Jump to content

User talk:C.Fred/Archive 17

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20

Liberty Silver

i am trying to update her information the information that was on their is NOT authorized and reveals very personal information that is NOT for public display

If i can not add to it although I AM authorized then the personal info has to be removed or the page deleted

bottom line

I will try again to remove it NOW and worry about editing it at a later date when i have more time Sharon Savoy18:09, 10 October 2015 (UTC)Savoy1959 (talk) Savoy Prodctions

@Savoy1959: Since you have a conflict of interest, you should not be editing the article. Also, the only personal information that is questionable is the date of birth; the location of birth is clearly cited. —C.Fred (talk) 18:10, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Actually, I missed the bit that you just removed. While the paragraph is cited, it's probably not relevant to the story—at least not unless it comes up in multiple sources. —C.Fred (talk) 18:14, 10 October 2015 (UTC)


conflict of interest ?? I have her interest and as it sits now is a violation of her privacy

Savoy1959 (talk) 18:15, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

@Savoy1959: Since you are holding yourself out as her manager, you have declared a conflict of interest. You may also need to review the guidelines for paid editors.
Also, which information do you think is violating her privacy? If it's unsourced material, it can be removed. —C.Fred (talk) 18:17, 10 October 2015 (UTC)


You seemed to have allowed me o remove the information i was concerned about and she is happy with that but aws she is not good with tech things she has no way of updating and the person who did this originally had NO authorization

So when i have time i will look further into how to do this

but in the meantime thank you for allowing her real name and adoption information to be removed


Sharon Savoy Savoy Productions Canada

Savoy1959 (talk) 19:47, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

@Savoy1959: She, also, should not be editing the article. Please review the link I provided on conflicts of interest. —C.Fred (talk) 19:52, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Further, by your edit above, have you declared that you are an employee of Savoy Productions Canada and that Silver is your client? That disclosure is required by the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use. —C.Fred (talk) 19:57, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

I own Savoy Productions Canada and we are her legal reps so I will read your terms asap we do not usually deal with this site cause we know like this one the information is not authorized Ms Silver was horrified to see this out as public information

So we are all good for now

Sharon Savoy Savoy1959 (talk) 23:20, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

@Savoy1959: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia written from neutral point-of-view; there is no process for "authorizing" a Wikipedia article. There are, however, avenues to seek correction of an article that contains incorrect information, when that situation comes up.
That said, when you added copyrighted material, that's a class of material we're not authorized to use: if the text is not under a free license, it cannot be added to Wikipedia. That licensing issue relates to large blocks of text, though, not just facts and information about a subject. —C.Fred (talk) 23:23, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Hindustan Movement

The article Hindustan Movement has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Obscure web forum. The only claim of importance has gone unverifiable since 2007.

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. The Dissident Aggressor 00:14, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Mushtaq Omar Uddin

@C.Fred - I want to edit the article page with valid information about Mushtaq Omar Uddin that is not even disclosed or incorrectly disclosed. Can you please explain I may do that. I tries to make important changes but they keep on being removed and reverting back to the original version. Can the article be reverted to the last edit please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amrak15 (talk • contribs) 19:49, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

@Amrak15: You need to go in smaller chunks and explain your edits better. In one case, you deleted every external link from the article. In another, you removed cited information from the article.
I'm also concerned that you have a conflict of interest, in which case you shouldn't edit the article at all, although you may request changes on the article's talk page, Talk:Mushtaq Omar Uddin. —C.Fred (talk) 19:52, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

@C.Fred - I want to edit the article page with valid information about Mushtaq Omar Uddin that is not even disclosed or incorrectly disclosed. Can you please explain how I may do that. I try to make important changes but they keep on being removed and reverting back to the original version when these changes are facts not opinions. Can the article be reverted to my last edit please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amrak15 (talk • contribs) 19:52, 14 October 2015‎ (UTC)

Regardin email to Dina Goldstein

We have been in touch with permissions-commons@wikimedia.org where I have notified them of my released files. What else has to be done at this point? Dinagoldstein (talk) 21:07, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

@Dinagoldstein: You need to contact WP:VRT; otherwise, your account could be blocked for a username violation, if we can't verify your identity. —C.Fred (talk) 21:10, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Bad

Hello. You've asked for evidence and I'm here present evidence for the Bad World Tour's title. Here's a review of the Bad World Tour. Here's a CNN article about items being auctioned off including a jacket from the Bad World Tour. Here's an article by Billboard about MJ's manager's death which includes a piece about the Bad World Tour. Us Magazine article that mentions the Bad World Tour. Telegraph article which mentions his pet chimp and the Bad World Tour. IBTimes article also mentions the Bad World Tour. AdAge article. I hope this convinces you. Dash9Z (talk) 23:59, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

@Dash9Z: I'm not who you need to convince. You'll need to get the support of a consensus of users in a new requested move discussion at Talk:Bad (tour) if you want the move to happen. —C.Fred (talk) 00:38, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

ProUzik2

this is for the YouTuber wiki page that was deleted. is 3000 views enough to get the page back? Prouzik2 (talk) 20:14, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

@Prouzik2: No. You need to show that he's been written about in reliable sources independent of him, like newspapers and magazines. —C.Fred (talk) 20:21, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Hey, some help please?

Hey, User:C.Fred. You probably don't remember me, but i was the guy you helped with his ribbons. Then it was two, but, now it's 5, and i am having trouble. I want the two on top centered like on your ribbon stack, the way it's supposed to be. And i've been forced to use the mini-cookie ribbon. When i tried to use the normal version, instead of the standard 90px it would stay at 800px! Can you help me out please?

Thanks again, --The Haze Master (talk) 21:32, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

@Luis Santos24: It looks like one of the problems is that the cookie ribbon is a non-standard size. I'll pull your ribbons into my sandbox and do some playing. —C.Fred (talk) 21:33, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

User:C.Fred, Thanks! I'm in NJROTC and nothing annoys me more then my userspace ribbons looking out of place. Haha!

Appreciate the help, feel free to put the fixed rack on my talk page if you can fix it, thanks! --The Haze Master (talk) 21:35, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

@Luis Santos24: The gap looks a little odd still, but how does this look? User:C.Fred/sandbox#Ribbon bar for the Haze Master —C.Fred (talk) 21:37, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

User:C.Fred, it's awesome! but when i try and put it in the center, the top two go off to the right.

Thanks again, --The Haze Master (talk) 21:42, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Easy fix: don't centre the ribbon bars. :) Actual fix: see the sandbox. I put the entire block inside one table, and the table is centred. —C.Fred (talk) 21:44, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

User:C.Fred you're the best! Just one more question. I've written 26 articles, member of several Wikiprojects/teams. Over 2,300 edits, but i only have been awarded 2 ribbons from other people, the other 3 being service ribbons, i'm not saying that it matters, but how did you get so many ribbons?

Thanks for all the help! --The Haze Master (talk) 21:50, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

@Luis Santos24: They accumulated over time. :) I just hit the ten-year mark last month. —C.Fred (talk) 21:58, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

how

I have proof from a interview i took a screen shot of the change of rios last name Sahara jade8280 (talk) 22:03, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

@Sahara jade8280: As a rule, screenshots are suspect, because they can be altered. Better to go back to the original interview, if it's online, and source it there directly. —C.Fred (talk) 22:07, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Especially since I don't see any online sources supporting Raymond as a last name, but I see multiple sources for Pacheco. —C.Fred (talk) 22:18, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

A smile for you! Thanks for being so helpful! Suggestion Comment

If it weren't for you, my ribbons would never look good, thanks! Feel free to smile back, and/or spread the cheer! Smile at friends, enemies, hell, even random editors!

Hello C.Fred, The Haze Master (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing! The Haze Master (talk) 23:11, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

--The Haze Master (talk) 23:11, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

answer to your how

Theys a video on youtube Sahara jade8280 (talk) 22:08, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

@Sahara jade8280: What video? There's no way to verify the claim without a more specific source. —C.Fred (talk) 22:21, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Herbert H Kersten

It does have a new source, but he still shouldn't be adding it to Georgia Guidestones and I'm not sure I'm convinced by the new source. Doug Weller (talk) 20:31, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Talk:List of military occupations

[1] User Point by Point contacted me on my talk page. To which I responded on their talk page [2]. I then deleted their message. They then undeleted their message and moved my message to my talk page [3] [4]. I once again removed their message from my talk page. They then started moving it to the articles talk page.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 00:50, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

@Serialjoepsycho: Thank you for providing true diff links. I got the feeling that was what was going on, but I wasn't 100% sure at the exchanges on the article talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 00:55, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm perhaps walking the line of civility there on the articles talk page. To much nonsense. If it's not a SPA and/or Pro-Israeli partisan then it's a SPA and/or Pro-Palestinian partisan there to promote their cause. I had opened the RFC to stop the slow motion edit war ffrom escalating.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 01:03, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Westminster schools

None of the listed alums (or very, very few) have sourcing that proves they went to Westminster. Here's a football roster that mentions Candler, however.... http://classic.westminster.net/athletics/catbackers_teaminfo.aspx?TeamID=968 — Preceding unsigned comment added by DtanTheObjective (talk • contribs) 02:15, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

can i

Can i send it to you somehow? Sahara jade8280 (talk) 23:20, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

@Sahara jade8280: You can reply to me with the link; put it in your message here. And please reply in this thread so I can keep up with what you're referring to. —C.Fred (talk) 00:17, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

With this ever dramatic world and winter coming, here's a cup of tea to alleviate your day! This e-tea's remains have been e-composted SwisterTwister talk 04:54, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments on User talk:BETAKAPPAGAMMA

Hey C.Fred. On User talk:BETAKAPPAGAMMA I noticed you said Also, where did you attempt to change your username? I don't see any request. They filed a request to change their username via Special:GlobalRenameRequest, and not the traditional WP:CHUS and WP:CHUU venues, which is why you didn't see the request. I can verify that they have indeed requested a username change, and I'm waiting on them to be unblocked before performing the rename.

I hope this clarifies some of the confusion. --I am k6ka Talk to me! See what I have done 01:28, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

@K6ka: That feature needs wider coverage; I can see how a user who initiated that request could have gotten reblocked if there wasn't a timely reply to the request, since it would look to an en.wiki admin like no request was made. As for this particular user, I see she's gotten unblocked, so hopefully that's got her rename taken care of. —C.Fred (talk) 01:37, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Epic Tree Care deletion

Hello, I noticed you deleted the page Epic Tree Care. But I don’t believe there is valid reason for deletion. The page is significant and of importance, especially to people in north-east Scotland and to people concerned with conservation, forestry and wildlife. For example - Epic Tree Care were awarded a 5 year contract for Craig Leek SSSI (Sites of Special Scientific Interest) to remove and control the re-growth of birch trees across the cliff on top of the mountain. The limestone cliffs are habitat for an extremely rare bryophyte, a type of small moss which is only found in one other location in the world, and it is hoped that removing the encroaching birch trees will preserve its habitat and the wide biodiversity for future generations. The contract also benefits a rare stalked puff ball only found in 7 other places in the world.

Additionally, it’s difficult to make adjustments to pages so they meet Wikipedia criteria when they are tagged and deleted so quickly. I kindly request the Epic Tree Care page is restored so the significance and importance can be highlighted. Is that possible, please? In my honest opinion, there are other Wikipedia pages that are less significant and credible than Epic Tree Care..

Thanks. Isfxltd (talk) 00:06, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

@Isfxltd: Although I tagged the article for deletion, I didn't actually delete Epic Tree Care; another admin, Just Chilling, did the actual deletion. Also, speedy deletion is exactly as it suggests: there is no minimum duration before the article can be deleted (though unless it's copyright infringement or a personal attack, I'll usually wait at least 10 minutes). As for the content, the article did mention a contract to remove and control regrowth of birch trees; however, not every government contractor is notable. The article did not show that the contract had gotten coverage in independent, reliable sources (i.e., no media coverage mentioned—the only source was the Woodland Trust). Frankly, most of the article was information about tree care in general and only peripherally about Epic. That may have contributed to the article's deletion: it looked like you were "grasping at straws" to put content into the article and couldn't find enough material directly about Epic.
That said, I do see that it's possible that a compliant article could be written about Epic, so I'll restore the article into the Draft: namespace so you can work on it. Please do not move it to the main article space until it's been reviewed by myself or another administrator; otherwise, it could wind up speedy deleted again. —C.Fred (talk) 01:10, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
It has been restored at Draft:Epic Tree Care. I have also edited the article to remove the tangential material. —C.Fred (talk) 01:16, 25 October 2015 (UTC)


@C.Fred Thanks for your quick reply and for restoring the article to draft status. Your comments are fair. Indeed, Epic is a relatively new company, but their significant conservation work is rousing interest locally and beyond. It will not be long before there is more coverage in independent and reliable sources. I will request a review soon, so the article can go back into the main space as a compliant article. Thanks. Isfxltd (talk) 01:44, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I am a member of the Afghan Royal Family

All of the information is Factual, please do not delete and research.... SiliconValley925 (talk) 00:11, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

@SiliconValley925: If you are adding information, you have the burden of providing reliable sources to support your edits. —C.Fred (talk) 00:12, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

How do I add sources?

From websites and articles.

The information I am posting is all True. SiliconValley925 (talk) 00:34, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

@SiliconValley925: Help:Footnotes has instructions on how to do it. Remember, reliable sources need to have been published; personal knowledge is never deemed to be a reliable source. —C.Fred (talk) 00:44, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Automated edit policy

Is my automated computerized account technically illegal here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Inappropriate Content Remover (talk • contribs) 01:09, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

@The Inappropriate Content Remover: Yep. See WP:Bot policy. —C.Fred (talk) 01:14, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
@C.Fred: I tried to shut the computer off, but it appears to have turned itself back on. Could you please block the account so no more automated edits will be made? I can edit while logged out if needed. TICR (Report a mistake) 01:17, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
@The Inappropriate Content Remover: You are responsible for the edits being made by "the computer" in your name. If it's logging in to your account, change your password so it can't still log in. If it's accessing your browser and editing through your login session there, then we'll consider your account compromised with you unable to gain control. —C.Fred (talk) 01:24, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
@C.Fred: I am not actually making any edits. I'm trying to control the computer. However, it was set up by an IT person (who appearently didn't knw about the bot policy) and I have no clue how to completely disable it. I don't know where the person who set it up is at this time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Inappropriate Content Remover (talk • contribs) 01:28, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Regarding Images (Guru Nanak,Guru Hargobind,Guru Ram das,Guru Arjan Dev)

Those images added earlier regarding Guru Nanak,Guru Hargobind,Guru Ram das,Guru Arjan Dev shows guru sahib wearing ear rings which is not correct to Guru Nanak and all ten guru's philosophy. You can change images but do not add those which are not correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hundmanp (talk • contribs) 11:05, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

@Hundmanp: A bigger issue is the copyright status of the images. The images you uploaded and added to the articles were copied from other websites. Since they don't have clear licenses for us to use them, we can't use them - and Commons can't keep them on their site at all.
If there's a problem with the images, I suggest discussing them at the related articles' talk pages to see if there's support for the changes. —C.Fred (talk) 16:38, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Smv academy

Hi C.Fred. I noticed that you had declined CSD:A7 on Smv academy citing that it can not be applied on educational institutions. I wanted to know that does this hold good only for schools, colleges and universities or also covers various institutes imparting training on various subjects. Lakun.patra (talk) 08:13, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

@Lakun.patra: Educational institutions, as defined in the CSD guidelines, covers a broad range of organizations: not only primary schools, secondary schools, and universities, but also pre-schools and other training institutions.
Also, the CSD exemption for educational institutions only applies to criterion A7. An article about a school written in an overly promotional tone could still be deleted per CSD G11, blatant spam. —C.Fred (talk) 13:15, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the info. Lakun.patra (talk) 15:46, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

IETBB

hello I ask page protection IETBB and as an educational article and editors have suffered attacks as Joao Xavier please--Vandertor (talk) 17:49, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

@Vandertor: Sorry, but I don't see any recent edits that are grounds to protect the article.
It would not lead to protection of the article, but I also do not see any harassment aimed against Joao Xavier. —C.Fred (talk) 17:53, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

ASK your help to contribute in favor of Article

ASK your help to contribute in favor of the article IETBB thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vandertor (talk • contribs) 18:12, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

@Vandertor: Since you've asked my help as an administrator, I'd prefer to stay away from making content-related edits, so I'm able to take administrative action if necessary. —C.Fred (talk) 18:15, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Matt Smith and Jenna Coleman

Thanks! (Because there's no thanks button for deleting pages.) --Rubbish computer (Trick: or treat?) 02:11, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Sonny James article

Hello. Since you've edited the Sonny James article, I was wondering if you could help me out. User:GEORGE LEE ROBINSON added unsourced content to the article. I left him a note on his talk page and he replied. I have two questions based off of his response: A)Would this be considered a COI? and B)This should not be re-added back to the article, correct? Thanks. Corkythehornetfan 02:08, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

@Corkythehornetfan: A) Yes, he has a conflict of interest. See my reply at his talk page. Worse, he may have a paid COI; I've asked about that. B) If the information is based only on his personal recollections, it's original research and should not be re-added. —C.Fred (talk) 13:56, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Original research... I knew it was something! My mind had gone blank yesterday. Thanks for assistance! Corkythehornetfan 20:22, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Undid revision 688550324 by C.Fred (talk) The Information IS pertinent, and is completely accurate with sourced information.

The information I have edited is accurate and correct. I know a lot about the person in question. Others who have provided misinformation are misleading and libelous. Thank you for understanding. TruthNeverLies (talk) 17:40, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

@TruthNeverLies: I've replied on your talk page. But I point out here that (1) you added two paragraphs that are unsourced, (2) you created an account in an obvious attempt to avoid semi-protection, and (3) you have a serious conflict of interest and should probably not directly edit the article at all. —C.Fred (talk) 17:42, 1 November 2015 (UTC)


C.Fred I have no problem with the policies. My information is accurate, and sourced and does not cause any conflict in any way. Please do not change this information if you are not aware of the topic in discussion.

Thank you again.

TruthNeverLies (talk) 17:44, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

@TruthNeverLies: Which is it: are you related to the person, or do you have no conflict of interest? —C.Fred (talk) 17:45, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

No conflict of interest what so ever. The point is this. I will include any citations that are missing. No problem. That should resolve your issue.

I'm not too sure why you are even so worried about something so minuscule. What does this persons information have to do with you, and how is it relevant? Secondly, please do not begin accusing me of things without proof.

Thanks. TruthNeverLies (talk) 17:50, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

@TruthNeverLies: I have no direct interest in the article: that's why I have no qualms acting in an administrative capacity related to the article. What I saw was pretty clear: an article was protected yesterday due to disruption; a new account was created today; that new account immediately began editing the article and moving it; and the edits included adding unsourced material and removing sourced material. That's enough evidence to take action. —C.Fred (talk) 17:54, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately that is not true. The Account was created in October. Please make sure you double check information before you edit pages without proper knowledge. I am in no way interested in disputing authority, but it is unwise of you to over extend your authority when it is not only unnecessary, but also wrong. Let the community sort out the issue of this article. It always does. Additionally, the sited material is accurate, and the other two paragraphs are being sourced at this very moment.

Thank you. TruthNeverLies (talk) 17:59, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, your account is four days old—and was created 13 minutes after an IP address disrupted the article. Circumstantial evidence, but evidence nonetheless. —C.Fred (talk) 18:05, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Albert Dimes

Incorrect information posted about our family. We would like the page removed — Preceding unsigned comment added by Getyourfactsrightaboutmyfamily (talk • contribs) 21:35, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Reply is at your talk page. Please keep the thread there. —C.Fred (talk) 21:41, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Start of a possible edit war on Melanie Benjamin (Ojibwe leader)

Stop icon

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. CJLippert (talk) 23:49, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

@CJLippert: Removal of copyrighted material is an exception to the three-revert limit. —C.Fred (talk) 00:56, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Book Article Proposed For Deletion

Battle of the Wits

Let's be friends, even though your page does not say you are a MIT student, and I currently am. I am willing to concede your revert if you concede that I wrote the truth, but you need not do that in public. I need input and intellectual debate and I think you could be someone I can rely on for that. Don't take that to mean I am needy!

Rep (talk) 02:03, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

@Repudiate: I'm not totally saying what you wrote is untrue; what I'm saying is that what you wrote must be backed up with reliable sources. You can't just make a statement based on your personal beliefs; you need to provide backup from a published source. Yes, even the institute's publications are acceptable for this purpose. —C.Fred (talk) 02:06, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
I knows that Fredde, I was just fishin' for someone like you. I'm bored. Stimulate me. I need a challenge. Rep (talk) 02:08, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Apple pie

The source says Greece (and or Roman) - The quoted sentence at the bottom page on wikipedia is a reference to how it came to America, not the overall origin. —Loginnigol (talk) 16:02, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Marita Black

Hi. I am a new Wikipedia user and I decided to change Rita Black (or Marita Black's) page because I noticed that the information on her page was completely wrong and out of date. I know this because she is my mother. Again, I am new to Wikipedia so I don't know how I can prove to you that the Rita Black I am talking about is the same one that appeared on Grange Hill. Rita does not work as a screenwriter or actor anymore. The page also states that she was born in England, but that information is completely wrong, as she was born in California and only lived in England for a couple years in her twenties while working on Grange Hill. Here is the link to her LinkedIn page which mentions her background in acting, her drama degree from NYU, and her drama education in London: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ritablack . Here is a link to her picture from when she was in Lust Pollution, and you can see that she is the same woman in the picture from her LinkedIn and the Shift https://s3.amazonaws.com/webassets.ticketmob.com/LS/images/comedians/Lust-Pollution.jpg . I hope that you can understand why I want to change the information, as she hasn't been an actress, screenwriter, or singer in over 20 years! I would just like to mention the fact that she is now a hypnotherapist, because that is a major part of her life. Please stop changing the information on her page because it is completely wrong, and I know this because I am her daughter!


If I don't edit the information on her page, then who can? Again, the information is completely wrong and out of date. She doesn't want false information (including false place of birth and false career information) online. This page needs to be changed, so what can I do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Intellectualadvocate (talk • contribs) 01:16, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

@Intellectualadvocate: Two separate issues. If there is wrong information that is not supported by any reliable source, it should be removed. Please request the removal at Talk:Marita Black, since you've declared a conflict of interest. If there is information that needs updated, you need to provide a published reliable source for the information. You may not edit the article on your own first-hand knowledge. —C.Fred (talk) 01:21, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

VugaPay deletion

Hello Fred,

My sincere apologies on the article i wrote earlier on, didn't expect Wikipedia to be this smart, really impressive I will sure revise and make new adjustments to my article.

Thanks for making Wikipedia a very neutral encyclopedia. Ceddyb (talk) 16:04, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

Hi Fred,

My sincere apologies on the article i wrote earlier on, didn't expect Wikipedia to be this smart, really impressive I will sure revise and make new adjustments to my article.

Thanks for making Wikipedia a very neutral encyclopedia

Ceddy Ceddyb (talk) 16:07, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Fractional reserve banking

2015/11/14

C.Fred, I suggest that you read authoritative texts about money.

One of the, if not the, best researched and documented works is "The Lost Science of Money", by Stephen Zarlenga...available in multiple languages at monetary.org.

Unfortunately, as cited by the Bank of England, economics text books deliver a message that Central Banks want the public to believe. They clear up a few misconceptions; "Money creation in the modern economy", by Michael McLeay, Amar Radia and Ryland Thomas of the Bank’s Monetary Analysis Directorate, made available by the Bank of England (http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/Documents/quarterlybulletin/2014/qb14q1prereleasemoneycreation.pdf) ... which the Federal Reserve, a privately-owned central bank, is modelled upon.

Hope this helps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WouNur (talk • contribs) 15:46, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

@WouNur: I'm familiar with fractional reserve banking, M1 and M2, etc. My point was that your edit did not comply with the Wikipedia policy of WP:Verifiability, which requires citing a source for claims, especially when the claim involves a word like fraudulent. —C.Fred (talk) 15:48, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I'll chime in here to point out to WouNur that he/she is repeating nonsense that is routinely posted here in Wikipedia: that the "Federal Reserve" is a "privately-owned central bank." It is not. The "Federal Reserve" is a term referring to the U.S. Federal Reserve System. The SYSTEM has both "privately owned" parts and governmental entities. Wells Fargo Bank, for example, is a member bank and is "privately owned." By contrast, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System is a U.S. governmental entity.

Let's get down to basics. The Solar System consists of the Sun, some planets, some asteroids, some space dust, and so on. The fact that the Solar System contains asteroids DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE SOLAR SYSTEM IS AN ASTEROID. The fact that the Federal Reserve System contains some privately owned banks does not make the System a "privately owned bank." Famspear (talk) 17:11, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Me again, sorry to bother you

Hey User:C.Fred. My ribbon rack is growing, and with it, more problems. I have become a Level 1 Journeyman Editor. I've managed to learn how to add stacks, how to add devices, and even medals to the bottom. But I'm having trouble with the journeyman level 1 ribbon. You know the drill, needs to be 90 pixels, behind my Wikipedia Thanks ribbon with gold star. Can you help a brother out once more?



Thanks, --The Haze Master (talk) 17:41, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

@Luis Santos24: They don't make this one easy: the ribbon's name is hidden away in the template code: File:Journeyman Editor Ribbon.png. So, the revised stack should look like this, if you're displaying all service ribbons:


Hope that helps! —C.Fred (talk) 19:03, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks User:C.Fred!

--The Haze Master (talk) 00:36, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Thanks for all the help. The Haze Master (talk) 00:53, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Epic Tree Care page deletion

Hello, Hope you are well. I believe you removed the article about Epic Tree Care. I have made some edits and I kindly request a quick review before it goes into the main space so it's not deleted again. You can see the Draft here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Epic_Tree_Care

All the best. Isfxltd (talk) 19:09, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

A Racial Program for the Twentieth Century

Thanks for straightening this out. I thought I was reverting to the correct version and somehow I ended up reverting to the wrong version. I am not sure how I ended up confusing the edits but I am glad that you fixed my error and put the right version in place. Donner60 (talk) 05:24, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Aaliyah

Hi!, Nice to meet you C.Fred. I'm EvenIngSeven. Thank you for the introduction and the cookies!. I would like to tell you that I'm new on this, and I really enjoying it but I'm so sorry for for not being very specific. I would love to thank you aswell for the observations you had and the support.This was what happened: In the article of Aaliyah discography, I guide by the source of Aaliyah, that states the update sales figures. Because the sources that currently supports the sales figures dates to 2008 in the article of Aaliyah discography are dead links so I tried to check for those links were right, but they actually don't exist. So basically that's what I did. So let me know please why this happened. Thank you again and have a wonderful day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EvenIngSeven (talk • contribs) 05:30, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

bovine leukaemia virus RNA packaging signal Spelling Errors

Hello C.Fred! I am working on the stub bovine leukaemia virus RNA packaging signal for a class. I noticed the title of the article has misspelled leukemia. I edited the text in the article as well as the picture title to the correct spelling, but am unsure if I can actually change the title of the page. Is this possible? Thanks. Lewatts17 (talk) 16:42, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

@Lewatts17: Leukemia is not necessarily misspelled. This is an issues of regional varieties of English: British English prefers the ae spelling in words like leukaemia and encyclopaedia. So, both spellings are technically correct; one will fit better based on the writing of the rest of the article. —C.Fred (talk) 20:28, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Okay, that makes sense. Thanks for the response! Lewatts17 (talk) 21:00, 22 November 2015 (UTC)


It has Characters why don't you look it up.

Main article: List of Mouseheart characters

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 90731fly (talk • contribs) 22:59, 28 November 2015‎ (UTC)

Reminder

Friendly reminder to mark your CSD pages as patrolled. JTtheOG (talk) 04:05, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

@JTtheOG: Of course. The one page I do manually instead of with Twinkle... :) —C.Fred (talk) 04:08, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Sounds like something I would do. :p Good work, though! JTtheOG (talk) 04:14, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

The Center Line: November 2015

The Center Line
Volume 8, Issue 4 • November 2015 • About the Newsletter

—delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Imzadi1979 (talk) on 22:59, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

AN/I discussion

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an editor for whom you left a talk page caution.[5] The thread is Professor JR on political articles. Thank you. - Wikidemon (talk) 10:37, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, C.Fred. You have new messages at Smileguy91's talk page.
Message added 18:28, 5 December 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

smileguy91talk - contribs 18:28, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:How the Poor Can Save Capitalism cover.png

⚠
⚠

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:37, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

C. Fred

I'm Just Adding Stuff that I have seen on the internet I just want to have some fun and show the things that are really true" BlueAngel36 (talk) 21:04, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

@BlueAngel36: If it's "really true", it'll also be backed up by reliable sources. Be careful when adding material and make sure everything is verifiable and sourced. —C.Fred (talk) 21:17, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Editing

I'm sorry. Please change everything back as you like. I thought I was helping Tvilaysack88 (talk) 03:02, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Editing

Hello, Fred I believe you messaged me back saying that I can't publish the page because it is not a notable organization. However, I have more than one reference backing my article. Could you please reconsider your ban on my article? User: PreppyPeach1336 Lambda Sigma Phi (talk) 23:09, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

@PreppyPeach1336: Again, single-chapter fraternities do not typically pass the notability test (see WP:ORG). You need to provide links to the articles about the fraternity so I can assess whether there is enough coverage out there to support an article. —C.Fred (talk) 01:21, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Hello, Below I have provided you with links to articles about Lambda Sigma Phi. I understand it violates the notability test but I believe these articles prove that we are an established fraternity.

[[6]] [[7]] Lambda Sigma Phi (talk) 04:44, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I, Golden Eye Clicks, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under A7. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it and improve it with newly available reliable notable sources. Golden Eye Clicks -Golden Eye Clicks (talk) 20:35, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Re: Soppong Religion "Hoax"

Thank you for removing this page.

Even though this page was labeled as a Hoax, it was nonconstructive and a bad way to represent Wikipedia, as it is a very good site.

Thank you again for your contributions.

-Matthew — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthewethanchowtoy (talk • contribs) 22:11, 17 December 2015‎ (UTC)

Rebis Academy Of Technology (1)

Thank You for understanding, I will Edit that as you said as a neutrally-toned presentation of information about the academy.

Give me some time

Thanks again — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alireza.niakani (talk • contribs) 16:42, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

2010 Philippine Earthquake

Fred, could you please revert the information back? I was in the process of adding the references and went to save the page...though it did not save because you removed it and it resulted in a conflict. I cannot help that you're faster than me. Sorry.

The global response to Typhoon Haiyan began hours after the storm hit the Philippines on November 8, 2010. USPACOM, in coordination with APAN, launched the Typhoon Haiyan Response Group to provide a centralized location for coordination and communication. APAN was used to provide situational reports on damage. APAN users were able to upload documents, data-sets and files to assist in the relief efforts to decrease response time. Partnering with the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, APAN’s mapping tools provided NGA data to automatically federate geospatial content which was utilized to provide the maps for infrastructure and agriculture. 

 https://books.google.com/books?id=DGO1CgAAQBAJ&pg=PA36&lpg=PA36&dq=%22all+partners+access+network%22+typhoon&source=bl&ots=M8Y0D0WPEY&sig=EI9PEJX4OpxFftOaDOx28JmVA8o&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjEjpD6z-bJAhVK6WMKHXuqCVUQ6AEIMjAE#v=onepage&q=%22all%20partners%20access%20network%22%20typhoon&f=false

https://community.apan.org/support/b/blog/archive/2013/11/08/typhoon-haiyan-response-community

http://www.pdc.org/news-n-media/pdc-updates/Disaster-Response-and-Recovery-Remain-Challenging-in-the-Central-Philippines/

http://users.iems.northwestern.edu/~dolira/CapturingRealTimeData_WP.pdf

https://sfn.nato.int/meoc-2014/forging-a-global-network-of-navies

http://geospatial-solutions.com/nga-creates-website-to-support-ebola-relief-efforts/

https://community.apan.org/hadr/typhoon-haiyan/p/map — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sa sylvan (talk • contribs) 00:55, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Rebis Academy Of Technology

Hi Fred, I am going to recreate the page and move it from sandbox, could you please read my article and let me know if it is fine to publish. Regards, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alireza.niakani (talk • contribs) 06:04, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

@Alireza.niakani: The tone of the article is looking good; I don't see it is blatant promotion, like an earlier version was. However, I do not see any independent reliable sources. If you can find some reviews or other coverage by sources unrelated to the school, that will help the article. —C.Fred (talk) 15:11, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi Fred, Thanks for considering to my article. I recreated the page based on your discretion and comment but someone tagged me for deletion again. Could you please advise — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alireza.niakani (talk • contribs) 18:23, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

@Alireza.niakani: First, find some independent sources; that will help to make sure it's clear that the article is written as a neutral article rather than a promotional piece. Second, when you think it's ready, contact me. I'll look over the page and, if it is ready, I'll move it to main article space. —C.Fred (talk) 18:38, 19 December 2015 (UTC)


Hello again Fred, Thank you and Richrad for stopping to delete my page. Could you please look over my article again and check my references. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alireza.niakani (talk • contribs) 20:41, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

@Alireza.niakani: I don't see anything that's a reliable source. There's a link to a professor's own presentation trying to claim him as notable. That doesn't cut it. —C.Fred (talk) 20:50, 19 December 2015 (UTC)


Fred, Rebis Academy has application history at http://www.iacet.org/ and http://www.tcu.gov.on.ca/. Can I name them as references. If not, can you send me an example of article that has something that I should be like that. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alireza.niakani (talk • contribs) 21:02, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

@Alireza.niakani: Application history is trivial coverage. What we're looking for is substantial coverage in independent sources: newspapers, magazines, etc. It doesn't necessarily have to be the Globe and Mail doing the coverage, but it needs to be something above local papers.
Procedural note: You don't need to start a new section when you reply. Just put your message right below mine without a section header in between. —C.Fred (talk) 21:20, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Updating West Jefferson Hills School District

Hello,

I'm the Technology Director for West Jefferson Hills School District. The information about our district on Wikipedia is outdated and incorrect. Every time I make an edit, you rest it to the original text. This is getting frustrating, the information I'm entering is correct, while much of the information on Wikipedia is incorrect. What exactly does our district need to do to update the factual information?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Jefferson_Hills_School_District — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wjhsd wikipedia (talk • contribs) 00:10, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

@Wjhsd wikipedia: The edit I reverted tonight was what looked like a blatant copy of a press release from the board. Wikipedia is not a webhost for the school board to post notices. There is also an issue of a potential copyright violation: we cannot use material copied from another website.
Further, you and any other editors connected to the District need to edit carefully because of Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines. It's recommended that editors with conflicts do not edit the articles directly; instead, they should request changes on the articles' talk pages. —C.Fred (talk) 00:21, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

William Thaw, Sr.

Got a new user adding unsourced info. Your input would be greatly appreciated. Cheers! — JudeccaXIII (talk) 04:50, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Monkey Kingdom Article

The user Koala15 keeps removing what you posted without a proper explanation. can you do something about it? can you lock the article? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_Kingdom I think you can clearly see how biased he is and he doesn't even have a valid reason to remove the banyan tree story. he keeps removing it like wikipedia is his personal blog. I hope you will lock the article or warn him. thanks Ceylonpedia (talk) 13:28, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

@Ceylonpedia: At this point, it looks like a content dispute. The best way to deal with that is to get more editors involved. I've opened a Request for Comment to do that. —C.Fred (talk) 21:18, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Shroud of Turin

Hi C.Fred. I noticed you've invested some time in the Shroud of Turin article so I was wondering if you could take a quick look at my suggestions to improve the neutrality of some specific wording, outlined at its Talk page and contribute your thoughts? I know with the lead-up to Christmas editors have had other priorities, so if wikipedians do see any merit in my suggestion I'd like the community input. If not, I'll move right along. Much appreciated! 121.216.197.53 (talk) 04:26, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of Faraday Future Fans page

Hi

I am just curious about why the page does not meet the requirements to stay on Wikipedia

Faraday Future coming to Las Vegas is groundbreaking:

Automotive OEM coming to the desert

Creating new industry

Creating 4500+ jobs

Green initiative product

The Brand Fan group attracts people from all industries and geographical areas

Besides Fiskars Fisketeers this is looking to be one of the strongest and largest Brand Fan/Ambassador group created

Thank you Farrah D (talk) 18:24, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Autobiographical article

What is more important than life? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Von laupene (talk • contribs) 18:36, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

our valid page [eastlink tech] has been deleted, If you check there are reference web sites are quoted.What i have to do for undelete--Puran Bahadur Thapa Magar (talk) 07:34, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

@Eastlinknp: The page was not valid: it failed to clearly assert that the company is significant or important. Further, given your username, there are also issues with conflict of interest and an advertising motive. —C.Fred (talk) 15:42, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Images on APAN

Aloha C.Fred, I need some of your education, wisdom and experience. Can you please explain why the APAN images were removed? The previous user stated they were removed per licensing agreements. Instead of removing them again, what do I need to add to ensure that they are properly labeled? APAN is a USDOD website that does not utilize licensing agreements. The content is Public Domain. Your assistance and knowledge would be greatly valued. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.80.169.242 (talk) 18:50, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

The problem, apparently, is that some of the images were not properly labeled as public-domain images on Wikimedia Commons and have already been deleted. To restore the images, they would need to be uploaded again to Commons and have the proper licensing tags applied. Alternately, you could contact an admin at Wikimedia Commons to see if they can be undeleted. —C.Fred (talk) 18:52, 30 December 2015 (UTC)


Thank you for your very quick response. I find this to be unique...where does one put the Public Domain This article incorporates text from this source, which is in the public domain. - it was placed in the description. Nonetheless, your recommendation is valuable.

A template, probably PD-USGov, should have been placed on the image's description page at Commons. The description should have also noted where the image came from, so other users could verify it's a US government work. —C.Fred (talk) 19:24, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the information. Is there a page that one can better utilize to locate all of these templates? I am a learner but am rather overwhelmed with all various locations folks have sent me to. One consolidated template page would be valuable, does this exist? I'll be overly descriptive in the image forms in the future. Thank you again for your wisdom in the above post. Sa sylvan (talk) 22:57, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

@Sa sylvan: Since free images are uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, you'd need to check over there for the templates. It's a separate site. —C.Fred (talk) 15:45, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Maieutics

dear, the page Maieutics was not redudant. I've added a quote from Plato's book etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maieutics (talk • contribs) 22:19, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

@Maieutics: But how is maieutics different from the Socratic method, especially since the intro to the Socratic method article says maieutics is another term for it? —C.Fred (talk) 22:20, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year, C.Fred!

Happy New Year!

C.Fred,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Liz Read! Talk! 22:55, 31 December 2015 (UTC)


Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Ricard O'Sullivan Burke

T Curtis grehn (talk) 02:32, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Fred!

Fred, I wish you and those dear to you
golden days of love and joy in a

Happy New Year 2016!

Best regards,
Sam Sailor Talk! 03:38, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Pass on!
Send this greeting by adding {{subst:User:Sam Sailor/Templates/HappyNewYear}} to user talk pages.
Information icon Automatic level-2 heading and auto-signing included.
(Unknown artist, Norway, 1916)

Genesis Flood Edit

Sorry about that. I tried to go back to the summary and went too far. It wound up saving it for me. Cadet_BNSF 64.4.232.125 (talk) 05:08, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Blocked?

I didnt "disrupt" anything. Everything I put was true. LlamaWhoKnives (talk) 01:04, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

@LlamaWhoKnives: Really? How can you say that this is true and constructive? —C.Fred (talk) 01:17, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

1) if you respond to this, HOW can I reply again? 2) whT does the logos mean when you warn me about getting blocked? LlamaWhoKnives (talk) 02:00, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

@LlamaWhoKnives: You can add a message to the bottom of this thread. And the logos are just visual cues that go along with the standard warning messages. The colours go blue to orange to red as the warnings get more severe; final warnings feature a stop sign because that's a pretty universal symbol. —C.Fred (talk) 02:05, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

I cant find the "reply" button to reply to you LlamaWhoKnives (talk) 02:08, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

@LlamaWhoKnives: There's no "reply" button on talk pages. You just have to edit the section with the thread and add to the bottom. —C.Fred (talk) 02:21, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Like this? Sorry I'm new

@LlamaWhoKnives: Yep. Just don't forget to sign messages with four tildes. —C.Fred (talk) 02:39, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Idk what that is -LlamaWhoKnives

@LlamaWhoKnives: The squiggly characters (~) usually found in the top-left corner of the keyboard. —C.Fred (talk) 02:56, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Cantor wally

The thesis link seems to say the person's name is Paul Henry Schachet-Briskin. https://sites.google.com/a/cantorwally.com/cantor-wally-home/home/cantor-wallys-masters-thesis-on-the-history-of-reform-jewish-youth

64.134.65.105 (talk) 04:34, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Yeah. My hesitancy is making sure that ties back conclusively to him. —C.Fred (talk) 04:35, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Cantor Wally Schachet-Briskin was just created. 64.134.65.105 (talk) 05:02, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

(I see you already saw that. Never mind.) 64.134.65.105 (talk) 05:03, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Re Aidan Dove

I understand the reason for your change of the CSD template, and I don't disagree with what you put- but I had tagged it as a hoax because the dating in the article indicates the person got married at 9 years old (which is illegal in the US) and that his wife is dead already. Seems unlikely to me. 331dot (talk) 01:23, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

@331dot: Ah, I missed that. Either way, the article has now been deleted. —C.Fred (talk) 01:24, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Moved Mualim (District) to Muallim (District)

Hi, could you help move the old Mualim (District) page to the new page of Muallim (District) as it is a misspelled version. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JebatMalaya (talk • contribs) 04:24, 11 January 2016‎ (UTC)

@JebatMalaya: Already done. I did it last night. —C.Fred (talk) 17:08, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

thank you very much for your help JebatMalaya (talk)

Page Deleted

I'm attempting to create a wiki page for my military unit and every time I create a page for a subordinate unit it gets deleted! How do I keep it from being deleted? Arsceditor — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arsceditor (talk • contribs) 19:19, 11 January 2016‎ (UTC)

@Arsceditor: First, it's a bad idea for you to create a page for your military unit; by definition, you have a conflict of interest with any unit are attached to. Second, the unit may not have a page unless it is a notable organization. Not every military unit is notable. The way to demonstrate notability is to show that the unit has been covered in reliable sources that are independent of the Army.
Personally, if the page is just a rehash of the unit's org chart, with no indication of how it is significant outside the chain of command, then the unit is clearly not notable. It doesn't take the level of coverage that the Golden Knights get to reach notability, but it take some outside coverage. —C.Fred (talk) 19:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Baltimore Orioles

You know more about WP:ACCESS in terms of colors than I do. I just eyeball it. What would make #DF4601 work with black and white, considering that shade of orange is the Orioles' primary color? – Muboshgu (talk) 20:15, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

@Muboshgu: Black on orange works. I just started a thread at Template talk:Baltimore Orioles roster to see what agreement we can get. —C.Fred (talk) 20:16, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Lori Maddox

In the wake of David Bowie's death, there has been some discussion of the various "Baby Groupies," and I was wondering if Lori Maddox's page should come back because the "Baby Groupies" were not just individual groupies, they were a phenomenon of the period and were in Star Magazine. Other former "Baby Groupies" like Sable Starr and Bebe Buell have pages. Sepideh (talk) 00:25, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

@Sepideh: The questions would be: how much coverage is there specifically about Maddox, and was she notable for just the one event or for other things beyond that? If there's more written about her now or in the coming weeks/months, then that might mean it's time to reconsider an article. —C.Fred (talk) 02:47, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Billie Allen Wikipedia Page

Is the page that I made about Billie Allen good, or is it not approvable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darre123 (talk • contribs) 02:29, 13 January 2016‎ (UTC)

@Darre123: We can't use the article as it's written. It's copied from Legacy.com, and the text is copyrighted, so we can't use it on Wikipedia. Any article about her would have to be written from scratch, not recycling text from other websites. —C.Fred (talk) 02:51, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring on Talib Kweli

I note that you placed a template on User talk:Heather - Dream to warn against edit warring, but you did little to reach out to this new user to help them understand exactly what the problem was. Your one edit summary ("Listbloat and POV") would be totally meaningless to a new user. A little patient hand-holding might go a long way in this case. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 21:21, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

@WikiDan61: Threading is all out of kilter on her talk page, but check further up - I've pointed her to the talk page and have been advising her on things like the COI policy. —C.Fred (talk) 22:06, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Not Advertisement

I do not believe that post from Data Logger was an advertisement. Please verify facts before removing other users activity. Please review notes from additional users about their additional research and verification.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DAQengineer (talk • contribs) 20:43, 13 January 2016‎ (UTC)

@DAQengineer: The cited source is the company whose information is being added. if it's not advertising for the company, then it's at least use of a non-neutral source; it would be more reliable to get claims about the logger from a source that doesn't produce it. —C.Fred (talk) 22:07, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
@C.Fred: An article about a technology sounds more like a secondary resource. I expect information about proprietary technology to be discussed on the manufacturer's website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DAQengineer (talk • contribs)
@DAQengineer: If it's notable technology, it will have been written about in a journal, magazine, or other trade publication. Conversely, if it hasn't gotten outside coverage, it probably isn't notable enough (yet) to mention in an article here. —C.Fred (talk) 22:16, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
@C.Fred: That's fair. I requested additional information. --DAQengineer (talk) 22:21, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Ericson Grey

Hi sir i just wanted to know why you deleted his page? His many vine friends have wikipedia pages and they are live? with same refrences — Preceding unsigned comment added by MaxParker08 (talk • contribs) 05:20, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

@MaxParker08: Could you give examples of some of those pages? If they're only supported by self-published sources, they need deleted also. —C.Fred (talk) 15:19, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

The Truth

I don't care, because what I am saying (that the game is beta) is the truth, Harada himself said that. If I should be blocked by telling the truth, being blocked is a good thing.

@Truthtrue: Since the article already says the game is in beta, there are no grounds for your edit. You're being blocked for intentional disruption and three-revert rule violations. —C.Fred (talk) 15:43, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

FFPAC Page deletion

Hey C.Fred I have a quick question because I seem to be in a predicament at this point. The reason I created that page was for my Capstone project at Grand Valley State University where myself and two others are designing a program for the university to assist in classroom renovations. Our professor requires a Wiki page to document the entire design process and the steps we took to implement our program. Do you have any advice on how I can actually keep this page up and running and also give myself the write permissions while giving everyone else strictly read permissions only? This page is intended for academic use and documentation of our design only, no need for citation of other sources will be necessary. Thank you for you help!

CmersinoGVSU (talk) 16:42, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

@CmersinoGVSU: The simple answer is to set up a MediaWiki server at the college (or have your professor set one up) and use that for documentation.
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It is not a personal webhost. You cannot use it as a log and design documentation. You really shouldn't even use your user space for that. As far as creating an article, any subject must meet WP:Notability criteria to be able to have an article.
As for permissions, it's absolutely impossible to set permissions up like that on Wikipedia. Now, if you installed your own MediaWiki server, it becomes trivial. (I have one running on a VM at home that I use for documenting various projects of mine. Because it's on a local machine, I'm the only one with access, period.
Finally, a lot of the blame for this probably goes to your professor for setting up a Wikipedia requirement that doesn't comply with our guidelines. You should probably encourage him to read the Wikipedia:Education program pages and get in touch with some volunteers there, so he gets a better idea of what students can—and should—be doing for classroom projects on the encyclopedia. —C.Fred (talk) 16:50, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you C.Fred I appreciate the assistance, have a good day!CmersinoGVSU (talk) 16:52, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion of new DNUG arcticle

Frank, DNUG is a user group for a range of collaboration products of IBM. As an example our members useIBM Notes or IBM Connections. DNUG is is similar to the Americas' SAP Users' Group, SHARE (computing) or any other user group.

Maybe I was not ale to express this properly as part of my first article. Please provide me help how I can fix this. Jrafflen (talk) 19:38, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

@Jrafflen: The key thing to look at is the general notability guideline. If DNUG has gotten widespread coverage in reliable sources, then it probably is notable enough to have an article. The article didn't give a sense of that or that group meets WP:ORG. If you can make a clear assertion that DNUG meets one of those criteria, it will help. —C.Fred (talk) 21:39, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

@C.Fred Thank you for your quick feedback and the helpful information with this. I am going to check for the "widespread coverage in reliable sources" in the next days. Have a nice weekend. Jrafflen (talk) 07:46, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

@C.Fred Here is my first trial to demonstrate the relevance of DNUG by providing own and external links which reference to DNUG's activities. These are mostly in German, but a subset is in English too. Does this already solve the problem? I can try to sort this out in a better way and make this part of the updated / un-deleted article as soon as is available again. As a coincidence your German counter parts want to delete the old article with I updated on yesterday.

Own Links that might help to see DNUG's continuity of all activities

  • Own Webpage (relaunch end of 2015) : http://www.dnug.de
  • Old Webpage (until November 2015)

DNUG in Social Media

DNUG hold 42 conferences in Germany. Here you find a set of information about these:

DNUG was present on a couple of CeBIT fairs providing both to their members. Here you find press releases and information about these:

You can find entries in Twitter (hashtag #DNUG) like these ones:

There are Blogs which mention DNUG from time to time:

  • Ed Brill
http://edbrill.com/ebrill/edbrill.nsf/dx/a-day-at-dnug-in-bremen
http://edbrill.com/ebrill/edbrill.nsf/dx/paul-mooney-ilug-versus-dnug
  • heise.de
Example http://www.heise.de/developer/meldung/DNUG-Konferenz-am-12-und-13-Mai-in-Duesseldorf-212633.html
2006 before 24th conference http://www.websphere-germany.com/dnug/cms.nsf/id/24ConferenceInformation.htm) http://www.kluge.de/2006/03/a-quiet-places-for-charles.html
42. Conference https://storify.com/alecmcint/arbeitsplatz-der-zukunft-dnug-42

I hope this clarifies the relevance of DNUG and its entry to wikipedia. Jrafflen (talk) 10:40, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Good Humor
[8]. No words. Dat GuyTalkContribs 18:09, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
@DatGuy: Thank you! That's a little something I've done to warnings for years if it's related to soccer. If there were an icon of a penalty flag that was recognizable at 25px, I'd do the same thing for (gridiron) football as well. :) —C.Fred (talk) 18:28, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Regarding My Edit To Bella and the Bulldogs That You Reverted

There is a controversy about that show, and I added in those links to prove it. @21:18, 9 January 2016 (UTC) and Monster boy1:

@Monster boy1: The problem is, the links are not to reliable sources. Meme pictures are not reliable sources, and if any of the links were to screencaps or clips of the show, then that would be original research to say there's a controversy based on the clip. —C.Fred (talk) 21:43, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Oh okay, mind looking at this link I found and telling me if you think it's reliable? http://www.dailystormer.com/nickelodeon-hires-black-cuckold-fetishist-to-make-interracial-childrens-sitcom/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monster boy1 (talk • contribs) 00:23, 10 January 2016‎ (UTC)
@Monster boy1: It's not. —C.Fred (talk) 00:25, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Oh. By the way, your response was fast. Anyway, how do I prove that there is a controversy about the show's references to this fetish film called "The Cuckold." I don't know if you've heard of it, but how do I provide evidence of the show's sexual fetish controversy?
@Monster boy1: You need to provide reliable sources—generally speaking, that means coverage in mainstream media—that a controversy exists. The controversy needs to be significant to get mentioned. Every fan theory or conspiracy doesn't get covered in articles, but the major ones (I'm thinking of the hidden word sex in the animation of The Lion King), that have gotten widespread coverage, do. However, the coverage has to exist before they go in the Wikipedia articles.
One other thing: please remember to sign your comments with four tildes, which automatically generates a signature and time stamp. —C.Fred (talk) 00:41, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Oh okay. Thank you! :-) Monster boy1 (talk) 00:53, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

I looked it up in the news on Google, and here is what I found. Are these reliable or should I keep looking?

Monster boy1 (talk) 00:56, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

@Monster boy1: The first two looks reasonably reliable. The last one is an opinion blog and not reliable.
That said, I think the controversy warrants about a sentence or two in a section (not yet written) about reception of the show. Spend a paragraph talking about general reception, general reviews, and ratings, and then put a second paragraph mentioning the theories advanced by the white supremacists. —C.Fred (talk) 01:42, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Okay, but does that include the average rating for it on websites like Common Sense Media, tv.com and IMDb? Monster boy1 (talk) 21:53, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
@Monster boy1: I'd have to check the TV project guidelines to see if those are considered reliable. —C.Fred (talk) 22:01, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Alrighty then. You know, I'm really glad that we're having this conversation. Because last week when I first posted the links that I did in an attempt to show the controversy of the show, I had a serious case of writer's block which is why I decided to just use links to tell that story (which now that I think about it was not a smart idea). But now with what I found and your advice, explaining it's controversy is going to a lot easier now than I thought. Thank you! :-) Monster boy1 (talk) 22:07, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Oh, and I also found this. Do you mind watching it and telling me if it's reliable? And also if you think I still should write a paragraph about the show's general reception, reviews, ratings, that sort of stuff before I go into details about this controversy?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Sb8rjXoaFk

Monster boy1 (talk) 21:43, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

@Monster boy1: Absolutely not reliable. That video is so blatantly edited, that I have to call into question whether your desire to edit the article is really out of good faith. —C.Fred (talk) 21:48, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
No. It's just that I've been hearing about this controversy and think that it deserves attention. Monster boy1 (talk) 22:34, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

James Holmes corrections.

I have no idea how the Wikipedia format works, so I apologise if I made a faux pas. I appreciate your feedback and I understand that a link is expected if I want to change something. However, if bad journalism is taken as fact and no retraction is ever forthcoming, or the correct information is available elsewhere, then how would one go about providing a link? What I mean is I know that he only threw one cannister because i watched some of the trial. Would a link to the relevant You Tube channel with the court footage suffice as a link? The "superhero" paraphernalia and "I'm the joker" are both inaccuracies borne of misinformation. No evidence exists anywhere, other than in poorly researched articles like the one you link. No crime scene pictures of paraphernalia, no expression by Holmes himself. Thsee are, at best, trifling matters. But I feel that it's important to try and present the facts in any in the most accurate way possible. Those two issues, the lack of evidence around superhero fandom and the number of gas cannisters, are just the two I noticed on a cursory inspection. Anyway, I have made my point, as laboured and futile as it is, so thank you. Godabove09 (talk) 01:56, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Endowments (Latter Day Saints) thread was incredibly inappropriate

There was information in there that was A) false, B) Outdated, and C) irrelevant. Beyond how offensive it is that there are people who dedicate their lives to disrespecting the church, there was so many irrelevant and untrue things posted in this article. Have an ounce of respect for the members of this faith please and only post things that are true, relevant, and necessary.

Arealmormon (talk) 02:36, 17 January 2016 (UTC)Arealmormon 01/16/2016

@Arealmormon: You gutted the article, deleting practically all of Endowment (Latter Day Saints). If there are things that are untrue, then you need to provide reliable sources that are superior to whatever's cited. You should probably also discuss the matter at Talk:Endowment (Latter Day Saints) to explain the change and get consensus for it. —C.Fred (talk) 02:40, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Tyler Joseph

The older edits in this page are not as visible as ever because the edit history swelled amid the recent vandalism (hundreds of edits in a few hours). Perhaps you should delete the page, then undelete the page with only significant revisions restored, then protect it again? Eyesnore 23:01, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

@Eyesnore: That's not how page deletion is supposed to be used. Yes, there are ~300 edits in the past day, and yes they all revert, but there's not any easy way to remove them. —C.Fred (talk) 23:02, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar
THANK YOU for protecting Tyler Joseph! Eteethan(talk) 23:05, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Axl Rose

Hello, I provided sources and evidence in the talk page. Is that sufficient? Are those sources and explanation valid? Abstrakt8 (talk) 00:43, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

who are you

Who are you Jojod4smartone (talk) 22:41, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Misinformation on Wikipedia.

Poorly researched articles and titillating misinformation shouldn't be considered credible. Because I link something doesn't make it gospel. I could link to an article that says the Queen is a lizard, so does that mean I can state this is a fact? Just because a journalist writes something shouldn't mean it is accepted. A link should be checked, verified, research done to confirm or deny and then it is OK. Just blindly accepting it because it suits the Wikipedia articles author diminishes the whole site...it's a slippery slope. Godabove09 (talk) 08:05, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

@Godabove09: The assumption is that a journalistic publication is a reliable source. To disprove that basically requires another reliable source either trumping the first source or showing the errors. We can't do original research to disprove a source based on observations otherwise. —C.Fred (talk) 17:59, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

"Assumptions" aren't how credible research is conducted. You don't just "assume" something is correct. The two points I mention are both easily disproven by a 5 minute Google search. If this isn't considered important in fact checking the assertions in your articles what's the point? Plus, even though I have told you that your article contaims TWO errors (those are the ones I found upon a cursory inspection) you haven't amended the article. It's the responsibility of Wikipedia, surely, to take the information I have given you, that your artice contains misinformation, check it, and change the article. If you don't have people with the time to do that but have the time to message me I wonder why Wikipedia bothers at all. Or, just easily, you could have checked that I was correct and left my corrections in place. I refer you to the trial on Croaker Queen You Tube channel and a simple Google search to confirm both the gas cannister information in your piece is incorrect and that the "Batman" superhero spiel is also misinformation. This was dismissed by lead counsel for the prosecution, George Brauchler, and is on record. I think it's on the site, Wikipedia, to check the accuracy of its articles and to amend them when necessary...if that's too much trouble then your authenticity and standing as a reliable source of information will be questioned. This is not about Mr Holmes or even myself, it's about an article containing inaccurate information that nobody seems interested in correcting. Godabove09 (talk) 22:51, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

@Godabove09: If it could have been "disproven by a 5 minute Google search", why didn't you do the search and put the link to the disproving reliable source on the article's talk page. We'd already have made the change if you'd provided a supporting source. —C.Fred (talk) 22:55, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

3.17 to 3.23 (Denver News, Channel 7) You Tube search: James Holmes describes shooting. He clearly states he fumbled the first cannister and had to leave it. This is all the proof necessary and comes from his own mouth. Godabove09 (talk) 23:01, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

British Isles edits

"Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to British Isles, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary"

Ireland is NOT part of the British Isles is not a good enough valid reason for the edits? Perhaps you'd like to take this matter up with the Irish Department of Foreign Affairs: https://dfa.ie/about-us/contact-us/

FredRed2 (talk) 04:59, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

@FredRed2: Who gave the Irish Department of Foreign Affairs authority over worldwide geography? That's why I said, the introduction and bulk of the article should include Ireland in the definition. Then, the Irish definition—or refusal to use the term British Isles, which seems to be more the case from the sources you linked—can be discussed later. —C.Fred (talk) 14:49, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

What type of warning could you give if someone keeps on altering a redirect tag to a article?

2 that come up right now are Wylie Buzza (the creator changed it once so far after being altered) and The Brave Little Toaster Goes to Mars (film) (um yeah they keep on changing this to a article instead of the redirect it already is!) Wgolf (talk) 00:06, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

@Wgolf: I'd go with the uw-create sequence, explaining that the subject isn't notable enough for an article yet. If the redirect came about after an AfD, make sure to give the link for that—it also shows there's clear consensus for the redirect. —C.Fred (talk) 00:22, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

You dope!

You dope, I sent a POTSTICKER!
Thanks for your meaningful contribution to our discussion. Potguru (talk) 16:43, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Northwestern Polytechnic University

Dear C. Fred,

I have never used the Talk feature nor edited Wikipedia pages until recently. So, please excuse me if I have done some things incorrectly. I am reaching out to you for assistance and clarification. In my point of view, it clearly appears that somebody has an issue with NPU and has made that known by doing the following: 1. removing all relevant information on NPU’s Wikipedia page and replacing it entirely with false information; 2. making false statements with no citations; 3. providing citations that have nothing to do with NPU; 4. providing citations that are from unreliable sources; 5. clearly misstating the citations; and 6. providing citations that misstates the facts. In contrast, information about the truth is provided in the NPU Talk section with a reliable citation to a government entity. This should put the issue to rest.

In my opinion, the matter has not been put to rest because it is clear that the user/s is/are simply using Wikipedia to defame NPU with total disregard of the truth. This is clearly shown when they completely removed all relevant information (prior history, facilities, etc.) and replaced it with their propaganda based on their own agenda. For some unknown reason and for a limited time, you supported this action on numerous occasions. For instance, when I made substantive changes with clear authoritative citations (Accreditation Section), you simply undid my work and reverted the page to show only the false statements. However, it appears that you recently caught your mistake and reverted your own correction. Up until then, I hope you understand when I say that I thought you were a part of this vagrant group based on your actions. I did not know your role (and I still do not understand it completely). In your correction, you allowed my corrections to remain and placed the false statements in the History Section. I assumed that you were trying to do what was fair and right. So, I then proceeded to remove the false statements line-by-line and provide reasons for people (and you) to review. However, you reverted those corrections as well. I cannot figure out why you did so. For example, the first line I removed cited an article that did not mention NPU even once. So, I cannot understand how this is allowed to remain on the page. I similarly gave reasons for the other lines removed.

I have reviewed many other sites regarding controversies and most of them are not posted unless they have significant weight and strong sources. Others are left for discussion in the Talk section. I do not mind controversy. However, there is no controversy here. The truth is very clear and the truth is coming from a reliable and definitive source.

I suggest leaving the matter in the Talk section if people want to continue to dispute a reliable source. Allowing untruthful information to remain on the main page is a disservice to NPU’s students and alumni and their careers and future. Mostly, it is a disservice to the integrity of Wikipedia.

Thank you for your courtesy and attention to this matter. In the meantime, I am also looking into full protection of the page. Patiently waiting your reply.

Pcl00k (talk) 02:12, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

@Pcl00k: I find it hard to call it "total disregard of the truth" when there are sources that mention NPU by name supporting the claim. It is not placed to defame NPU so much as to present the facts. It could also be said, arguably, that omitting the controversy is distorting the article by presenting NPU in an artificially good light.
I also suggest you read up on Wikipedia's policies, including use of the talk page. This will help you going forward.
Finally, make sure you're always logged in while editing. The article has been edited by some editors without logging in; when they're making the same (types of) edits you are, it gives the appearance that you're trying to game the system by editing without logging in. —C.Fred (talk) 02:39, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Dear @C.Fred,
"It is not placed to defame NPU so much as to present the facts."
The whole purpose of the user/s is to defame. This is not based on one statement or citation. This is based on the user/s actions as a whole. The user/s has/have a history of defacing a number of Wikipedia pages (check their contributions and talk pages). They completely erase content. They replace entire pages with false and misleading information. They write whatever they wish in order to push their message. They falsify information. They add Related Sections and place negative words having nothing to do with the news. They provide citations that have nothing to do with the subject matter. They purposefully misquote citations. Their statements are purposefully out of context compared to their citations. They purposefully omit truthful and reliable sources.
So, I do not understand how you can sweep all these facts aside and state that this is not to defame.
I do not mind negative news if they are at the very least submitted in a neutral point of view (one of the five Pillars of Wikipedia). The user/s is/are not writing in a neutral point of view as shown based on their overall actions and, most importantly, the statements themselves. I understand you do not have the time, but if you read every article on the matter, you would clearly understand.
I ask you to help stop this behavior rather than encourage it.
Please note that out of all the statements and citations, there may be one that may be appropriate, but the statement could not stand alone and therefore I removed it (I noted the reason when it was removed).
"Finally, make sure you're always logged in while editing. The article has been edited by some editors without logging in; when they're making the same (types of) edits you are, it gives the appearance that you're trying to game the system by editing without logging in."
As far as I remember, I have always been logged in when making changes. There are over 6000 students, faculty and staff at NPU that are concerned about the unfair defamation of the school. So, it does not surprise me that others are helping with the cause.
Pcl00k (talk) 18:36, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
@Pcl00k: I disagree with your assertion that the user in question's "whole purpose…is to defame". They've edited other articles besides NPU, and their first edits to NPU were entirely following policy and guidelines. I do concede that the section about the visa issues appeared only after the user started editing. However, I am not convinced that the addition was in bad faith. Instead, I think there is a legitimate content dispute over the article.
You've made a number of specific allegations about the user. I suggest you provide a diff (a link showing one specific edit made by the user) and clearly state "He said X based on source Y, but the source actually said Z." Otherwise, your statements could be interpreted as a personal attack against the user.
Honestly, though, I wouldn't worry about the motive of the edit at all. Focus on the content of the edit. It's hard to rebut if you say that an edit does not tie back to the source that's supposed to support it. If you try to play the biased editor card, you might get the conflict of interest card played back at you. (Doubly if there's a flood of IP edits that trace back to the college's address—that would lead to a noticeboard report for conflict of interest or neutrality.) That's why the guidance for a content dispute and article talk page is to focus on the content, not the contributors. —C.Fred (talk) 03:06, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Dear @C.Fred:,
First, I made allegations about user/s. As you are well aware, the egregious changes were made by an anonymous source that were supported by a specific users. I cannot prove that they are one in the same or anything of that sort. However, the collection of users show a specific agenda. Whether we disagree on what that agenda is one thing, but the fact is that the statements being made (in other words the content) is not neutral for the number of reasons I have already listed.
Second, I was from the start of my complaint focused on the content and pointed out how the contents were not neutral. I pointed out motive as an additional factor to consider to show the lack of neutrality. I do not see how a conflict of interest because I have some ties to NPU means that I cannot be neutral. I have not done anything that is not neutral. If you see the NPU Talk page, you can see that I did not remove statements that are similar in nature. I did not do so because I could not refute that the statement itself not neutral. The statement simply repeats the citation. I left the statement alone, and refuted it with a statement that contradicted it. This is very different from the statements being made on the main page (which distorts the citation, etc.). Such statements are not neutral and should be removed.
Pcl00k (talk) 18:15, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Dear @C.Fred:,
After several days of peace, please see the revisions made beginning yesterday, January 24, 2016 at 18:18. Please let me know how this "content" is neutral? Please let me know how removing the page entirely is neutral?
Pcl00k (talk) 18:15, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
@Pcl00k: We need wider input to resolve this. Let me know if you need help opening a Request for Comment. —C.Fred (talk) 18:16, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Half Barnstar
this award was awarded by cfred for deleting rosetenville Slobodanmihic (talk) 18:31, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

hello!

i am bibek bhurtel and i am new to to wikipedia how can i add cite in my page also say how to make license to upload images. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bibekbhurtel5 (talk • contribs) 19:38, 24 January 2016‎ (UTC)

@Bibekbhurtel5: To cite, the easiest thing to do is, with the visual editor, click the tool for citations. If you've got a web source, it'll format it for you. Second easiest is to put the link inside of <ref> tags.
As far as images, you need to specify exactly where you found them. It isn't enough to just say "on Twitter". Then, you need to specify the license. If you didn't make the image, it's probably a non-free image, so you have a lot of extra hoops to jump through. If you made the image—not just scanned the box cover or took the screenshot, but made it from scratch—then you can place it under a free license. I've used the Creative Commons CC BY-SA 3.0 license for images I've made. —C.Fred (talk) 19:47, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Cerbat Mustang pic

I noticed you said a new editor had uploaded this file, but I don't see how that's possible. It's been in use on both the Mustang and Wild and Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act of 1971 for a while now, maybe years. I think they must have uploaded a copy of it thinking that that was the only way to add it. The original file is properly licensed. White Arabian Filly (Neigh) 16:01, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

@White Arabian Filly: The image in question, File:Cerbat-mustang.jpg, was uploaded to en.wikipedia by Horsegeek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) on 24 January. It looks like a duplicate of File:Arizona 2004 Mustangs.jpg. I've tagged for speedy deletion under CSD F8, accordingly. —C.Fred (talk) 00:54, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Recreated That's What's Up, a page you deleted, as a redirect

You deleted a copyvio at the above location back in 2007. I have recreated the page as a redirect here, as it references the song I was looking for when I tried to check for an actual article. Just wanted to let you know, since you were the deleting admin 8 years ago. Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (My talkpage) 14:41, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Jonathan Field page

Hi,

I see you deleted a Jonathan Field page a while back. Can you tell me what it included (I don't know how to look up a deleted page)? The JF page I was thinking about creating relates to this person: https://jonathanfieldhorsemanship.net/

Thanks! JackieLL007 (talk) 16:37, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

@JackieLL007: There was no useful information in that old version of the page. It could have easily been deleted as vandalism or an attack page. You are welcome to start a new article about Field, the horeseman. Make sure that you're citing reliable independent sources to support claims in the article. —C.Fred (talk) 19:49, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Will do. Thanks!JackieLL007 (talk) 20:51, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Friedrich von Mellenthin

Hi, wonder if you can help point me in the right direction for this article. The editor Teddy1289 continues to remove content and would not engage on the article's Talk page. What would be the next step? K.e.coffman (talk) 05:31, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

@K.e.coffman: I've left a message on the user's talk page urging him to start discussion on the article's talk page. He's the one initiating the change, so he's the one that should open discussion. (There's nothing to stop other users from starting discussion to explain why the reviews have scholarly merit, of course.)
At this point, it's wait-and-see. If he does nothing further to the article, no action needed. If he engages on the talk page, everything is in order. If the reverts resume without discussion, then the next stop would be an edit warring noticeboard (WP:ANEW). —C.Fred (talk) 14:10, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Explanations left on the von Mellenthin talk page. My apologies for being a newb to WP and any anxiousness I may have caused K.e.coffman. Teddy1289 (talk) 00:47, 1 February 2016 (UTC)Teddy1289

Russel Wislon page

we still have an issue on the Russell Willson page. take a look at the issue, if you have the time.Nezi1111 (talk) 14:25, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Wilson has never identified as multiracial. In the MMQB article, he identifies as African American. We will not find consensus on this so stop editing and request further input on the article's talk page. aqwfyj Talk/Contribs 16:52, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
his literal quote I'm mixed man! I've got a little bit of everything. here's the interview of the video where he state it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rKlLSuKxhZ4&t=2m48s Nezi1111 (talk) 17:01, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
also, the fact that he's also african american wan't removed. Nezi1111 (talk) 17:04, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

A film page with no info at all and no refs that someone did patrol

Here: Manidhan Marivittan-not sure why this page was patrolled, I would do a deletion for it-but not sure if a AFD would be a good idea yet. (Also I often have more problems with Indian and other foreign language film pages then any other things when it comes to AFDs-some people seem to find tons of sources where I can't) Wgolf (talk) 04:25, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

BADD COMPANY

BADD COMPANY update provided no links, no website and did not request or ask for visitors. It is strictly informational update as to BADD COMPANY PRODUCTS & APPAREL Limited Liability Company. It certainly did not provide any promotional advertisement. Thank youBadd Girl (talk) 04:48, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

@Badd Girl: The text was promotional copy; it was not neutrally-written text suitable for an encyclopedia. Further, it doe not establish any connection between the apparel company and the wrestling team; there must be a connection for it to be mentioned in the article. —C.Fred (talk) 04:49, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
User has been reported for ongoing vandalism after spamming the article once again. sixtynine • speak up • 05:27, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Why did you delete my page?

Why did you delete my page? There was nothing wrong with it. :( :( :(


Awesomedjh (2/4/2016 11:43 AM)

@Awesomedjh: I deleted it because a consensus of editors agreed that the page should be deleted. As I said at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Translation of Genesis (Jewish Version), "Given the state of the article and the lack of any sourcing or otherwise useful material for an article, I don't see how this article, in its current form, will be improved."
To expand upon that: The article contained only a translation of the first verse of Genesis. It did not provide any context or background upon the subject, and it did not cite any reliable source for the translation.
If we were to have an article about the Jewish version of the translation of Genesis, the article would need to discuss specific ways in which the translation of the book is different for Jewish versions than for other versions of Genesis. (Or, at least, it would have to talk about the specific processes of translating Genesis for a Jewish audience. In a casual read of the text, I didn't see one, other than the spelling issue with G-d.) It would also need to cite scholarly or otherwise reliable, published sources for the differences.
That brings me to my final point: Wikipedia is not a repository of original research. As best I could tell, one or two people were attempting to use the Wikipedia article to house their own, private version of the translation. This is not allowed, because it's their own research. Wikipedia articles should cite other writers' work, preferably from secondary sources (i.e., articles about the work rather than the work itself).
So, yes, there was plenty wrong with it. Since I saw neither a way to correct the article nor any likelihood of editors coming to a conclusion otherwise, I deleted the article. —C.Fred (talk) 19:45, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Russell Wilson

Nezi1111 is continuing to make the same edit in spite of the WP:RFC. aqwfyj Talk/Contribs 02:03, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

@Aqwfyj: Already addressed. —C.Fred (talk) 02:11, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Ashley Renee Jones

Speedy Deletion of the Ashley Renee Jones page would in conflict with the Wikipedia Guidelines.

"Credible claim of significance" is a two-part test: Credible and significant. A good mental test is to consider each part discretely: a) is this reasonably plausible? and b) assuming this were true, would this (or something that 'this' might plausibly imply) cause a person to be notable? Or, in line with point 6 above, does it give plausible indications that research might well discover notability?

So, a claim that an established local actress is notable and significant would satisfy, since this actress has coverage in sources that would constitute local notability, her involvement increases attendance and sales, and it is very plausible that her continued presence and future performances will lead her from local notability most likely to national notability whether she becomes and A or B presence in film roles or on or off Broadway.

The speed at which you marked this page for speedy deletion indicates it was most likely done by a BOT and not a real person. That is a significant conflict of interest to the public since no BOT can accurately monitor local printed circulations or even every facebook, twitter and orchid accounts which might weigh in the substance and notability of the actress. DanWOrr (talk) 14:31, 5 February 2016 (UTC)Dano Orr

Reply at your talk page. Please continue the thread there. —C.Fred (talk) 14:40, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
You're probably already aware, but he's brought the article to DRV at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2016 February 5#Ashley Renee Jones. —Cryptic 19:22, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
@Cryptic: No, I was not aware. Thank you for advising me. —C.Fred (talk) 00:06, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Leatther

You just blocked this editor but who cleans up the mess he made? Just curious....not a challenge...the worst Ive ever seen here. Thanks for your quick response to block a vile editor. Buster Seven Talk 03:44, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

@Buster7: I think I got the mess. Let me know if something got missed. —C.Fred (talk) 03:44, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Maps

I added a map for Sonqor_County yesterday, and it is a little off center. Do you know why it is off center like that or do you know someone else who might be able to help me with this problem? Sepideh (talk) 15:04, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

@Baghaii: Yes. It's because you framed it as a thumbnail. In the infobox, you can just put the file name, and the infobox will size and place it for you. When you put the image name in square brackets and added the thumb parameter, you pushed it to the right. See this edit for how I fixed it. —C.Fred (talk) 22:47, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

You will have to bear with me as this represents my first article and series of edits. I'm an employee of the division and was asked by the Chief to correct a gap and author a new content page for the department. The photos in use and the department logo come from the department. I would presume they are in the public domain since all county records, including photos are a matter of public record. In this case these three elements (the two images and the logo PNG) were passed to me for use. How would I post them, tag them and notate them to be in compliance with standing policies?

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmorales2016 (talk • contribs) 18:13, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Reply at your talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 18:15, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism

Please come back to WP:AIV because some users are still vandalizing. 2602:306:3357:BA0:C147:8BED:78A1:FBC9 (talk) 20:07, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Ooops!

Sorry about that CSD notice, that was obviously meant for the original page! You must have moved it right before I added that template... KungAvSand (talk) 01:00, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Sockin'

Hi,

May want to see this. Thanks, GABHello! 02:23, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

The great one6757

Please block user:The great one6757 because this account is only being used for vandalism. 2602:306:3357:BA0:383E:3FA3:2868:37E5 (talk) 23:09, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

He needs to be warned first. —C.Fred (talk) 23:10, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Recent Revision on Madden NFL Mobile

Hello, on the Madden NFL Mobile game article, you have recently removed a section stating the following; "Alongside Leagues mode, depending on who you play, it is typically easier to score a two-point conversion in this mode. ... Alongside Head to Head mode, depending on who you play, it is typically easier to score two point conversions in this mode." The action in my opinion was unnecessary, but I have a question, as you appear to be an experienced editor, I currently own an updated version of the game, and I have played the game for a while and noticed patterns and such, and one of them is that it is obviously more difficult to get first downs in Season mode than in the other two modes mentioned in the article (Leagues & Head to Head.) I understand that for a majority of information on Wikipedia requires a source, but this one--I do not see the reason why I need a source for these statements.

Please help me out by responding at any time, KnowledgeIsGoodForYou (talk) 23:20, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

@KnowledgeIsGoodForYou: The relevant policy is WP:No original research. If sometime is self-evident, no source is needed. We don't need a source to say that Madden NFL Mobile is a game in the Madden series. We would need a source to talk about critics' ratings of the game. We'd also need a source for something like that in the game play, especially when it's subjective. In other words, if a reliable source that publishes reviews says they've found it's easier to score two-point conversions, then we could add it to the article—and cite them as the source. —C.Fred (talk) 00:40, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
@C.Fred Oh, thanks for removing it then. Thanks for reminding me about that policy as well! KnowledgeIsGoodForYou (talk) 12:22, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Recent Revision for Brownsburg High School

I see that you edited out the "county" entry for the Infobox under Brownsburg High School, citing as reference 'that there is no "County" section in the Infobox'. While I understand that in normal addresses, the counties are not referenced, please realize that out of country users who read the page, may want to know the appropriate county that it resides in. I'm not going to add back in the county, but please see the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Infobox_school subsection: Full syntax to note that "Counties" are included. Thanks for all your help! C.Fred | ZCash1104 (talk) 14:41, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

@ZCash1104: The problem is, that it renders the address in incorrect format for US addresses, and the infobox presents the address of the school. If it's useful for the reader, the best approach is probably to put it in the introduction: see Template talk:Infobox school/Archive 4#County where this solution was presented. I've done that: in the sentence that says it's part of Brownsburg CSC, I mentioned that it's located in Hendricks County. —C.Fred (talk) 16:58, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
@C.Fred: Fair point. In fact, that may be something that Wikipedia needs to address in an updated template! ZCash1104 (talk) 17:30, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

User:George Bush IV

Hi C.Fred, I noticed you recently warned this editor. I think it is a sock, which I detailed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Guestajh. Regards, Accurizer (talk) 03:41, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Prim Lyza article

Hi C.Fred. Sorry to ask you to do more work but since you got to the last one they recreated it again. This time at Primlyza. It doesn't look like they are getting the point here. Thanks for all that you do. --Majora (talk) 04:43, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Mea culpa

My apologies for the userspace speedy tag; apparently I confused myself late in the day. Thanks for the catch!--Julietdeltalima (talk) 00:37, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

@Julietdeltalima: Or, you could've done the tagging at the same time I did the move. No worries. —C.Fred (talk) 00:39, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

PossiSock

Hi C.F! Regarding the article you just A7'ed, Pelo Mayani, can you see if it is substantially the same as Mayani pelo luhabanya from 2 weeks ago, and any/all of the 3 versions of Mayani Pelo from last year? Might have a sockfarm forming. Thanks! CrowCaw 01:38, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

@Crow: The articles are all about the same person, but I'm not seeing technical similarity in how the articles are written to say it's the same person (or somebody working from a copy of an older article). —C.Fred (talk) 01:41, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

FYI

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Link Smurf. You can apply the banhammer appropriately. –Fredddie™ 16:33, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Request

Hi, I wonder if you can help out with two articles where the editor, who disagrees with the material, is removing the WP:RS cited content. In addition, they are also editing the cited content, which results in misrepresentation of sources. This appears to be a similar situation to Friedrich von Mellenthin, where you were involved, so I'm reaching out to you. If you could help out and then add this article to your watchlist, that would be great.

Articles:

Diffs: #2 -- removal and changing of citations, after a revert; #1 -- removal of section

Diffs: #2 -- removal (after a revert); #1 -- removal and changing of citations

Please let me know if there are some other avenues I should pursue instead. I also left a msg on Oshwah's talk page, for strength in numbers :-)

Thank you. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:35, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

I left my response also on Oshwah's talk page. Milhosz (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:38, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Lexus

Hi,

I noticed that you reverted the edit I made to the Lexus page. I'm confident that there is no "R" in the Japanese language, as I study the Japanese Language. 

Kai2004 (talk) 07:11, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
@Kai2004: The apical postalveolar flap is rendered as an /r/, as noted at Japanese phonology. Yes, it may sound like an l, but it's written as r. Romanization of Japanese corroborates. —C.Fred (talk) 20:06, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Coney Island Dancers

I received your reply to my inquiry as to the problem with the specifications of the article. Coney Island Dancers is a music/entertainment group. How can we inform the public via Wikipedia with a profile that meets your standards. We are a community based organization whose sole purpose is to specifically provide FREE entertainment to improve the quality of life of the Coney Island Community. We staffed entirely by volunteers. Our "product" is just that; free entertainment and community uplifiting as our sole reason to operate. We do have a profiler (which I will furnish) that describes the mission statement, history and formation of the organization. One question is there are for profit business that do appear to promote (via information/specifics)products such as General Motors, Pfizer and the like. Any suggested guidelines would be appreciated.

Thank you

3/1/2016 8.12 am EST

13:13, 1 March 2016 (UTC)13:13, 1 March 2016 (UTC)~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rican Vargas Coney Island Dancers (talk • contribs)

@Rican Vargas Coney Island Dancers: The key is in the question you asked: "How can we inform the public..."
Short answer: you shouldn't.
Long answer: since you are connected with the organization, you have a conflict of interest and should not be editing the article. Any article about the group should be written by independent editors and based on independent sources. The "profiler" is a self-published source; to support an article, there need to be articles from newspapers or magazines, and they really need to be national or at least regional works. Coverage in a local paper only generally doesn't meet guidelines of WP:GNG. —C.Fred (talk) 20:10, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Comma

Are you actually reading what you are reverting? Please show me one instance in the history of journalism where there is a comma in the middle of "California man". Not only does it not need a comma, but it breaks up the entire description since in this case, the word "California" is being used as an adjective to the noun, "man". There are times when a comma is appropriate, but this is not one of them. JOJ Hutton 03:33, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

@Jojhutton: The sentence doesn't say he's a California man. It says he's a Quartz Hill man. It has to clarify which Quartz Hill, though. In that sense, California does not directly modify man; it modifies Quartz Hill, it's an appositive, and it takes a comma. —C.Fred (talk) 03:40, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
That's fine when "Quartz Hill is being used as a noun, but in this case it's being used as an adjective, and would not need a comma to break up the sentence. If you can find an example where there has ever been a comma used in this type of sentence, I'll recant my objection. JOJ Hutton 03:46, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
@Jojhutton: ABC—and if I read it right, the AP—used the structure twice in this article: http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/latest-nc-police-investigate-fatal-shooting-officer-37294500: "The Latest on the fatal shooting of a Raleigh, North Carolina, man by a police officer" and "A woman says she saw a Raleigh, North Carolina, police officer shoot a man six times." AP Style (newspaper style) tends to be sparing with commas, so if they use it, other style guides would likely use it too. —C.Fred (talk) 03:58, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Well it looks like they did. Makes absolutely no sense since commas are used as a pause in a sentence and there is no pause, or even a need for a pause in that case. Seems to be overkill on an epic scale. JOJ Hutton 04:17, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Blood of the Samurai

Hi, C.Fred. I was looking through the history of Blood of the Samurai, and it looks like you tagged it for CSD per A11, and then later came back and declined your own tag. I'm sure you were aware of this, but I thought I'd let you know just in case :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 11:17, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

@Oshwah: Ummm, the tag was me considering deleting as A11, but then I declined to go through with it? :) —C.Fred (talk) 14:57, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
Ah, I figured so. Just wanted to message you just in case. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 14:58, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Identity fraud on Pantheon-Sorbonne University

Hello, I don't believe we met before. Earlier today you dealt with a page protection request for Pantheon-Sorbonne University. But ummm... look what I found out. Never experienced this before. A user with just 6 edits first reverted a chunk of text on that article. So far I don't mind too much. Half an hour later, he posts a protection request... using my name???? The templates he's manipulating in this request even seem to suggest he knows his way around Wikipedia, doesn't match the pattern of someone with just 6 requests. But anyway, I'm not too happy about this identity theft. As an admin, do you know what needs to be done here? I suppose some kind of disciplinary measures apply? --Midas02 (talk) 19:08, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

@Midas02: Once I realized what that user had done, I removed his request entirely. The way he was manipulating the templates suggested that he wasn't that familiar. He probably copied and pasted information; it looked more like he was trying to indicate who the "bad" editors were...but he had absolutely the wrong templates for it. I've warned the user, but since I feel it was an error rather than intentional forgery, I didn't sanction the user further.
I'm now keeping an eye on the article, so if there's any further disruption by this user, I'll see it. Also, if he submits another message/request like that, let me know. —C.Fred (talk) 19:30, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
Ok, no problem. There is a bit of an edit war going on on those articles, that's why I got involved. The above mentioned user was one of the parties involved, that's why I'm a tad more sceptical about his naivety. In any case, the articles are now under scrutiny. I've asked some third parties to get involved as well so we can nip that edit war in the bud. --Midas02 (talk) 19:36, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Contest Deletion of Article

@C.fred: Contest deletion for wiki article:Ravens Grin Inn ; I posted it to resolve a red link found in another article [ https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimera_House ] but because it was a haunted attraction it was labeled as commercial advertising and hastily removed. This page was not created with the intention of advertising.

@MissMaraclea: The tone of the article was unsalvageably promotional. You're welcome to try again, but the article will need a complete rewrite. Also, make sure you cite independent reliable sources whenever possible. —C.Fred (talk) 02:10, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

@C.fred: I had submitted the page as it was to avoid loss of progress; The lack of citation was solely due to my lack of knowing how to actually do that. Ill look around at the help page to find out how to do that properly but until then, is what was posted permanently deleted??? Or is there a way that we could temporarily restore the page? MissMaraclea (talk) 02:24, 6 March 2016 (UTC) MissMaraclea

Center of Concern Article

Excuse me, but I did not create this entry in the first place. The person who did acted without authorization and made numerous factual errors with serious legal and financial implications for our organization, the Jesuits, the Catholic Church, and possibly others. The organization is not part of the Catholic Church, it is not under the administration of the Jesuits, and it does not have anyone with the title CEO. There are numerous other factual and editorial errors that are harmful to our organization. I am in no way trying to use Wikipedia to promote or advertise the organization. Rather, I am responding to some person who took it upon him- or herself to publish a series of inaccurate and harmful statements about the organization. I have indicated with each edit why I was moving the information. There has been no lack of clarity about this. Our preference would be to remove the article completely. I have tried without success to contact the original author. To insist that we explain why we want removal of inaccurate information the posting of which we did not request, initiate, or authorize in the first place is absurd. Please respect our wishes. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoyalawya (talk • contribs) 03:15, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

@Hoyalawya: If there are concerns with the article that are as grave as you say, you should be commenting at the article's talk page with reliable sources that give updated information. Then, an independent editor can make the changes.
And yes, I mean an independent editor. The way Wikipedia's policies are set up, it is better for articles to be edited by editors who have no connection to the subject and can better maintain a neutral point of view. The subjects of an article have no editorial control about the content of the article. As I mentioned above, they can request changes to be made to the article, but they need to cite reliable sources—just like any other editor should. —C.Fred (talk) 03:43, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Excuse me, Fred, but the Society of Jesus (Jesuits) is not the "parent organization" of Center, the team member whom the article lists as "CEO" will be furious as there is no such title and she would not want it for liability reasons, the organization has not published a printed quarterly newsletter called Center Focus for more than three years, and it has not had an agribusiness project for almost 10. These and many other elements of the content implicate the organization's tax-exempt status, its fundraising, and its grant and other contractual relationships. I should know, because I am the president and I am getting tired of this harassment. I don't want to create a puff piece or an advertisement. I want the article off Wikipedia. It is grossly unfair for us to be in the position of having to disprove a series of false statements. We did not ask for any of this. There is no need for an independent editor, or any editor. Please just delete the article. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoyalawya (talk • contribs) 03:58, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Panthéon-Sorbonne University

Hi, Can't we stop Xmirs vandalism on the Panthéon-Sorbonne page? He refuses to talk and his version of the article is clearly lacking of sources and contains clearly false statements. I tried to do my best to remedy at these two issues but he keep going back to the biaised version! --Launebee (talk) 12:37, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Warring

The pattern of edits which resulted in your revert here is repeated elsewhere on article articles edited by the same IP sock. I made a note at ANI several days ago, but it hasn't yet been picked up. If you had a minute, could you take a look? (RBI only works if the "B" part occurs). Guliolopez (talk) 14:34, 6 March 2016 (UTC)


March 06. 2016. Why are u deleting my articles and genuine contribution in Wikipedia. What is the point? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jarmalinen (talk • contribs) 19:13, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Responding at your talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 19:14, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
hi c fred your so awesome Mikeharrison221 (talk) 19:29, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Astronomy follies

I noticed that you are dealing with the same Cypriot-astronomer issue I wrangled with a bit last week thanks to a presumably entirely different and unrelated user named Benster443. FYI, I just opened an SPI and advocated (with conceded low non-admin weight) that the title be salted at this point. All the best... Julietdeltalima (talk) 19:46, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

@Julietdeltalima: Thanks for the heads-up that this isn't the first go-around with this article. I'm going to check the deleted history and see if I need to salt. I may not salt it right now, though, to see if it draws another sock in the future, to really establish a pattern. —C.Fred (talk) 19:48, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Tahir Minalay

Hi C.Fred, I was about to report the editor to the vandalism noticeboard, but would prefer not to go around you as you're engaged with the article and the editor. Thanks for your assistance, 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 19:43, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, don't go there just yet. I'm going to continue to work with the editor. —C.Fred (talk) 19:45, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Very well. Cheers, 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 19:46, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
I'm sorry, C.Fred, but given the lack of progress, I'm going to request a block. The salt suggestion below looks good, as well. Cheers, 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 20:22, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Ah, you're a step ahead. Thank you. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 20:23, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
I just deleted. I often consider that one-more-removal of a speedy tag as a concession that the article can't be improved. If they recreate, then a block would be the next step. —C.Fred (talk) 20:24, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Re-creation didn't take long. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 20:27, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

deletion

Hello! I was assisting in editing a page for Dayne Waldal and me and Wowitsdaven noticed you deleted our page. Is there something we can do to fix the page?Sophiageorgiades (talk) 22:03, 6 March 2016 (UTC)sophiageorgiades

@Sophiageorgiades: Before Waldal can have an article, he needs to be a notable person. There was nothing in the article that indicated how he is significant or important, so that's why the article was deleted.
Also, for the article to stick around, you'll need to provide independent reliable sources that have covered Waldal. —C.Fred (talk) 23:17, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Thru (company)

I wanted to see if you could help with fixing an issue. This page had been submitted for review but was moved to an article page and there is a warning at the bottom: How would you fix this? The category is still under Pending AfC submissions. Thanks. Chrisdavidson1004 (talk) 21:06, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

@Chrisdavidson1004: I'll take a look at Thru (company) right now. —C.Fred (talk) 21:08, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. Chrisdavidson1004 (talk) 22:14, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Not again

He did it again. I can't violate 3 revert rule. [9]Abel Lawrence (talk) 03:18, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Strange user

This user [10] has a name same as the page he has edited. I am not sure what to do, so I have told you as you are an administrator. I have also told Materialscientist, but he does not appear to be active.Abel Lawrence (talk) 03:27, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for catching the vandal can you give me a barn star please
From What does the RIley say? (talk) 21:42, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

He called me a fool

First off all it is called christmas and second of all my auto correct From What does the RIley say? (talk) 21:56, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Let's keep this thread at your talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 22:02, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Okay What does the RIley say? (talk) 22:28, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Teamwork Barnstar
Thank you for teaming with me What does the RIley say? (talk) 23:01, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorry!

Stop icon I read (red) something onine that Betty White died and then I look more in the story and then they said that she is okay and home. I'm so sorry! I thought she dead because that article said. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darre123 (talk • contribs) 23:47, 9 January 2016‎ (UTC)

Billie Allen

Can you give me a idea for this page I really think she should be on Wikipedia. She was a big actress. Thank you for your support!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darre123 (talk • contribs) 22:55, 13 January 2016‎ (UTC)

Military history FA/GA discussion

HI, just a quick note about a current discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history (WWII content: Otto Kittel, other GA/FA articles) that you may be interested in. K.e.coffman (talk)

Rms125a@hotmail.com undoing my changes

Why is Rms125a@hotmail.com allowed to undo changes I am making , removing FACTS from a page, but when I undo HIS changes I am threatened with being blocked?

Mikkitobi (talk) 18:26, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

@Mikkitobi: Because you have clearly violated WP:3RR after being warned about it. I haven't seen whether Rms violated or not. —C.Fred (talk) 18:28, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

So what I am supposed to do when he keeps undoing my changes of FACT. He is immune? my FACTS get removed?

Mikkitobi (talk) 18:30, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

@Mikkitobi: You discuss the situation, on a talk page. You do not edit war. —C.Fred (talk) 18:31, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

I have already done so and he claims I am trying to get 15 minutes of fame. He is not willing to budge so what else am I supposed to do?

Why does HE get to make the changes he wants but I do NOT? PLEASE EXPLAIN.

He was happy when I added in some of the information and I thought we had finally made progress but he then tried to be clever and 'fix' the name of an organisation and he got it wrong. When I reverted his change and pointed out he had erred in the name he was clearly not happy and then reverted to removing my information again! He clearly does not like being told he has made a mistake.

I want an admin to review this case and make a ruling.

Mikkitobi (talk) 18:36, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

@Mikkitobi: Again, you discuss the matter at the article's talk page. You have not done so yet. I have invited Rms to open discussion there (see this message).
Since you initiated the changes, the burden is on you to substantiate the claims. Rms objected, so the article returns to the status quo: the page as it existed before your changes.
It sounds like a content dispute. This is best settled at the article's talk page. That way, other editors can see what is going on and chime in, so hopefully we can get a good consensus on how the page should appear. It might be your version, it might be Rms's, it might be somebody else's, or it might be a combination of that.
Finally...my first comment to you was in my capacity as an administrator who observed a 3RR violation and was prepared to block you over it. So, my ruling is that the parties should discuss the matter at the article's talk page. Either party is subject to further sanctions, including having their account blocked, if the edit warring resumes. —C.Fred (talk) 18:44, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

He HAS undone my edits at least 3 times in the past 24 hours. How do we warn HIM about violating WP:3RR?

Mikkitobi (talk) 18:42, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

@Mikkitobi: He's already been reminded. —C.Fred (talk) 18:47, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

thank you - i have no idea how to start a talk page for the article - or how to access it if there is one.

I can understand how Rms125a@hotmail.com might not agree with what I wanted to add but I am still unhappy that HE is allowed to undo my edits but when I try I get a warning. Also it appears that this has become personal for Rms125a@hotmail.com.

Why did he leave one of my last edits untouched and only remove it again when i pointed out his error on another change. He then reacted by removing my other changes. Surely there must be a wikipedia rule that does not allow such behaviour?

Mikkitobi (talk) 19:10, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

The Wikipedia rule is the one you've broken: that you may not revert more than three times, which makes you liable to be blocked from editing if you do not self-revert. Rms125a@hotmail.com did not revert because he would have broken 3RR, which you have explicitly violated. I strongly advise you to revert your last change and to use the talkpage to discuss. You may not accuse someone of misconduct for removing material in good faith: it is not vandalism, it is disagreement. Talkpages are where disagreement is resolved, and the responsibility for justification primarlily rests with the person who initially added the content or made the change. Acroterion (talk) 19:20, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
@Acroterion: Mikkitobi has self-reverted (diff) his last revert. —C.Fred (talk) 19:27, 12 March 2016 (UTC)


yes I self-reverted.

and this still makes no sense to me. i feel i am justified in making the changes but Rms125a@hotmail.com does not. he will not budge. that means the page stands? and nobody has yet answered my complaint that Rms125a@hotmail.com was happy to leave one set of edits i made until i then undid a different change he had made that was wrong and he then decided to then remove my other edits. i take that as a person attack with no logical reason for doing so. surely there is a wikipedia rule that does not allow changes made in this way simply because somebodies nose is out of joint. Rms125a@hotmail.com believes he 100% correct and nobody can make changes he does not agree with.

Mikkitobi (talk) 19:32, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

@Mikkitobi: As the editor initiating the change, the "burden" is on you to make sure there's consensus for the change. If it's opposed, the old version remains until a new consensus is reached.
Rms is under no obligation to time his edits at a certain pace. If he sees the changes later, he can come back and revert them later.
A good-faith edit is not a personal attack. As for a logical reason, his initial edit summary was "name dropping/credit seeking"; I take it that he feels the name of the researchers is a detail beyond the scope of what's needed in this article.
The Wikipedia rule that applies here is WP:Assume good faith. You made a good-faith edit to add material to an article. Rms made a good-faith revert to remove material that he felt did not comply with policies and guidelines. So, there's now a dispute: you two need to work together to find a mutually-acceptable solution, or you need to request a third opinion (WP:3O) or solicit comments (WP:RFC) if the impasse continues more than a day or two. —C.Fred (talk) 20:33, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
i think you miss my point. This was NOT a timing issue. When he made a change to the name of the organisation he could clearly see that the names of the researchers were present and did not touch them. He did NOT 'see the changes later'. The names remained there for some time and he only removed them AFTER I changed his HIS change to the name of the organisation.
Mikkitobi (talk) 20:41, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
When I say a timing issue, I mean he's free to go "wait a minute, how'd that creep back in there" later on and remove it after some time passed. Wikipedia works asynchronously; every edit or comment is not in immediate response to the one before. Sometimes there are long intervals between edits; other times, edits happen so rapidly that you can barely get one made around the edit conflicts. —C.Fred (talk) 20:47, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

sorry but that is NOT the case here. he made the change to the name of the organisation when the names of researchers were already present in the text on the same line and could not have been overlooked by him! that is a fact - sorry. he only touched my additions when i dared to change his changes to the name of the organisation. There is absolutely no doubt - he did not like being contradicted and decided to remove my changes. Please accept that and dont try to hide behind 'timing' issues.

Mikkitobi (talk) 20:59, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

i have added something on the talk page. Rms125a@hotmail.com is now keeping his head down and has not responded.

if he does not respond after a certain time period am I allowed to edit the page again? and if he undoes my edits can he be blocked for doing so?

Mikkitobi (talk) 19:38, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Your talk page comment was all of four minutes old when you complained that Rms hadn't responded. That's barely enough time for an active, online editor to write a good response. Further, Rms last edited at 18:15 UTC today; you left your comment at 19:34, over an hour after he last edited. Thus, it's reasonable to assume that he's offline now and won't see your comment until...maybe later tonight, or maybe not until Monday since it's a weekend. I would give him at least until Monday before making the change again. If he hasn't responded by Monday—and if nobody has responded to your thread—then you can try editing the page again. However, tread carefully: one bold edit on Wednesday is okay, but if it is reverted and you revert it back, you're at peril for a block for edit warring. Also, remember that 3RR is a bright-line rule, and you're at three reverts already on the article: another revert within the next 24 hours puts you at great peril for being blocked.
Finally...you'd probably be better served if, instead of worrying about what sanctions Rms will face if he edits again, you read up on the policies that apply to situations like this. Here's a laundry list of things that apply in this or similar situations:
I'm not saying that all of these apply here, but they should give you sone insight into how Wikipedia works in these situations. —C.Fred (talk) 20:44, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
I've added a few starting comments on the issue to the article's talk page, as well as pointing out that it is not appropriate to call Rms's edits personal attacks. I'm inclined not to include the names, but let's wait to see what others have to say. That's why we have talk page discussions of disputed edits. Meters (talk) 20:54, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

as you will appreciate i am new here - and i thought wikipedia was all about FACTS - clearly you dont always care to have facts on your pages if somebody thinks they are not relevant. At the moment Rms is acting as G-d and he has decided the facts are not relevant to the article in this case. I say they ARE relevant but my vote does not count.

i know it is too early to expect a response from Rms but I want to know what the procedure is if he doesnt.

If he has not responded by Monday and I make the edit then does he have a right to revert my change when he has not even discussed the matter?

there can only be consensus if he discusses this. And if at the end of the day he says 'no' and i say 'yes' and nobody else participates then that is the end of the matter?

now i will read the links you sent.

Mikkitobi (talk) 20:59, 12 March 2016 (UTC)


(talk page stalker)Indeed Mikkitobi you are new here, and yet you pick an article where, judging by your name (Michael-Mikki Tobias-tobi), you have a conflict of interest. I can understand why when someone removes your name from the article you might take it personally but this is exactly why we have behavioral guidelines like WP:COI. I would suggest keeping it to the talkpage and please dont take it personally one way or the other, the outcome "is not a judgment about that person's state of integrity". Murry1975 (talk) 21:11, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
@Mikkitobi: Wikipedia is about facts, but Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of facts. If there is material that is off topic for an article, it may—and arguably should—be removed.
Rms has no more declared himself a god than you have by trying to mandate that the material must go into the article now.
Since other editors have already chimed in, then consensus among the involved editors needs to be reached. Consensus isn't unanimous, but it isn't strictly majority rule, either: it's finding a version that's acceptable to most/all of the editors involved. If it were to stay just the two of you, then (1) the article would remain in its current condition (the status quo, before your changes) and (2) you would initiate a request at WP:3O for a third opinion. If Rms sits out the discussions, but other editors join in and reach a consensus to include the material, then the burden would be on Rms to remove the material—he'd be the one trying to change the consensus version. —C.Fred (talk) 21:25, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
@Murry1975: Good catch on the COI issue. See this comment at Talk:Yisrael Kristal, where he says "I LOCATED IT and we sent it to the Gerontology Group."[emphasis added] That sounds like an admission to me.
@Mikkitobi: This changes things. You have a conflict of interest with the subject—or at least with this matter of research, since it appears you are trying to add your own name into the article. The name of Michael Tobias has not been mentioned in any secondary sources—the only source that mentions Tobias is JRI-Poland's web page. (Haaretz does mention Stanley Diamond by name, but it mentions only him.) So, it now appears that we have an editor with a conflict of interest trying to add material to an article based on self-published sources. WP:Conflict of interest is a behavioural guideline, not a policy, but editors who edit in contradiction of it put themselves at greater risk of being blocked or topic-banned. —C.Fred (talk) 21:38, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
There's no question of the COI. He states that he is one of the two individuals here. Meters (talk) 21:44, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

I admitted on the talk page that I was one of the individuals concerned. Stanley Diamond is the Chief Executive of JRI and he has been the main point of contact with both the Gerontology Group and with Guinness. That is why Stanley is the one mentioned on most sites (though many just mention the organisation). However on JRI the full information is given. I located the critical document and Stanley was the person who forwarded it to the Gerontology Group. Stanley will confirm that it was ME who located the critical document and both the Gerontology Group and Guinness know that too and it is referenced in their files. Feel free to contact them!

I agree that if the work we had done was just part of the research around the world that we would not deserve a special mention by name - it would be off topic. However in this case there was just ONE critical piece of evidence that allowed Guinness to confirm Israel Kristal as the world's oldest man. That ONE document was discovered by ME and without it we would not have the current article. I say that is on topic. What do you say?

If you prefer I can get Stanley Diamond to take over this communication and make the page edits? But does that make a difference?

Mikkitobi (talk) 21:50, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

@Mikkitobi: Diamond has a conflict of interest as well. At this point, your best path forward is that you should not edit Yisrael Kristal again, at least not with respect to the research and Guinness record. You may request changes at the talk page, but you should let independent editors make the changes. —C.Fred (talk) 21:52, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

OK and if we can get a representative of the Gerontology Group and/or Guinness to confirm what I have been saying?

Mikkitobi (talk) 21:57, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

@Mikkitobi: On the one hand, that will be a mention in a secondary source. On the other, the argument will be made that if the names of the researchers were that significant to the story, newspapers would've reported them. —C.Fred (talk) 23:15, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

You think newspapers always report 100% accurately???

How is an email from Guinness World Records a 'secondary' source?

Mikkitobi (talk) 23:29, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

@Mikkitobi: Oooh, good point. An email from Guinness would not have been published and would not be a reliable source at all, much less a secondary source. —C.Fred (talk) 23:31, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

emails are primary sources according to this:

http://www.ala.org/rusa/sections/history/resources/pubs/usingprimarysources

Mikkitobi (talk) 23:59, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

@Mikkitobi: They're primary sources, but they aren't reliable per Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. Only published sources are deemed to be reliable. —C.Fred (talk) 00:03, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

LIFE Leadership

I would appreciate a tactful and polite response to my Contest for deletion, seeing as I am spent hours on the article and no other information, aside from promotion and flame-bait, exists on the Internet. Ante up, sir? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Youareceo (talk • contribs) 02:25, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

@Youareceo: The problem was as noted in the tag. The tone of the article was unsalvageably promotional. Also, if you spent so much time on the article, why didn't you cite the secondary sources you worked from? —C.Fred (talk) 02:32, 13 March 2016 (UTC)


I did, at the end of the article. I had only the information for the most part they provided, and since they authored it indirectly, it's going to sound that way, like it or not. The spirit of the rule was not violated, I am not LIFE Leadership and I intended to cast light on shadows about it. I see what you see, but disagree. Sorry we can't come to terms about it.

The issue I have now is about your response (me not taking precautions) rather than the deletion, the sole remaining incorrect information. Secondary references say that someone I cited, cited someone else.[1]

Information from interviews and presentations is direct, first-hand speech; and, all online sources documented their own sources. And if there were other secondaries, I wouldn't know to look for them in a speech. #Fail on that, sir.

Remaining unresolved, is there a server log with my text so I can post off Wikipedia for the world to see? Again, there is little light shed on this company. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Youareceo (talk • contribs) 02:45, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/nursing/sonet/rlos/studyskills/harvard/2.html
If there aren't news stories or the like about the company—secondary reliable sources—then the company isn't notable. If a company isn't notable, its article will be deleted—maybe sooner, maybe later.
I don't handle WP:REFUND requests, but you can ask there. —C.Fred (talk) 02:47, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Amyleequeer (talk) 04:21, 13 March 2016 (UTC)You have accused me of adding false information when I did cite a reliable source. Just because it is popular belief does NOT mean it is true. Humans are herbivorous.[1][2]

References

  1. ^ http://www.peta.org/living/food/natural-human-diet/
  2. ^ http://www.celestialhealing.net/physicalveg3.htm

why have you deleted the page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kailam Frostick (talk • contribs) 19:36, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

@Kailam Frostick: I deleted the Life leadership article because it was unambiguous promotion or advertisement for the organization.
If you're referring about the Kailam Frostick article(s) you've created, it's because there's no indication that the subject is a significant or important person or athlete. —C.Fred (talk) 19:39, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Fred chnprice.com I wrote is not Unambiguous advertising or promotion, I just want to introduce my company. Could you help me to perfect it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mishazhangzsg (talk • contribs) 01:43, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Reply at your talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 01:45, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

How to avoid being deleting?

How to avoid being deleting? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mishazhangzsg (talk • contribs) 07:41, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

@Mishazhangzsg: When writing about your own company, it's tricky. You have to be absolutely sure to write from neutral point of view; text that is overly promotional will be speedy deleted as spam. Also, you have to make clear that the company is a significant company; that usually means citing where independent sources, like newspapers, have given the company significant coverage. —C.Fred (talk) 20:28, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:C.Fred/Archive_17&oldid=1251504639"