk) 21:40, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

It is completely unrelated. (Although I may have to retcon the character and make Charles officially his first name.) Long story short, it's a character from a story I wrote in high school, and when I tried to create the character on a MUSH, the name Fred was taken. So I went the F. Scott Fitzgerald route of first initial, middle name: C.Fred was available as a character name, and the name stuck. But no relation to the musician or to the middle school in the Johnson City Central School District. —C.Fred (talk) 00:03, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Now all this time, whenever I'd see your name pop up around here, I'd start humming "Takin' Care of Business"... with the assumption that you must have been a fan of the musician. Though the wiki-article doesn't actually spell out "C.Fred", he is very commonly referred to as "C.Fred Turner"... and having been very aware of Turner since the 70s, I figured there must have been a connection. Oh well :) Thank you for the friendly and informative reply C.Fred. Have yourself a great day, and happy editing! :)  -- WikHead (talk) 01:36, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Scott Woordard Smith - Rugby player

Hi, I've restored the request for sources - see Talk:Scott Woodward-Smith Rye1967 (talk) 19:12, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Brandy Norwood's Wikipedia page

Hi. I just saw that you undid my editing on Brandy's page. I just want to let you know that Brandy is MOST DEFINATELY called the Vocal Bible, even though she's called B-Rocka. As a star (thats what Brandy calls her fans) we would appreciate it if you left it as Vocal Bible rather than B-Rocka. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BenjaminButler123 (talk • contribs) 01:22, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

lil jim

why the hell did you deltet my page , you dont even know me — Preceding unsigned comment added by Liljimtrilla (talk • contribs) 13:16, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

As I noted on your talk page, I deleted Lil jim because the article contained nothing to suggest that he's a notable person per Wikipedia's definition. —C.Fred (talk) 13:20, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

but he might mean alot out side of wiki — Preceding unsigned comment added by Liljimtrilla (talk • contribs) 13:33, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

The article should have mentioned that, then, and provided reliable sources where other editors could verify the claims. —C.Fred (talk) 13:38, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

he is important — Preceding unsigned comment added by Liljimtrilla (talk • contribs) 13:57, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Per which criterion of WP:BIO? —C.Fred (talk) 15:19, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

St Cloud prison

I understand, thank-you. I had considered the existence of such a blog evidence of public outcry i.e. a citation for my use of the phrase "subject of controversy". I won't ask you where you stand on the politics of this, since it's irrelevant really but I think it's symptomatic of something awful, which is why I care for people to know. I'm a scientist and campaigner irl, so this is a slightly different kind of reference criteria to what I'm used to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reubsjw (talk • contribs) 17:07, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

liljim

he is important to every one else but i guess if a guy on the internet dont think is important then stuff every one else — Preceding unsigned comment added by Liljimtrilla (talk • contribs) 23:35, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

If he's so important, show where he's been written about in a reliable source. —C.Fred (talk) 23:40, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Riot Bowl

Article reference for the name "Riot Bowl" in connection with the Iowa State and West Virginia Game. "Iowa State travels to TCU on October 6th and hosts the first annual Riot Bowl against West Virginia on November 24th."

http://www.widerightnattylite.com/2012/5/23/3037176/stormin-around-the-big-xii-100-days-to-kickoff-edition

Please reply here.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.50.241.167 (talk) 18:52, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

The article needs reliable sources to back it up. I don't see this fan forum as being reliable at all. —C.Fred (talk) 19:06, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

It's not a fan forum. They report Iowa State related news and have writers put their perspective on it. This is no different than ESPN (David Ubben, Ted Miller, etc.) or Yahoo (Jeff Eisenberg). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.50.241.167 (talk) 19:18, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Who's the publisher, then? Is it connection with a newspaper in Ames? —C.Fred (talk) 19:30, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

They have a very loose connection with CycloneFanatic.com, who is published by Chris Williams. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.50.241.167 (talk) 19:39, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I like those Barnstars

I was checking out your User Page, and thought it was pretty cool. You are very multi faceted. I now see the point you made, very well. Thanks for taking the time to help someone who is new. _Jason West Jones (talk) 04:59, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

lil jim

i dont to prove anythin ill put up another — Preceding unsigned comment added by Liljimtrilla (talk • contribs) 07:50, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Emilie's birth date

Regardless of what "cited sources" say, her passport says otherwise, And her real name isn't "Emilie Autumn Liddell" It's Emily Autumn Fritzges, not to mention the majority of the biography on her page being complete BS, but hey, one thing at a time — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.254.44 (talk) 19:48, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Delete one of my user subpages?

Hi. Can you please delete one of my user subpages (User:Hadger/index/sandbox)? I want it deleted because it's pretty useless now that I created User:Hadger/sandbox. The reason I'm asking you is that I'm not sure if this would be an appropriate nomination for deletion, and you're the only administrator whom I know about. (I've been inactive for a long time. :P) Thanks in advance. If you can't delete it, that's okay.:) Hadger 03:59, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Done. In future, you could put the tag {{db-userreq}} on a page in your user space like that, and then any admin can speedy delete it. If you started something in article space and were the only editor to contribute, you could request deletion with {{db-author}}. —C.Fred (talk) 18:25, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! :) Hadger 04:54, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

al-Farabi

C.Fred you reverted my edit without giving your reasons and with a blind blame of vandalism please explain ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Majilis (talk • contribs) 01:53, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

As I noted on your talk page, the edit you made was against established consensus and therefore disruptive. —C.Fred (talk) 02:04, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Please note it's not agreed yet, many of the things written on page about al-farabi are simply lies, it's not consensus,

what about you, you are reverting without the realization of what you are doing, you are not giving reasons, for each and every edit i made i have putted citations and the reasons for changing anything, it's unjust from your side to revert anything without proper reasons, do you have knowledge on what you're doing? if change anything please give proper reasons, show your citations etc.

--Majilis (talk) 14:02, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I gave a very clear reason for my last revert: you had violated the three revert rule, so in conjunction with blocking your account, I undid the changes that caused you to get block. That was more a matter of Wikipedia policy than the article content.

Regarding the article content, it appears that the majority of editors disagree with you and do not support your changes. I strongly urge you to discuss your concerns with the article at Talk:Al-Farabi, and do not continue to make the disputed changes until/unless consensus is reached at the talk page to make the change. —C.Fred (talk) 15:37, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

--talk ok i was not aware about the rules, i'll go to the discussion page, thank you! :) --Majilis (talk) 15:42, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Ronnie's edits/moving warning from user page to talk page

I just removed the warning Ronnie left me as vandalism without seeing that you moved it from my talk page, so I'm sorry for blindly calling it vandalism; clearly you didn't do anything wrong by moving it to the place Ronnie intended to put it. That said, I feel its time to pursue intervention via the noticeboards in regards to this editor... Wikipedia rules and protocols have been explained to him by numerous editors over numerous issues, he constantly reverts the same edit over and over (this is the case with several edits), soap boxes and earlier in his career had a history of outright vandalism. Most importantly, I can't find anything he's done that would be considered productive editing. I will notify you once I make the post. --Williamsburgland (talk) 12:47, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Here you go. --Williamsburgland (talk) 13:42, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Deleted page for Dr. Elizabeth Austin

June22, 2012

Dear C.Fred,

I want to know why you are listed as the person who Deleted Dr. Elizabeth Austin's page. There is nothing on the page that violates any of the guidlines. I'm also curious how just anyone can delete another persons page without discussion.

I'm not sure where your reply will show up so I will stay signed in. I was in the process of adding some of her awards when I discovered that you had deleted the page AGAIN.

Look forward to your reply and having the page reinstated.

Wxextreme (talk) 16:21, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Both did violate a guideline, indirectly. They contained no substantial content, so they were speedy deleted per criterion A3, an article with no content beyond a restatement of the title or external links. —C.Fred (talk) 16:34, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Deleted page for Dr. Elizabeth Austin Full of content

I'm not sure how you determined that the page is w/o content. It's full of content including a photo with caption. Here's the content. I'm going to re-post it and I would greatly appreciate it if you don't 'speedy delete' this time. After I posted it last time, I went back to the wikipedia's home page and typed in Dr. Elizabeth Austin and it came up fine. Not sure why you're not seeing the content. (I had to delete the links from this message because it wouldn't let me send them, but the content does have links)

[copy of article deleted]

Wxextreme (talk) 16:50, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

None of that was in the articles I deleted three days ago. Both articles I deleted, the only text in the article was her name (plus in one of them, a header that read "Header text"). —C.Fred (talk) 16:57, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

re-posting

Okay I'm going to re-post it now. I don't understand why when I typed her name into the main wikipedia box it came up with all the content and picture too. I sent the link to her publicist, he was able to see it, but somehow you couldn't... that seems quite strange. I'm not sure what else to do - except repost it. Wxextreme (talk) 17:02, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

You're not an admin, so you don't have access to the two deleted revisions of the Dr. Elizabeth Austin and Dr.Elizabeth Austin articles; I do. That said, your third attempt to create the page is still visible in the history of the Dr. Elizabeth Austin article. Another editor—not me—redirected the page to the Perlan Project article instead of deleting the article outright. —C.Fred (talk) 17:15, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

So can you re-post it

I wasn't quite sure how to interpret you last message. Can I undo the re-direct?, or do I need to start over?

Wxextreme (talk) 17:55, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

It's posted again

I re-posted the page, and it's visible when I type in Dr. Elizabeth Austin in the search window on Wikipedia's main page...so I assume you can see it too. Please don't delete, or re-direct. Let me know if there's some problem with the way I posted it - I'm new to the process.Wxextreme (talk) 18:02, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

now what

Now when I go to her page it reads Elizabeth Austin (meteorologist) and has all kinds of annotations and editing remarks- who is doing that? and Why? Why did she go from Dr. Elizabeth Austin to Elizabeth Austin (Meteorologist)- Who is making these decisions? This is really quite an inscrutable and painfully difficult process so far. Are we now supposed to go back and make the edits in this new page that you created for us, including changing her title?

Wxextreme (talk) 18:22, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

more editors?

I just received this message,(and didn't see a way to respond to it, like you have on your page)

Hi- please don't re-add "Ltd." and "Dr." on the Elizabeth Austin (meteorologist). See WP:CREDENTIAL for the "Dr." version of that; I can find the "Ltd." guideline if you'd like. You also need to watch your conflict of interest on this article. Please read that policy. tedder (talk) 18:27, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

How many editors are going to be making changes to the page that we are having to comply with? I would like to ask mr. tedder some questions about his comments but couldn't see a way to respond to him. I'm quite puzzled about the type of documentation that you want for Dr. Austin's attendance at the various schools she went to. I have no idea what the issue is with "Neutrality"...the copy is quite straightforward and unbiased that is on the page....so confused, especially if we're going to be dealing a variety of different editors each with their own issues about the page...

Wxextreme (talk) 18:39, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Each user has a user talk page. There should've been a link to User talk:Tedder in his signature. You could have left him a message there.

Regarding how many editors will be making changes...all of them, potentially. :) Any editor can edit any article; however, editors with conflicts of interest should be careful editing pages where they have conflicts (e.g., their employers), and some pages are protected to prevent abuse and vandalism, in which case new editors have to request changes on the article's talk page.

That said, there is a talk page for each article, so if there is an article titled Elizabeth Austin (meteorologist), there is a talk page associated with it titled Talk:Elizabeth Austin (meteorologist). That page is the best place to discuss improvements to the article. —C.Fred (talk) 22:15, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi,

I asked several questions from "tedder" and never really got too far other than links to some other pages and finally, after a few emails back and forth, a real sarcastic, snotty response that said " he was through with me because he tried and I didn't get it. In any case, would you take a look at the page now and let me know how it looks, I've been trying to "clean" up all the things that 'tedder' had issue with. He changed quite a bit of the site. The remaining things it seems I have to deal with are the "neutrality" issue and some issue relative to "noteworthiness"... If you could let me know your thoughts on the current page I'd appreciate it. I'm a little surprised to have gotten such a nasty response. I'm new at this and appreciate a bit of patience.

thanks

Wxextreme (talk) 22:29, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Tedder's doing some research on the page now; I see he's added an external link to the article. I just looked through it, and I have grave concerns. The only thing I could back up in a secondary source was that she's chair of the Board of CCM. Everything else comes back to her CV or her company's website—or isn't supported in the cited sources.

Neutrality is inherently an issue while you edit the article. You appear to have a relationship with the subject: you've taken pictures of her, and your username suggests that you work for or are otherwise connected with her company. Basically, until we can find sources independent of Austin—or at least a newspaper interview where a journalist is talking to Austin—the conflict of interest tag will stay up, because the bulk of the information in the article is coming from a related party.

I've commented on the article's talk page about notability. It all comes back to how little can be verified about her from any place that isn't under her control. —C.Fred (talk) 23:48, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Re: Dr. Elizabeth Austin Wikipedia posting scheduled for deletion (again)

Dear C. Fred:

I received an email about this and am responding. My name is Elizabeth Austin, I have am not putting this site up onWikipedia but am providing some information for it.

We have been going around and around with you for days now. All the is required is a very simple bio on Wikipedia.

I read with great concern that you have "Grave Concerns" about my c.v. I have absolutely no idea how others prove their resume but I am going to find other similar wikipedia sites and see if/how they are verified. I do not see the amount of references that are obviously required for this site as many others that are currently posted. How does one verify a c.v.

By the way, I am cc'ing the following on this thread of conversation and will do in all future conversations also (their emails are not included below for privacy reasons but you will be receiving the email separately).

Ed Warnock, CEO, Perlan Project Einar Enevoldson, President, Perlan Project Doug Perrenod, Perlan Project Ed Teets, Jr, NASA Dennis Tito, Perlan Project Michael Starler, Esq., Greenberg Traurig Gene Schwaum, Hanson & Schwam

Yours truly, Elizabeth Austin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elizabeth Austin (talk • contribs) 02:50, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I've escalated this matter to WP:COIN. —C.Fred (talk) 13:02, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

c.v. question

Dear C. Fred,

O.k. you can send it on I have just been trying to weed through the wiki links to find out how to reference things that may not be on the web.

By the way, there were not two attorneys referenced just PR firm people who were the ones who suggested wikipedia to a colleague of mine who is trying to post for me. One is an attorney but is trying to help me get things published properly and that is how wiki came up. I am just responding to the email that I received from my colleague which had some very nasty messages from editors at wikipedia and he was at his wits end.

Please forward this message on to whomever it requires.

Yours sincerely, Elizabeth Austin Elizabeth Austin (talk) 14:41, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Govind Kumar Singh

I am not sure if you saw this response to your message on my talk page. There appears to be a considerable backlog at SPI but we have a duck at GVS. - Sitush (talk) 21:02, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Majilis

Someone has taken him to the 3RR board but I'm thinking time for a ban from anything related to Turkic peoples. Virtually all of his edits except those adding other Wikipedia versions have been reverted. He keeps asking people to explain their edits despite people providing edit summaries, and has now had the nerve to ask me to discuss on the article talk page despite never using article talk pages except at Talk:Islam about something not related to Turkic people. He just tried to change the name of Turkestan (city) with a copy and paste which (besides not being discussed) lost the history and talk page. Hm, he created Category:Lists of Turkic people and List of Turkic scholars where there's a red link which I presume means he's going to create that article. Given what Turkic people says, that's about the same as "List of English speaking scholars". Anyway, what do you think of a ban? Dougweller (talk) 05:41, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

My first thought is to see what he does after his return from his one-week block. If he's right back in the same areas, then a topic ban and/or a revert restriction (1RR or, even more severely, 0RR) might be in order. I think his behaviour is more a case of WP:I didn't hear that that any intent to vandalize the encyclopedia; however, with consensus appearing to line up firmly against him, his refusal to accept the consensus has become disruptive. If it continues, then yes, a topic ban would help to minimize the disruption (or, worst case, let he be blocked on the first occurrence, rather than waiting until the fourth or fifth). —C.Fred (talk) 13:05, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

That sounds eminently reasonable. We want to minimize the disruption, as you say. Dougweller (talk) 05:17, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

a request

Dear C.Fred, Could you please move Iraqi Kurdistan national football team to Iraqi Kurdistan football team and then delete the first one? You know, it is not a national team. Thanking you in anticipation. In fact 10:02, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Second question first: No, I would not delete the redirect, as it's not an unreasonable search term. As for the move, I see your point, but I also see where at some functional level, they're as if they were national teams. This probably needs some discussion before the move; I suggest following the directions at WP:Requested moves. —C.Fred (talk) 13:10, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Libel

It wAs not a threat it was a statement of fact. Once again there is libel an slander. But I will not threaten you because that is banned Rouoetyjsjabdb (talk)< —Preceding undated comment added 18:45, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Getty images

Hey C.Fred - My bad, this is my first go at contributing to Wikipedia so I have a lot to learn! I have a question, my client has the rights from Getty to use this image although it sounds like this is a non-issue because no matter what the image has to be free. Is this true? Thanks in advance for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amantri (talk • contribs) 05:05, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Three things: First, "my client has the rights from Getty to use this image" is much different than everybody has the rights from Getty to use the image. The rights the image has on Wikipedia correspond to what everybody has the right to do. I've taken photographs and uploaded them to Wikipedia (actually, to Wikimedia Commons): I've licensed them under Creative Commons 3.0, so anybody can use the image, as long as they credit me.

Second, you're correct that image has to be free. There are some very limited exceptions where non-free images can be used: an album cover can be used in an article about the album, for instance, or an article about a company can include its logo. In almost every situation in an article about a living person, only free images may be used.

Finally, I notice you use the phrase "my client". This suggests that you are editing on behalf of somebody; you should take a look at the guidelines for conflict of interest. You're not forbidden from editing articles about your client, but you need to edit cautiously. —C.Fred (talk) 00:33, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the insight and taking the time to explain this! I will take your points into consideration for future editing. —'amantri 20:13, 27 June 2012‎ (UTC)

Nadia Ali vandalism

Hey there, I noticed you had earlier blocked the user Unspokenword5 for repeated vandalism on the Benjamin Netanyahu article. They've decided to do the same on the Nadia Ali article repeatedly removing facts. I've sent them a warning but noticed since you blocked them from editing earlier, could you please keep an eye out as well just in case he does the same thing again? Thanks! MHDH (talk) 06:14, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't see anything in their block log for an earlier block, and given their history, I don't think there's enough at the Nadia Ali article to block them. —C.Fred (talk) 23:48, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Total Drama World Tour

I already went ahead of you and Giggett and added a note saying that "if any user, even if they are American, attempts to change the TDWT winner to Heather, they will be reported to Wikipedia!" I greatly hate conflict and vandalism, in general. :P Agent Perry 17:34, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Justin Bieber on Twitter for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Justin Bieber on Twitter 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/Justin Bieber on Twitter 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 template from the top of the article.

Informing you of this nomination because of your previous participation in the Justin Bieber on Twitter merge into Justin Bieber discussion.--LauraHale (talk) 02:58, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Christian Núñez Medina → Christian Núñez

Hi C.Fred, how are you? Can you move Christian Núñez Medina to Christian Núñez? Thank you for the attention. OffsBlink (talk) 17:13, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Done. —C.Fred (talk) 20:26, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much. OffsBlink (talk) 21:43, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

76.26.179.26

76.26.179.26 keeps removing warnings is he allowed to do that immediately as he is clearly not reading them! How will other users know about previous warnings if he keeps deleting them?! TheIrishWarden - Irish and proud (talk) 18:18, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

First, deleting the warnings is considered to be a sign of having read the warnings. Second, other users can check the history of his user talk page and see the warning history. —C.Fred (talk) 18:19, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh right new on here! Going to keep an eye on them anyway.TheIrishWarden - Irish and proud (talk) 18:21, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I am allowed to delete warnings, correct C.Fred? Second, rosters are against WP:Fancruft as per Talk:WWE All Stars, I have requested protection at [8] 76.26.179.26 (talk) 18:23, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Uh for some reason the other guy is telling me to edit at some other wikipedia I never heard of before, check the history of my talk page 76.26.179.26 (talk) 18:39, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not sure if that's a misdirected message or what. (FWIW, I hadn't heard of the Odia Wikipedia either—or Odia as a language, for that matter.) —C.Fred (talk) 18:41, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Rugatu Q&A Community

Hi Fred, do you have a problem with Rugatu Q&A or something? Is a q&a community you know...--Smartypants83 (talk) 00:25, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I know. It's also pretty clear that it's not a notable website. —C.Fred (talk) 00:29, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

You lost me, please define notable...--Smartypants83 (talk) 00:31, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

That's what the linked guideline does: it defines notable. —C.Fred (talk) 00:32, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm reading it. And the deletion of of Rugatu from the Q&A websites list page, was that for the same reason?--Smartypants83 (talk) 00:35, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes. The edit summary was a little cryptic, "rm nn new website",[9] but it means that I removed a newly-listed website because it is not notable (nn). —C.Fred (talk) 02:25, 11 July 2012 (UTC)