User talk:C.Fred/Archive 25

Archive 20

←

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

→

Archive 30

Getting page back

Hi C.Fred,

Thank you for replying to my previous message regarding why my page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Clare_Cunningham_(musician) was deleted. I am not fully up to speed/tech savvy with how the editing on here goes so I may have edited or added something to my page and didn't realize that I can't do so.

The editing team had said the following :

Great, Clare Cunningham. On the basis of it appearing at 26 on the Sverigetopplistan, it should be no problem approving. You'll just need to add it to the article draft. Chetsford (talk) 18:51, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

So I thought I had done this but now my page has been deleted. Any help in retrieving it would be a great help and that you for you time,

Regards clare.

Clare Cunningham (talk) 08:00, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

@Clare Cunningham: First, Draft:Clare Cunningham (musician) is back. It was recreated on 6 November. Second, the album that charted was not a solo album. It was an album by the group Thundermother. While solo musicians are generally deemed notable for solo albums that chart, and groups are generally deemed notable for a charting album by the group, it does not follow that an individual musician is notable if they were in a group that charted an album. So, the article would need additional work before you resubmit it for consideration. —C.Fred (talk) 12:35, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing back the draft page.

Yes correct the album in question was the group I was lead singer for out in Sweden. We were signed to Warner music and charted in the Swedish charts.

It was said that once I could prove this by the editing team that my page could be re-submitted. Is this not the case now? many thank,

Clare Cunningham (talk) 07:48, 20 November 2018 (UTC) clare Clare Cunningham (talk) 07:48, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

@Clare Cunningham: I disagree that proving that the group was notable means that you may have an article. As I said before, notability is not transitive, and being a member of a notable group does not make a person notable. —C.Fred (talk) 12:11, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Template:Reflist-talk on Talk:List of largest empires

I have to say I find your edits kind of inscrutable. I moved the reflist to the bottom of the section, then you re-added it in the middle of the section, then I removed the (now empty) reflist at the bottom, and then you undid the last edit. Surely there's no benefit to having two reflists in the same section, especially when one of them is completely empty? It's all the same section. TompaDompa (talk) 18:55, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

@TompaDompa: My bad. I missed the fact that there was a template at the bottom of the section; I thought the references were floating there organically. I think my brain is already out for the holiday. :) —C.Fred (talk) 19:02, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Hey, no big deal. :) TompaDompa (talk) 19:05, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Mix-up

Sorry for the mix-up at User_talk:Imgo8. Thank you for taking the time to take action on those reverts. Best wishes. -=Troop=- (talk) 01:15, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

@Trooper1005: No worries. Those things happen sometimes...and a lot when automated tools get in the mix. —C.Fred (talk) 01:42, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

What is the meaning of patrick listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect What is the meaning of patrick. Since you had some involvement with the What is the meaning of patrick redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. – Fayenatic London 11:31, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Image deletion on Ahmed Raza Khan

dear sir, you deleted the afforementioned image on the page, could you please please tell me what's wrong with it? Thanks regards, Saudmujadidi (talk) 06:04, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

@Saudmujadidi: Images in the infobox are meant to be faithful representations of the subject. For people who lived during the era of photography, that means photographs; for people predating that, portraits are used. If the article is about an organization, we will use a logo or crest. We use the actual crest that the company created, though, and not a reproduction.

That last point is why I removed the image. The calligraphy was your own work. As such, it fails that standard of faithful representation. The image would not have been deleted if the calligraphy came, for instance, from a photograph of a famous work at a museum. —C.Fred (talk) 18:21, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

But sir many pages having these types of calligraphy like : https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibn_Taymiyyah

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_ibn_Abd_al-Wahhab

.Saudmujadidi (talk) 04:04, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

@Saudmujadidi: Other things exist. The fact that something is in one article isn't reason for something similar to be in another. I've asked the question at the talk pages of those articles; I'll see what replies I get. —C.Fred (talk) 21:36, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

That image is being used in some of the official Dargah events also. How can it be it not faithful representation .. The person himself never used photos so it's is the only representation of his.Saudmujadidi (talk) 07:45, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

@Saudmujadidi: Who is Dargah, and why would their events have standing? And are they using that image—that very one you created? —C.Fred (talk) 13:43, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Dargah refers to tomb of Ahmed Raza . Actually they don't use photography in their events because of some religious rulings therefore such calligraphy as representation.Saudmujadidi (talk) 13:54, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

@Saudmujadidi: Which brings me to the second item: are they using your image? And can you conclusively prove that? —C.Fred (talk) 14:17, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

the text used in calligraphy is exact copy of that printed on the tombstone of his in Dargah.Saudmujadidi (talk) 15:03, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Regarding the three-revert rule

Hello, Fred.

You sent me a message, about the three-revert rule, and that I could talk to the user.

All I want to say is that, it is very wrong to say that he believed after 610 AD, because he himself said:

“I prayed with the messenger of God for nine years, before any person of this nation worshiped God.”

And I can provide sources for the saying from notable chronicles and books. It is a very known saying.

@Louis IX of France: That needs to go on the article's talk page as part of the discussion, and you must cite the source for the quotation. —C.Fred (talk) 00:03, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for reverting Vandalism on my talk page

Hi C.Fred, I would like to thank you personally for reverting the recent Vandalism on my page. Something like this rarely happens on my accounts page. Thanks again. D Eaketts (talk) 16:25, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

@D Eaketts: You're welcome. Unfortunately it's a common problem: if a vandal gets warned, they often vandalize a user page of the editor who warned them. —C.Fred (talk) 16:35, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

@C.Fred, No problem, I would guess it's part of the job being a Wikipedian sometimes getting your page Vandalised but you get helped by other Wikipedians like yourself. Enjoy the rest of your day. D Eaketts (talk) 16:40, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

The Jacob Ziegel Medal

C.Fred -- You asked for some evidence of publication of the award of the Jacob Ziegel Medal. The draft text includes a citation to Hein Online which carries a copy of vol 50 of the Canadian Business Law Journal publishing the award of the first Medal to Professor Ziegel in October 2010. I have added a second reference to the Journal publishing the second award of the Medal to myself in June 2016. While these are important events in the commercial law community in Canada, they are not of great public interest. I have been unable to locate any published notice of these awards in newspapers or other official sources. I hope that will not disqualify the proposed entry. Thank you for your continued assistance in helping us to establish this award in the community of academics who study, teach and publish commentary on the development of commercial law in Canada.

Bradley Crawford, 23 November 2018 38.112.92.130 (talk) 20:40, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

I need your help

Hi! can you please check out this Florian Munteanu case. I've seen plenty of pages here on Wikipedia with actors who played a single role in a movie. I don't understand why some people complain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:4F8:1C17:530D:0:0:0:1 (talk) 14:15, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi

Can you please protect Bepannah. Consistent edits by anons are getting annoying now. MiaSays (talk) 18:05, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

@MiaSays: It hasn't hit a level of vandalism yet today to justify vandalism. I'm monitoring—and I've warned the IP editor, something you hadn't done. —C.Fred (talk) 18:11, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

I think my revert reasons were clear enough. Why is there a need to post the ending date, if any, before the show ends? WP doesn't do premature endings. It should be updated on the day it ends. So, source or no source the edits are incorrect at the moment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MiaSays (talk • contribs) 18:21, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

@MiaSays: Which is all the more reason to tell the IP editor, via a message on their talk page, what the problem is and how to correct it. —C.Fred (talk) 18:24, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

File:James Maslow 2018.jpg

I do have permission and I did not got it from the web this is a request from James Maslow him self . --Lcinema (talk) 02:03, 25 November 2018 (UTC) LCinema

Reply on your talk. —C.Fred (talk) 02:05, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Taylor Swift and Joe Alwyn

Hello C.Fred, you want a discussion whether Taylor Swift is the partner of Joe Alwyn or not? Why isn't she in your opinion? Ts6facts (talk) 17:53, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

@Ts6facts: I have not seen anything that shows that they are in a long-term relationship that would elevate them to partner status. Dating is not the same. —C.Fred (talk) 20:09, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

What's the difference between dating and partner status in your opinion? What do they need to show you? Ts6facts (talk) 00:14, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

@Ts6facts: The documentation for the template says it's a long-term unmarried relationship. Certainly anybody who has entered a civil domestic partnership but can't get married goes into that column, although that's not the only difference. I think the key would be when the press switched to a term like partner instead of boyfriend/girlfriend to describe the relationship. —C.Fred (talk) 01:18, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

@C.Fred If that's the criteria, you should also remove the partner status from Taylor Swift's wiki. Shouldn't we add the line "Joe Alwyn is currently dating Taylor Swift" to his wiki? He's dating one of world's most famous women for more than 2 years. The press talk about the relationship all the time, yet she isn't even mentioned on his wiki page. Ts6facts (talk) 09:58, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

@Ts6facts: Last I checked Taylor Swift, it wasn't there. As for adding to a personal life section of the prose, that would be a good question to ask at Talk:Joe Alwyn and see what consensus is. —C.Fred (talk) 14:49, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello

Hello dear C.fred I still can’t submit any article for the athlete Shahab.pishanidar can you help me ? Soulmaz AP (talk) 15:00, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

@Soulmaz AP: Please refer to the message on your talk page. Until the issue of your client being blocked is addressed, we cannot move onto the issue of him—or you at his direction—trying to submit an article. —C.Fred (talk) 15:04, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

You told me that he would email volunteer response team and he did But their answer was : You are currently blocked from editing the English Wikipedia. The email support team does not control editing restrictions and we cannot unblock you. We can verify certain things on request from administrators, but you must discuss this with the administrators on your talk page first.

Now I don’t know what to do !؟ Would you please tell me what to do step by step !? Soulmaz AP (talk) 18:51, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

@Soulmaz AP: I thought he was blocked and talk-page access was revoked. If he's just blocked, he can log in and request an unblock.

Here's the thing, though. He was blocked for attempting to create an article to promote himself. It sounds like that's all he wants to do if he gets unblocked. So, really, he (and you) will need to find some other area of the encyclopedia to contribute to if you want to edit. This is not the place to promote an auto racer. —C.Fred (talk) 19:02, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

calligraphy tilted Ahmed Raza Khan

It seems that you are not aware of the fact that in Islam photography of religious figures are not appreciated instead the only way of representation of them is their name entitled within a calligraphy. As you can see following images uploaded by an user: https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Uploads/إسلام I hope you might now understand why calligraphy is on every page related. Saudmujadidi (talk) 12:40, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

@Saudmujadidi: There is a difference between a calligraphic representation that appears on a monument or book and is well-known and a calligraphic representation that is designed by a user. It is that latter subset that I have the concern with; why is your drawing the one to use for the article? —C.Fred (talk) 13:45, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

I told you earlier it mentions the name as on the tombstone of the person.Saudmujadidi (talk) 16:08, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

@Saudmujadidi: But it isn't a photograph of the tombstone. —C.Fred (talk) 17:49, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

no permission of photography within premises of Dargah tomb 02:36, 3 December 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saudmujadidi (talk • contribs)

@Saudmujadidi: So how can we verify that the artwork is a faithful representation? —C.Fred (talk) 03:40, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Dave Thomas disambiguation link

Hi C. Fred. Leonard here: I re-inserted this link to the disambiguation page for Dave Thomas. There are multiple Dave Thomases in the world, and I inserted the link after searching (via DuckDuckGo) for the Dave Thomas I know who is a well-know software engineer, and got to the existing Dave Thomas page who is the founder of Wendy's. It took me some hunting to get to the page I was looking for, and a disambiguation page would have helped considerably, so I added one. I don't really understand your comment about it being un-needed. Best. Lcuff (talk) 17:11, 3 December 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lcuff (talk • contribs) 17:09, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

@Lcuff: After I removed the one you added, I looked at the dab page. Since there are other businesspeople listed at David Thomas, I added back a link to the dab page, in a more condensed form. It's still at the top of the article. —C.Fred (talk) 22:28, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi again. I didn't see that you'd re-inserted it, sorry. So I reverted the change without having looked at the current page. And then you re-reverted, which was the right thing (thanks). I did edit businessman --> person, which was my original intention to say. Lcuff (talk) 01:24, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

@Lcuff: I specifically said businessperson because, if this Dave were the only businessperson on the list, then "businessman" would have been a sufficient disambiguation. However, there were others, although he was the primary businessman. That's why the link to the dab was important: to help people find other businessmen than the Wendy's guy. —C.Fred (talk) 01:34, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Christmas wishlist

I guess I'm going to have to add Bigfoot erotica to my Christmas wishlist! Marquardtika (talk) 21:14, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

my thing on Aspen Colorado

You edited my thing on Aspen Colorado, tell me how to source that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smothgreen (talk • contribs) 18:12, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

You would need to find a published reliable source. However, based on your other conduct, I don't think you're really here to edit constructively. —C.Fred (talk) 18:56, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

General Question

Hey CFred,

Just saw your post. I'm not a regular Wikipedia user, so perhaps this is something I don't understand. I assume that the relative activity of a page is irrelevant to its usefulness. If a topic is more or less exhausted in terms of "new" content, that hardly seems a reason to get rid of it. Your point that it hadn't been edited in months seems somewhat irrelevant to me, but perhaps I'm missing something. Either way, I want to update the page now, as I've since become a reasonably prominent author, among other things, and would rather use the old skeleton than have to start from scratch. Is that not possible? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:6000:66CA:1600:1573:A35B:ADF7:3BB4 (talk) 21:23, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

My point that it hadn't been edited in months was that it was not "under attack" at the time of deletion—at least not from on Wikipedia—as you suggestd in your request. —C.Fred (talk) 21:38, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Further, my concern is that you're holding yourself out as the subject of the article, and Wikipedia is not the place to create autobiographies. —C.Fred (talk) 21:39, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Hey C: That makes sense. For what it's worth, I didn't initially create the page, as you can see from the history (I assume somehow). But as an author, I'd like for it to exist out there. Am I supposed to just wait for it to naturally self-reconstitute at some point, or surreptitiously ask friends to put it together? It seems I'm put into a funny position of having it created without showing my hand in its creation. I'm really not trying to self-promote; honestly, Wikipedia is not a particularly effective advertising medium. I just want the thing out there because it sorta ought to be, if that makes sense. I'm a New York Times bestselling author of four novels; on a purely information level, I think an entry is merited. What would you recommend I do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.128.68.238 (talk) 22:58, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Part of the reason I hadn't acted on the request—either to accept it or to turn it down—is that I'm waiting to hear what other experienced editors and administrators say. It probably should come back procedurally, but that also means that without maintenance, it could very quickly get deleted again. I don't remember the NYT list being mentioned in the old version that I looked at today; If there's a page at their site to back up that claim, then you're right, the entry is merited, and I'll bring it back quickly. —C.Fred (talk) 00:05, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Hey C! Indeed, there are many pages to back it up. I just picked the first one that came up when i googled. Thanks so much for your help on this! (I'm #8 on that list) https://www.nytimes.com/books/best-sellers/2015/12/13/young-adult-hardcover/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.128.68.238 (talk) 18:01, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Rebecca Renner

Hi C.Fred. Is this still being AfC reviewed or can those two templates at the bottom of the article be removed? -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:51, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: Good catch! I missed that down there. I also fixed the duplicate reflists and added DEFAULTSORT and obvious categories. —C.Fred (talk) 01:01, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for checking. FWIW, the infobox cannot be accepted as licensed, and I've tagged it as such on Commons. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:05, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: I really just aimed to do the technical cleanup; I didn't get into content issues like that. Thank you for fixing that. —C.Fred (talk) 01:58, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Lori Beth Denberg

Hi C. Fred,

I am Lori Beth Denberg's Manager - I can be contacted at [redacted] What information requires a citation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.228.236.26 (talk) 03:37, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

First, since you have a conflict of interest, you should not be editing Denberg's article at all. If you were to request changes to her article, you would also need to make the paid editor disclosures and make clear who is paying you to edit her article. Finally, please review WP:Reliable sources for guidance on what kind of citations are required for changes to be made to the article. Specific items from your edits requiring citations in reliable sources include, but are not limited to: her appearance in Discontinued, her change of professional name/stage name, her status as an ordained minister, and her business writing customized wedding ceremonies. —C.Fred (talk) 03:42, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Page on Dhammika Dharmapala

The newspaper article may be about the subject, but it does not repot an auto accident, but that the subject was the victim of a hate-motivated crime. This is irrelevant to the topic of tax havens, and publicizing the incident and the subject's ethnicity may expose the subject to further danger. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dharmap1 (talk • contribs) 16:29, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Please keep this thread on your user talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 16:31, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Merry Merry

		Happy Christmas!
		Hello C.Fred, Early in A Child's Christmas in Wales the young Dylan and his friend Jim Prothero witness smoke pouring from Jim's home. After the conflagration has been extinguished Dylan writes that Nobody could have had a noisier Christmas Eve. And when the firemen turned off the hose and were standing in the wet, smoky room, Jim's Aunt, Miss. Prothero, came downstairs and peered in at them. Jim and I waited, very quietly, to hear what she would say to them. She said the right thing, always. She looked at the three tall firemen in their shining helmets, standing among the smoke and cinders and dissolving snowballs, and she said, "Would you like anything to read?" My thanks to you for your efforts to keep the 'pedia readable in case the firemen chose one of our articles :-) Best wishes to you and yours and happy editing in 2019. MarnetteD|Talk 18:18, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Oops!

Hey this is Tommy Wallach. We talked last week about undeletion, then I got caught up in holiday stuff. Did that page end up going back up? I can't find it, but I'm also a moron. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:6000:66CA:1600:F591:EB34:8508:7E1B (talk) 21:09, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't look like an undeletion request for Tommy Wallach got processed; I'm not sure one ever got made. Bear in mind that you have a severe conflict of interest, so you will need to make sure to back up everything with independent sources. —C.Fred (talk) 19:12, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Happy New Year

Happy New Year!

C.Fred,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Donner60 (talk) 05:00, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

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

Isabel Granada

Hi,

Sorry it took me too long to reply. I live in the same city with Isabel and Jericho. Jericho actually won as a councilor. Please see this link: https://www.facebook.com/search/top/?q=Isabel%20Granada%20aguas%20vote&epa=SEARCH_BOX . It was personally posted by Isabel during their campaign. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by PinkyJulia (talk • contribs) 10:49, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

@PinkyJulia: Sorry, but an unverified Facebook account is not a reliable source. The GMA source cited in the article refers to him only as Geryk. —C.Fred (talk) 16:30, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

@Please check the link below for verification. Thank you :) Btw, Happy New Year to you and your family:) Official Instagram of Jericho: https://www.instagram.com/soulofjerichoaguas/?hl=en

Other Reliable Source: https://www.gmanetwork.com/news/showbiz/content/631944/ex-husband-says-goodbye-to-isabel-granada/story/ https://www.msn.com/en-ph/entertainment/celebrity/kasalang-jaycee-parker-at-jericho-aguas-star-studded-ang-guest-list/ar-BBLO97t?li=BBuSk52 https://push.abs-cbn.com/2017/11/13/fresh-scoops/jericho-genasky-aguas-nagsisisi-sa-kinahantungan-171321 https://www.pep.ph/lifestyle/celebrations/37965/jaycee-parker-jericho-aguas-wedding-has-impressive-guest-list https://entertainment.inquirer.net/248505/isabel-granadas-ex-husband-arrives-qatar http://www.interaksyon.com/entertainment/2017/11/03/107142/isabel-granadas-ex-meets-her-current-partner-in-qatar-as-she-remains-in-coma/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by PinkyJulia (talk • contribs) 00:54, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

proposal to split Foursquare

Hi! I've been paid by Foursquare to propose splitting Foursquare into two articles: one focused on the Foursquare City Guide app, and one focused on Foursquare Labs the company, which for the past several years has focused on advertising technology and other enterprise products. I wanted to reach out and let you know because you're one of the primary contributors to the current article. Details and proposed drafts are on the current article's talk page, here. If you have a moment to take a look, I tremendously appreciate any help or feedback. Thank you! Mary Gaulke (talk) 15:16, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale

Why are my sources not used but other video sources are used in other pages of Wikipedia Harmanprtjhj (talk) 17:10, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

@Harmanprtjhj: Because your sources are primary. Given that you've had your most recent edits reverted for removing sourced material, I strongly suggest that you discuss any further edits at Talk:Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale and build consensus for the changes, rather than attempt to edit the article directly. —C.Fred (talk) 14:46, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

The sources on the Khalistan movement are primary as well but are not changed. I have given proof for that. I had given a secondary source but that was taken down as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harmanprtjhj (talk • contribs) 14:49, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

@Harmanprtjhj: Your edits at Khalistan movement did not add any new sources; you just changed the text but left the existing sources in place

. Those edits give the appearance that you might have an issue with point of view, given your removal of "terrorist". —C.Fred (talk) 17:53, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Greek debt crisis

Please, provide first your arguments in talk page to get into the theme and know what to argue about. I can't discuss all o ver the map. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.6.161.252 (talk) 23:07, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

As the editor initiating the change, the burden is on you to provide your evidence. —C.Fred (talk) 23:09, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.6.161.252 (talk) 07:51, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Have we a result? What next? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.6.161.252 (talk) 17:46, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Next, we wait for other editors to comment. I still don't see how your desired changes flow just from the data, though. —C.Fred (talk) 17:48, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

I gave statistics, i explained a lot why i'm questioning that crisis didn't finish 21 August and i quoted two reliable portals. I don't know why you haven't understand yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.6.161.252 (talk) 18:52, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Were there pull quotes in the portal that said, as you claim, that the main phase of the crisis ended, but it generally proceeds on? I'm looking for a direct statement, not inference of data. —C.Fred (talk) 19:46, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

With "main phase" I mean tge duration of bailout programmes, that the crisis was the reason was signed and applied. And the Reuters that you quoted speaks about expiration of memorandum statement of mr Centeno etc but not that crisis belongs to the past. As there isn't, as you say, direct statement for the proceed of crisis there isn't a direct statement for the termination of crisis. if in the wikipedia's data the period of an economic crisis is defined by the duration of the bailout programmes, then it is still early to say that it is over. I propose a neutral solution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.6.161.252 (talk) 20:39, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

And we'll see if there's a broad consensus for your changes. —C.Fred (talk) 21:15, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't see any interested expect you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.6.161.252 (talk) 22:12, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

BOW-BOW we have the first comment!--37.6.46.231 (talk) 14:32, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Happy New Year! we have two commentators and both of them, objectively agreed, Skratsis's position is not clear but still, with evidences that the crisis is not over. Can I change it now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.6.43.225 (talk) 21:20, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

I see only one reply, and that's an IP. Until some experienced, registered editors chime in, I'd refrain from changing it. —C.Fred (talk) 21:22, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

by Skartsis at 23th of December. It has been days since last comment. In my opinion, arguments that quoted are convincing amd sufficient, whereas articles who did not have a clear position did reference only to the fact that bailout programmes expired and not that crisis is over. If you want to share that in the appropriate area of village pump or at Dispute resolution noticeboard.37.6.43.225 (talk) 22:13, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

And Skartsis says the crisis continues, not that the main phase resolved in August. —C.Fred (talk) 23:59, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

So, can I change it like that crisis continues? Without main phase.37.6.43.225 (talk) 09:40, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

I would propose your specific changes to the text in the talk page. Be clear about it. See if Skartsis agrees and if anybody disagrees. —C.Fred (talk) 12:04, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

The Bachelor

I’ve noticed that you edit the Bachelor page, and I would kindly ask you not to update the call out order until the episodes have aired in BOTH the East and West coast. Goddessinhere (talk) 04:18, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

@Goddessinhere: Wikipedia contains spoilers; if you are that concerned about seeing them, please stay off of Wikipedia (if not the entire internet) until the program airs on the west coast. —C.Fred (talk) 04:20, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Goodessinhere (talk · contribs) I'm sorry for the comment. Although the airing in US East Coast has done and stay off for those in West Coast. Sorry to say, revert the call-out order once the East Coast airing has done. ApprenticeFan work 04:28, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Haven’t you read WP:METRIC?

Why would you revert my edits!? I explained on my summaries that international articles need metric first not imperial first. Read WP:METRIC properly or I will get Hike395 to edit these articles because he’s my expert. Read WP:METRIC so you can learn that international articles need metric first. MetricSupporter89 (talk) 02:16, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

@MetricSupporter89: I reverted your edits because I read WP:METRIC. It says that when there are clear national ties, US units may be used. I'm bringing this up at the talk page for the MOS page to get some discussion and see what consensus is. —C.Fred (talk) 02:22, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Well, I still disagree with you stupid edits because Hike395 knew on Rocky Mountains that it’s an international article. So as the CanAm and the ambassador bridge they are international articles as well. MetricSupporter89 (talk) 02:33, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

@MetricSupporter89: Please remain civil. Branding others' edits as "stupid" will not help your cause. —C.Fred (talk) 02:35, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

I’m so sorry for saying stupid. But the consensus is that international articles need to be metric first. Yes, there may be ties with America with the international articles, which allow Imperial/Customary, but it prefers metric first for most international articles. MetricSupporter89 (talk) 02:39, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Why delete the Jokic entry?

Why delete the Jokic entry?13east 13oy (talk) 18:13, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

@13east 13oy: Patent disruption, with the excessive addition of Jokic to the headers and unrelated text. —C.Fred (talk) 18:14, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Further, the source didn't support the claim of 21 triple-doubles in his NBA career. —C.Fred (talk) 18:20, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Bhindranwale

hi Fred, Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale is under my watch list and I am a major contributor to the article. This thread is about Harmanprtjhj (talk · contribs) whom you recently warned. this editor continues to add biased source such as this one by AISSF a group that is Pro Khalistani and actually participated in the violence. The language used in this book is often emotional and entire religious groups type cast in a negative manner often embellished with words such as "Evil, Treacherous, Wicked" without any factual evidence of course as is expected.

the user also tried to misrepresent another source Talk:Jarnail_Singh_Bhindranwale#Semi-protected_edit_request_on_23_December_2018 and when confronted to provide quotation, he went on to add it into the article. I have already given him 3 final warnings. I have reverted his last edit diff What can be done here ? block ? page protection ? please see and do the needful. regards. --DBigXrayᗙ 21:57, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

@DBigXray: I have the page on my watchlist also. I haven't seen anything by Harmanprtjhj that's been so clearly over the line that I was ready to block for it. I've also been active enough at the article that I feel that I'm involved.

Now, since the article relates to India, broadly construed, it is subject to WP:Discretionary sanctions. I have just placed a notification on their talk page about the discretionary sanctions. So, if there are further problematic edits, one path forward would be to report them at the administrators' noticeboard for incidents (WP:ANI). Then, an uninvolved administrator could block the user or place any other sanctions they feel are appropriate. —C.Fred (talk) 00:19, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for suggesting the way forward. regards. --DBigXrayᗙ 00:22, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

C.Fred. Now this user is asking you to ban me. I read every Wikipedia link you sent me but why you haven't looked into the concerns I have raised? I am a long term reader of this article and the destruction of this article that has been done by this tendentious user should be obvious to anyone who knows even A and B of this subject. Tell me how I can address my concerns because this edit warring and one sided warnings are only discouraging me from editing anymore while signifying general people view that Wikipedia is so biased that anyone can mislead it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harmanprtjhj (talk • contribs) 19:51, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

In place of answering my questions above you are now edit warring me against the policy?[1] Are you not aware of WP:TERRORIST? Harmanprtjhj (talk) 02:55, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

@Harmanprtjhj: It's in the intro of the organization's article; that seems to reflect consensus labeling to me. —C.Fred (talk) 03:05, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

I have now reverted you above, citing the policy which prohibits use of these labels like "terrorist" unless large majority of sources describe them as such. So far none of your 3 sources did which alone would give you the indication that why we should not label this group as "terrorist". You cant fabricate information only because DBigXray is fabricating sources on this or any other article. I am still waiting for your response of the questions I asked few hours ago. Harmanprtjhj (talk) 03:10, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi, C.Fred, FYI Harmanprtjhj has now posted on ANI in this thread, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive_editing_by_DBigXray--DBigXrayᗙ 20:19, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Aida_Hanemayer_(Lisenkova)

Hello, Fred. I corrected the article Draft:Aida_Hanemayer_(Lisenkova). But my English is not very good. At the same time, the sources for this article are very good: it is the Central Russian newspaper CULTURE and sites of Russian state institutions. Can I move an article to Wikipedia and who should do it? With respect,Олег Черкасский (talk) 18:11, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

@Олег Черкасский: A couple of fixes need made. First, yes, the English needs cleaned up. Second, the awards need to all be sourced. Finally, is her name (currently) Aida Hanemayer? If so, that's what the article would need moved to once it's ready. —C.Fred (talk) 18:24, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

@C.Fred:Hello, Fred. I hope friends with good English will help me complete the article. Аwards do exist:‘’All awards, diplomas and gratitude on the artist’s personal website’’. Yes, her name is Aida Hanemayer. Lisenkova is a maiden name (before the first marriage). With respect, Олег Черкасский (talk) 07:47, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Deletions

I challenge you to find the photo of Shawnee State University, looking west, which you deleted, ANYWHERE on the web. I took it personally. Please check facts before taking actions. --45.53.207.183 (talk) 03:33, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Sorry for my tone, but I almost never post in Wikipedia, and I find the rules and deletions confusing. I was just trying to improve the Shawnee State University article. --45.53.207.183 (talk) 04:08, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

The problem is, there's no evidence that you took the photo personally or have the rights to the photo. Depending on which photo it was (because there were five problematic images in the article), it was either uploaded with no license information or uploaded stating it belonged to Shawnee State and that it was being used under the non-free content criteria. The problem there is, since it is possible for other people to take the photo, we can get a free replacement, so Wikipedia may not use the non-free image. Just because the free photo doesn't exist right now is not an excuse to allow the non-free photo to stand.

There's a reason why new editors (and IPs, so I presume you're not logged in when you left this message) aren't allowed to upload photos: images are one of the more complicated areas of Wikipedia precisely because of copyright issues. Even experienced editors can have trouble with it at times. —C.Fred (talk) 18:32, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Cartier used by wealth hoarders

The facts are not in dispute (see ref give in original post) but how is use by wealth hoarders "only tangential" to Cartier's operations? They've done similar things before, example below. And they have been heavily fined. At what point does Cartier's wealth hoarding activity become significant enough? https://www.out-law.com/en/articles/2017/september/cartier-sanctions-fine-a-warning-to-exporters-says-expert/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.253.48.180 (talk) 09:13, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Being used by wealth hoarders does not equate to hoarding themselves. Now, if Cartier is being sanctioned for their involvement—which was not made clear in the article before—that's a different matter. —C.Fred (talk) 02:05, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Mystery Tribune Page Notability Message

Hi

I wanted to see if you can take a look at Mystery Tribune page and see if the notability / Third Party messages can be removed. 12 sources ranging from industry organizations to publishing industry councils have been added. Eehsani (talk) 03:35, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

@Eehsani: The only two sources I see that are clearly in-depth and independent are not from sources that are clearly reliable. I can't tell what The Review Review's editorial policy is. —C.Fred (talk) 03:38, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the quick reply. May I ask what two sources you are referring to? There are few independent and reliable ones: For example, ISSN which is being issued by Library of Congress, Mystery Writers of America which is both independent industry body but also have a rigorous vetting process highlighted on their website. The same goes for council of literary magazines. Will work to resolve remaining concerns and get additional references if needed - as of now thereferences are in line with other pages like Mystery Scene magazine, 3am Magazine, Alfred Hitchcock magazine and others. Eehsani (talk) 04:07, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

• Now at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 January 18. —Cryptic 22:06, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

How to train your dragon hidden world plot

Please don’t publish the whole plot of this movie, not until is release in America, I don’t want anyone including me to get spoiler and ruined the last movie of the franchise Raricaud (talk) 06:36, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

@Raricaud: Please review WP:SPOILER. Wikipedia contains plot elements in its articles about movies and other works of fiction. People who do not want to get spoilers should just refrain from reading those articles until they've seen the movies, etc. in question. —C.Fred (talk) 16:56, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Shawnee State University Photos

Thank you for the help on Shawnee State University. Any chance you could load photos? I still cannot figure that out. They have two in the "Commons," but they are both old and bad! The campus actually is new and pleasant. --146.85.198.80 (talk) 00:33, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Have you taken some photos? —C.Fred (talk) 00:34, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

I have made a temporary site and posted it:

https://photocreatedforwikipedia.wordpress.com/2019/01/19/22/

From Top to Bottom: Shawnee State University (Campus Center), Verne Riffe Center for the Arts, Massie Hall, Student Housing

I used only photos that contained zero people. The appearance of the ambulance in the last photo is a slight problem, but at least the students and faculty know they will be rescued!

--45.53.207.183 (talk) 10:23, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Three questions:

1. When did you take these pictures, and with what camera?
2. How did you manage to get pictures of the campus when it was so empty? There's not a person in sight.
3. Where on the page are the credits claiming that these pictures are your own work and are irrevocably placed under a free license or into the public domain?

Please address these questions. I'll also be doing some due diligence on the images. —C.Fred (talk) 20:48, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

To be honest, I was walking around campus during Spring Break several years ago with a digital camera that broke perhaps two years ago. These were personal photos, so I made no "attempt" to put my name on them.

Does wikipedia really think someone will sue them over this? --45.53.207.183 (talk) 22:00, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

We do not need the risk of a suit to do the right thing. We are trying to build a free encyclopedia. Part of that means that we should use free materials whenever possible and limit the use of non-free materials to when it is absolutely necessary. (Thus, the cover of an album is shown so that the work of art is faithfully represented, but we use free pictures of the artist rather than non-free photos (and most publicity photos are not free).)

One other note. Wikimedia Commons (which is where you should upload your pictures, should you wish to donate them) requires attribution of the pictures. You may create an account at Commons under a pseudonym, but the best approach is for you to upload the images yourself to Commons. Then you can note them as your own work. —C.Fred (talk) 22:14, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Ok. Would it help if I load them irst as "open source" at the Internet Archive? Internet archive is a great place and easy to use. I just loaded one picture as a test.

https://archive.org/details/ShawneeStateUniversity 45.53.207.183 (talk) 22:22, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

The only thing missing is an attribution of the photographer. I see who the uploader is, but I don't see anything that equates the uploader to the photographer. —C.Fred (talk) 22:32, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

<tps>It's generally not acceptable to launder attribution through another website - attribution is required in all circumstances that don't involve clear-cut public-domain materials. Acroterion (talk) 22:34, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Acroterion has a point. The best approach is to create a Commons account and create it there, so you can readily label it as your own work. —C.Fred (talk) 22:52, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

OK, thanks for your time and patience on this matter. --45.53.207.183 (talk) 20:59, 21 January 2019 (UTC)--45.53.207.183 (talk) 20:59, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Adding Calligraphy

The pages were added a calligraphy at the place of image. There are no images available. The Calligraphy is not random and correct form of name plate that has been used in millions of articles on wiki The Calligraphy is of Same Language and name which is historically correct. Please Let the content be enriched. I have added images to 50+ Articles and Wiki admins did not object. Please there are many issues that need care other than enriching content on wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Employee1450 (talk • contribs) 20:55, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

@Employee1450: If there's truly no image available, I'll come back to that. However, in at least one case you have removed an image to replace it with calligraphy. That is outright disruptive.

I'm not disputing the accuracy of the image. The question is, how does the article benefit from including a black-and-white image that you drew? The article doesn't benefit, and may actually suffer, because of your addition. —C.Fred (talk) 21:30, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

My edits were undone - what can I do different?

Hi, I made accurate edits (with citations) to a page for an individual:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yechiel_Eckstein

The changes were minor - updated the number of grandchildren, repaired/replaced a broken link, changed his birth place so that it's accurate and matches his biography and a few other edits.

Can you help me understand what I can do to make correct edits? Thanks!

Teachtosing (talk) 15:16, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi - I added tags that show I have a connection with the Rabbi (his page I was attempting to correct). I hope that helps.

Teachtosing (talk) 22:35, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

RGSHW edits

Hi C.Fred,

You've just removed a section on the G & S operas from the RGSHW page citing that the source doesn't check out. I don't really understand this, the source linked works fine as appears to be a very valid source listing many of the operas performed by the school from 47-76. I agree that the recent edit made does not line up with the source cited but the majority of the section is valid based on the source provided?

Diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Royal_Grammar_School,_High_Wycombe&diff=880115493&oldid=880096901 Source: https://web.archive.org/web/20170324130153/http://www.rgs.tonyhare.co.uk/gands/operettas.htm

MattIPv4 (talk) 13:57, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

@MattIPv4: First, the source appears to be a collection of programs. More critically, as you said, it lists operas performed from 1947 to 1976. It does not support any performances after that date or the claim of a notable performance in the late 1990s. —C.Fred (talk) 14:25, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

@C.Fred: I believe the linking of programs acts as a valid source for the majority of the section as it does indeed confirm that the performances of the G & S operas did occur. I equally agree that there is no source for the recently edited claim of 1998. I feel that your removal should be reverted and instead should just be a removal of the notable performance claim as this is the only claim without a source in the section? MattIPv4 (talk) 14:37, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

@MattIPv4: I have restored the text, but pared back to what the sources support, which is performances through 1976. I've also demoted the section and put it adjacent to Music in the section on Activities. —C.Fred (talk) 15:11, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi

Please protect Fear Factor: Khatron Ke Khiladi 9. An anon is resorting to disruptive editing. SheMoveItLike (talk) 16:02, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

@SheMoveItLike: It looks like Bishonen has already addressed this. —C.Fred (talk) 17:26, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

That's right, thanks anyway :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SheMoveItLike (talk • contribs) 17:59, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Yechiel Eckstein page

Hi, will you allow my edits to this page?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yechiel_Eckstein

They are factual updates that the Rabbi sent me asked to be changed. It seems someone didn't set up his page with accurate information.

Thanks! Teachtosing (talk) 18:58, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

@Teachtosing: Short answer: no, you may not edit an article at the request of the subject.

Longer answer: Because of your conflict of interest, you will need to request that the edits be made at Talk:Yechiel Eckstein rather than make the edits directly. You will also need to provide reliable sources, which other editors will verify before making the changes. (There's nothing wrong with citing a paper work in a Wikipedia article, although it will take time for users to be able to verify the information, since they'll have to locate the book at a library.) Rather than propose a sweeping change to the article, go in smaller chunks—again, it's easier to vet the material and integrate the changes.

I took a look at the history, because other affiliated editors (appear to) have edited the article in the past. The one obvious such version in 2010,[2] however, did not include Eckstein's date of birth. —C.Fred (talk) 19:14, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! I will follow your recommendations and begin making a series of small changes to correct the wiki entry. Teachtosing (talk) 18:32, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Chhota Shakeel

The first source says both, 2017 and 2018 - in the same paragraph yet. When I first looked, I saw only the second reference (2018). The second source says 2017. The third source doesn't say anything about when he died, at least not that I could find. I don't have time to look any further (I looked in haste to begin with). You're welcome to if you wish. If not, I'll leave it as the sock changed it. Just because it's a sock doesn't mean they can't be right. --Bbb23 (talk) 02:20, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

@Bbb23: The edit drew a red flag when it was made, so I went to the two sources I saw cited. I saw 2017 in both of them. —C.Fred (talk) 02:22, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

There were three sources. In any event, here's what the weird one said:

This confusion continued until it was confirmed that Chhota Shakeel had died on 6 January 2017. The two sides agreed on a minor figure in D Company take over active leadership of the organisation until Dawood and the ISI agreed on how to proceed, but that replacement died in a heart attack in Tajikistan in mid-2018. Dawood announced that his brother, Anees, would take over the key post in D Company on 5 January 2019, at the anniversary of the death of Chhota Shakeel a year earlier.[3] (bolding added)

For some reason I read only the end which of course implied death in 2018. Had I seen the first part, I wouldn't have undone the sock's edit. My guess is the second part is a mistake on the writer's part.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:21, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Stonewall Jackson High School (Bull Run, Virginia)

Hi, C Fred. I can't decide whether the most recent editor there is simply new and playing THE MMORPG VERSION OF WIKIPEDIA or whether there is a stench of foot odor going on. But NRP certainly protected the right version! John from Idegon (talk) 05:00, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

New Exit Update on Highway

Are u gonna update the exit list for Interstate 71 in Mason, Ohio?

There is now a full interchange at exit 24: Western Row Road and Kings Island Drive.

Western Row Road and Kings Island Drive- going northbound; Western Row Road and Innovative Way- going southbound

There is on ramps for northbound and southbound. There is off ramps for northbound and southbound.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hraines46 (talk • contribs) 01:05, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

@Hraines46: Has Google Maps updated their Street View images? If not, where can I verify the new exit and its signage? —C.Fred (talk) 12:06, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Well, they have been talking about making it a full interchange for awhile. The current street view is when the roads were under construction; however, my mother works in Mason and drives pass the interchange every day. She said that the interchange finally opened. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hraines46 (talk • contribs) 20:05, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

https://www.wcpo.com/news/transportation-development/move-up-cincinnati/will-it-soon-be-easy-to-get-off-and-then-back-on-i-71-at-western-row — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hraines46 (talk • contribs) 20:11, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

@Hraines46: That exit confirms the NB entrance ramps are open. The only thing I'd want to know is how the interchange is signed southbound, since the exit technically goes to Innovation Way. We may need a note that says "signed southbound as…" to clarify that. —C.Fred (talk) 21:04, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

I said, before, that Western Row Road and Kings Island Drive serve northbound and that Western Row Road and Innovative Way serve southbound. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hraines46 (talk • contribs) 22:19, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

@Hraines46: The question is, what signage is displayed on the southbound gantry signs? —C.Fred (talk) 22:26, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Going south? Western Row Road and Innovative Way — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hraines46 (talk • contribs) 02:20, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Regarding Goethean

Have a look at his user page, where he cites himself in Breitbart(!!!) "news", as they guy who "saved Ben Carlson's name" and below it he talks about being topic banned from Tea Party articles (due to edit warring). 185.26.189.18 (talk) 18:31, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Noted. At this time, I have protected the page only for disruptive editing. I am evaluating whether a different remedy is needed per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2. —C.Fred (talk) 18:32, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

So can you please restore the official quote from the official primary source R.A.D., which is supported by the quotes from articles and books by academic and award-winning authors, which haven't been discussed anymore since their baseless edit warring has been obviously outed? Denying reality isn't Wikipedia's way and it's a fact that this dangerous, inhuman and important statement, which has potentially far-reaching sociopolitical outcomes, when one can understand the scientific language used in it, is an important part of R.A.D., one article by Hartmann is fully dedicated to this quote and all other references don't "only mention it in "passing"", as Fyddlestix has lied before on the talk page, but all explicitly refer to this quote, highlighting it's value.185.26.189.18 (talk) 18:44, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

The others have pulled out of the debate since the new sources were referenced and Goethean just edit-warred on...I've fulfilled his requests, he has presented nothing but his opinion, like the others. Not a single document showing the non-existence, or unimportance of the quote, while I have significant evidence from other, multiple academic and journalistic authors. 185.26.189.18 (talk) 18:45, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

I've proven my perspective with undeniable facts, they only have their interpretative opinions, it seems like Wikipedia is adopting Trump's "style"...185.26.189.18 (talk) 18:56, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

He started the edit war as a Tea Party-topic banned right-winger who obviously has no regard for provable facts and teamed up with some people who obviously have no regard for the scientific method either, although the others had the decency to just pull out of the consensus debate when they clearly lacked any arguments after my proof of multiple other sources referencing the quote, it feels like playing chess with a pigeon: the page should be protected, after the provable quote is included, not helping those who simply don't want it included due to their bias ("not a way in hell"), although it is in R.A.D. and articles and books which quote the statement and analyze it. It's also obviously a clear breach of Article III of the Biological Weapons Convention, adding value and the outcomes and side effects of this "tool" aren't discussed at all in R.A.D. only its political value as a genotypical biological weapon of the future.185.26.189.18 (talk) 19:23, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

So what has changed yet?

Still no answers and discussion anymore regarding the new sources, so how can I reach consensus, if the process is subverted by absence from it?

No answer is also an answer, that's why I had included the new edits and all that I got as reaction was further edit warring, no answers, arguments, dicussions or anything!

From the start I wasn't the problem, but no one cared: so ideology, lies and opnions are now more worth than arguments, facts, logic and proof?

Haven't seen any evidence yet!2A02:8388:1845:7400:9D37:5772:1631:FCD4 (talk) 11:26, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Your next step would be WP:Requests for comment. —C.Fred (talk) 13:01, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I've done that now. It's really laughable that someone with multiple sources in addition to the official primary source of the whole PNAC article has to defend against this edit war of multiple persons with only opinions, but not a single source at all, only because they can't get accept the reality that PNAC wrote that dangerous, historically important and absolutely inhuman statement, no matter who produces these "tools", which is also unimportant for the obvious Article III BWC-violation.185.26.189.18 (talk) 13:51, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

First, if there are other sources, we don't need—and arguably should not use at all—the primary source. Further, we need to be careful imputing an Article III violation. Or are there secondary sources saying that such a violation did, in fact, occur? —C.Fred (talk) 22:07, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

No, there aren't any sources explicitly stating that, but as Article III states that encouraging and inducing someone else to maintain, obtain or produce biological weapons, which the valueing of such weapons as "politically useful tool" naturally is, at least to the enemies of the USA, even when not meant to produce them for themselves, the violation of Article III is clearly obvious, especially since PNAC doesn't waste a single second of thought about GMO mutation, the horrible effects on the "targets", or any other potential danger arising from the use of such an insane, genocidal weapon, so they don't have a military, scientific or sociopolitical review of such a weapon, but an infomercial for biological, genocidal state terrorism (from the realm of terror). In the beginning, I had only cited the R.A.D. quote, but now that I've found multiple sources, one even fully dedicated especially to that quote, it would be good to show the context of the whole discussion. Also, I'm absolutely not against including all the other proposed weapon systems to counter that whole "decontextualization" accusation, as I didn't want to decontextualize, but clearly wrote that even when they're not meant to be proposed for the US themselves, this proposal clearly violates Article III of the BWC, no matter how kind the illusion of PNAC's innocence is portrayed. But I'm also okay with exlcuding the Article III BWC breach, no matter how clear it is from their statement, as a lot of people have trouble understanding implications of its' scientific language, or at least they behave in such a way, like they did.185.26.189.18 (talk) 13:43, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Again, the question is, according to whom is Article III violated? Wikipedia policies strongly discourage the use of original research or synthesis in articles. In other words, we cannot be drawing conclusions or inferences from what other people write. Thus, other editors have very valid concerns when they say that Wikipedia can't say it's an Article III violation unless an independent source (newspaper, magazine, scholarly publication, etc.) has said it. That's also why it is critical that you build consensus at the talk page for the changes. You need to show that experienced editors—who have a track record of editing in compliance with Wikipedia policies—agree with the changes. That is also why, when there are problems at articles, one of the first remedies is to restrict editing by unregistered and newly-registered editors. I'm not suggesting that Project for the New American Century needs to be protected at this time. However, I want to make sure you're aware of the protection policy. —C.Fred (talk) 13:46, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware of that and that's why I'm also down with excluding it, but I have at least a source, which explicitly states that the US' Bush administration had violated the BWC: pg.51 in "Target Iraq: What The News Media Didn't Tell You" by Norman Solomon and Reese Ehrlich, introduction by Howard Zinn, afterword by Sean Penn. An earlier version of this piece appeared in The Progressive: http://www.coldtype.net/Assets.04/Essays.04/TARGET.IRAQ.pdf

Both authors seem to publish only (in) credible sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reese_Erlich https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Solomon

I think these are the BWC violation programs: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Bacchus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Jefferson https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Clear_Vision 185.26.189.18 (talk) 15:04, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Still no answers or arguments by them against the new sources. Have you ever heard of the saying "no answer is also an answer"? They're simply out of any arguments, that's why they can bring none.185.26.189.18 (talk) 14:09, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Rabbi Eckstein Passing

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yechiel_Eckstein

Hi, with the passing of Rabbi Eckstein and possibly an influx of people to his Wiki page - can we get the corrections I originally submitted approved? If not, is there a way to fast track it? Thanks! Teachtosing (talk) 17:09, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

@Teachtosing: The key is to be able to verify the changes. Based on what you've said, there are likely to be more things published about him in the near future, so that may assist with the verification. Please link to anything published, particularly online.

I will not be of much direct assistance myself the next few days, and I'm attending to some off-wiki matters. —C.Fred (talk) 04:46, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I made a change to the Rabbi's page. I changed the birth place to where he was actually born. I referenced the IFCJ.org website. I was facing a lot of pressure to get this correct because many news sources were picking up the wrong birth location ... from Wiki. Thanks! Teachtosing (talk) 21:58, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Balhae and Balhae controversies

The user Hatchiko disputing the article Balhae and Balhae controversies got banned. Can you please put the articles on semi-protected mode for autoconfirmed users? Koraskadi (talk) 04:35, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

@Koraskadi: I don't see evidence of a ban. However, since there appears to have been block evasion, I've reverted the text. You'll need to appeal to the admin who protected the articles to lower the level. —C.Fred (talk) 04:43, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Rogers, Arkansas

Thank you C.Fred, it seems that students at a high school in Rogers are attempting to remove the addition as the nickname was crafted by students of a rival school. I am an editor at the Rogers Morning Newspaper and am simply trying to add in the nickname as it was voted on by our residents. Thanks again. Jaloevera (talk) 21:18, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

@Jaloevera: If you are an editor at the Rogers Morning Newspaper(sic), then please provide a link to an online version of the story. —C.Fred (talk) 21:20, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

(Though technically, we need the story to run in some other paper, because otherwise there's an issue with original research, since you're trying to cite yourself.) —C.Fred (talk) 21:21, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

It’s simply a nickname voted on by over a thousand residents, I can assure you the nickname is in no way meant to be offensive or denigrate the city or its residents in any way. I can provide my credentials if absolutely necessary however I would prefer not to as I would like to remain anonymous and as an independent editor. Would adding a Trivia tab under the page be more acceptable? Please let me know, thank you for your time. Jaloevera (talk) 21:31, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

@Jaloevera: It does not belong in the intro. The best that would happen would be to add a sentence in the Demographics section along the lines of "In a 2019 poll by the Rogers Morning News, residents voted 'The City' as a nickname for Rogers" with a citation to the newspaper story. The issue then is verifying that the story actually ran. If the paper had an online presence, that would be the easiest fix: link to the online version of the story. —C.Fred (talk) 21:39, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Portage, IN

You removed the political description off of the Portage, IN page. I cited correctly on there from the 2nd largest newspaper Indiana the information related to my edit where the last elected mayor was removed from office due to a bribery conviction. It was cited correctly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.206.203 (talk) 20:41, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

You need to discuss your concerns at Talk:Portage, Indiana. The editor (not me) who removed the material has pointed out that it's largely unsourced and that you do not have consensus for the change. You cannot appeal to me to skirt past 3RR. —C.Fred (talk) 20:47, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Rum

i have already done that please see user:Samsara talk page, and please dont revert my sourced edits without consultation, please revert back to the last edit, regards. 175.137.72.188 (talk) 13:54, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

If you are editing Rum, you need to get consensus at Talk:Rum. —C.Fred (talk) 13:55, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

please revert your revert, i have already discussed the matter with user:Samsara in user's talk page who has no objection, if you have any further objection, we can discuss this matter in the article talk page, regards. 175.137.72.188 (talk) 13:58, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

And at last check, Samsara has concerns about copyright infringement. Besides, other editors have opposed the change. I'm pinging Samsara so they see this discussion, but again, you really need to have this discussion at the article's talk page, not multiple users' talk pages. —C.Fred (talk) 14:02, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

i have already corrected that, as i have already stated, which i dont like to repeat, please bring the discussion to the talk page where i have already started a thread but i have not got any replies, and inform your reservations, and dont revert my edits needlessly which is backed by RS, please revert it back again, i have tried to discuss with all the users who had reservations, regards. 175.137.72.188 (talk) 14:08, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

The thread is now going on the talk page. I will not and may not revert back to your edits; another editor has confirmed they are a copyright infringement and deleted the relevant page versions. That said, I support Samsara's current addition to the article, although it may need more refining. —C.Fred (talk) 17:53, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Halifax Regional Municipality

Hello, I noticed that City of Halifax Regional Municipality is titled wrong while the Cape Breton Municipality is titled correct. Could you please fix this so that the Halifax wiki article says "Halifax Regional Municipality" instead of "Halifax, Nova Scotia". The Halifax Article should look like the Cape Breton article. Thanks, and cheers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halifax,_Nova_Scotia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cape_Breton_Regional_Municipality — Preceding unsigned comment added by FreakyBoy (talk • contribs) 20:47, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

@FreakyBoy: Two points. First, "Cape Breton" is ambiguous, since it could refer to the municipality or the island. Note that Cape Breton, Nova Scotia redirects to the island. There is no such ambiguity with "Halifax". Second, the title of the article has been discussed extensively, so any attempt to move it would require the requested move process. Please make sure you've read the Talk:Halifax, Nova Scotia archives to see the outcome of previous move discussions. —C.Fred (talk) 00:02, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. ^{[Username Needed]} 13:09, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Welcome?

Your "Welcome" message is actually a weiled threat apparently aimed to prevent any changes of the existing version of that article. --93.86.142.92 (talk) 17:04, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

No, it is an advisory about our policies on edit warring, which you are in jeopardy of violating. WP:3RR is a brightline rule. —C.Fred (talk) 17:18, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Oh, how come? The other party is by no chance in the same jeopardy? No need to warn him the same way?--93.86.142.92 (talk) 19:35, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

The other party is an established editor and should already be familiar with the guidelines. Thus, they don't need the same early notification that an unregistered editor who is demonstrating intent to edit war needs. —C.Fred (talk) 19:44, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Ras el Hanout

Hello

where do you see a consensus here? I see a user who brought his friend to help him out in the discussion. and another user who gave a 3rd opinion and proposed a version which was refused at the beginning by M.Bitton. --AZSH (talk) 00:57, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Clear consensus at the bottom of the talk page. You're the only editor (of four active) who wanted the association line left in. —C.Fred (talk) 01:04, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

no sorry there is none in my opinion.the edits were not just about the association line.

try to take a look at the talk page again please. I think you looked at the last discussion but try to take a look at the one above it.

The initial problem is between the users: AZSH and M.Bitton

The two users have not agreed on the edits, they discussed for a couple of days and then agreed to ask for a 3rd opinion to solve the problem.

The user ReconditeRodent gave a 3rd opinion

He also proposed a 1st version which was accepted by AZSH and refused by M.Bitton

he later on proposed a 2nd version which was this time refused by AZSH and accepted by M.Bitton.

so where is this consensus. we're not in a war to tell me that there is 3 vs 1. the consensus doens't work this way in my opinion.

In fact, the user Wikaviani doesn't really count because this user always comes to help out his friend M.Bitton and there are many examples about that. he always agrees with him.

I am pretty sure he doens't even know what we're talking about, he just says "I agree". added value to the discussion = 0.

therefore, it's still 1 vs 1 because the user ReconditeRodent has decided to quit the discussion because I think he failed to convince both parts.

M.Bitton had to use another way to solve the problem(Dispute resolution) instead of forcing the edits.

Can you also give your opinion here. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.155.81.249 (talk) 15:41, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

I suggest you read WP:Sock puppetry before asking my opinion right now. —C.Fred (talk) 16:27, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

FIFA World Cup

Hi there. I think I would like to let you know that people are treating me poorly because they are causing the edit war (not me) on some World Cup countries. If they have left pages like Scotland alone I don't understand why they're not leaving England alone. And I fear getting blocked for longer because I think I'm doing stuff correctly (I'm referring to removing irrelevant information). Dolfinz1972 (talk) 16:57, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Firstly, we're not "ignoring Scotland" as you know perfectly well given that you've already been taken to ANI regarding your disruption on the equivalent Scotland page. Secondly, for the third time A stand-alone list should begin with a lead section that summarizes its content, provides any necessary background information, gives encyclopedic context, links to other relevant articles, and makes direct statements about the criteria by which members of the list were selected, unless inclusion criteria are unambiguously clear from the article title; this kind of list article is obliged to include the background context you're edit-warring to remove. As a general rule, every article needs at minimum to include sufficient information to make sense to someone with no prior knowledge of the topic who's reading a printed version of the page. ‑ Iridescent 17:00, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Dolfinz1972: The general rule of thumb is that it takes two to edit war. That said, if multiple editors are each making one revert but you're reverting all of them, then it becomes pretty obvious that only one editor is at fault. If you're concerned the England article isn't edited to the same standard as others, then that is a concern that is best dealt with at a talk page, not by edit warring. Finally, if you are violating 3RR, then you are not doing stuff correctly. —C.Fred (talk) 17:01, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

AA QBs / AA American football players

Hi – Re this edit at Jeff Blake: Category:African-American football quarterbacks should be a sub-category of Category:African-American players of American football, but it's not. That's being discussed at its ongoing CfD. Just FYI. Leviv ich 02:44, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

@Levivich: And after re-reading the categories, I see exactly why it shouldn't be. I have self-reverted, and I marched off 10 yards against myself for objectionable conduct for missing that. :) —C.Fred (talk) 02:47, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

LOL – repeat first down! :-) Thanks! Leviv ich 02:47, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Nebulas

Hi Fred! I'm currently editing a new article, Nebulas. I saw you added a maintenance template to it; I did a small stub to expand it later. I'm currently adding more third-party references, and expanding the information it provides.

Care to check it later, so we can remove the template once it meets the criteria? Thanks!

--Canopus⁴⁹ - Replies here 16:33, 9 March 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ProgramadorCCCP (talk • contribs)

Edit warring by JMB2019

Hi, C. Fred, I was contacted about an edit war that I have been trying to stop without success. It appears to be a continuation of a Twitter war. Wallyfromdilbert has repeatedly replaced well sourced information on page about E.J. Levy with misinformation, removing citations and titles of books and replacing these with inaccurate claims (e.g., wrong numbers of published works, etc). The removal of citations and replacement with false claims should be stopped. This appears to be an edit war. How does one report Wallyfromdilbert and others engaged in reverting to inaccurate text? History of page supports this claim of edit war engaged in by Wallyfromdilbert. JMB2019 (talk) 04:51, 6 March 2019 (UTC) JMB2019 (talk) 04:45, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

---

The user you warned, JMB2019 has continued edit warring on E. J. Levy as well as James Barry (surgeon). Looks pretty clearly to be a sock of Hedgielamar, who was banned for the same edit warring. I put a comment on the AN3 thread that had been closed after banning Hedgielamar. Is that adequate or should I post instead a new AN3 report or a SPI report? Any advice would be appreciated. Thank you. (PS. I'm watching you page for now so no need to ping me if you respond.) Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 05:51, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

@Wallyfromdilbert: Yeah, I was borderline last night on whether the sockpuppetry was there. I was waiting to see if there were further edits, which there weren't last night before I turned in. I'll take another look today. —C.Fred (talk) 17:56, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

...or not, since they got blocked for sockpuppetry overnight. —C.Fred (talk) 17:57, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

My apologies, I just got on and was reviewing what had occurred since I left this message. I was going to update you and let you know it had been addressed by another administrator to avoid taking up your time unnecessarily, as I know all you administrators have enough to do already. Thanks for your assistance, as well as for your note on Talk:E. J. Levy where I had been attacked. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 18:05, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

C.Fred I have repeatedly posted comments on the Levy page--u see various headings. I'm obviously not an experienced editor, so may not know where to raise these issues, but I certainly have tried to, repeatedly, as I have tried to balance the Levy page, without removing prior text, as Wallyfromdilbert et al have repeatedly done. Hedgielamar (talk) 02:13, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

@Hedgielamar: You have posted twice to the talk page:

1. 16 February, about "Harassment via Wikipedia" [4]
2. Today, about the "Edit war ongoing" [5]

That is not "repeatedly post[ing] comments] to the page. You have essentially only posted one comment about improving the article. I strongly suggest that you do not edit the article directly anymore until a new consensus is reached at the talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 02:18, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

• @C.Fred: FYI [6]. Should I do a report on AN3? Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 02:24, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

@Wallyfromdilbert: Ball is in Hedgielamar's court now. If they stay off the article for a while and have a productive discussion on the talk page, there's no need for action. If they keep making the same changes while I'm awake, no need for a report, because I'll address it myself. —C.Fred (talk) 02:27, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 02:35, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

I Tried to Add ATOS to a Wikipedia Atos (disambiguation) - Wiki .. Page have patience with Me I am still New at Wiki- editing

Hi C.Fred - I Tried to Add ATOS to a Wikipedia Atos (disambiguation) - Wiki .. Page - - have patience with Me I am still New at Wiki- editing and don't do it often, just Trying to add more information for others to find, in My Clumsy Way ...

• ATOS, Reading Level Measurement Scale or Reading Level Scale } for Classifiying the Grade Level or Reading Level in School Books, and Libraries.

Sorry if I Goofed ! AlAdams12 (talk) 21:12, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

@AlAdams12: ATOS refers to a Japanese system for train control, not a reading level measurement scale. I'm not convinced the scale needs mentioned in the disambiguation page. —C.Fred (talk) 21:24, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi Fred ! I Found a Wikipedia Page that Covers My Definition on ATOS so the Atos_(disambiguation) Page Should Point To That and it Needs a Link Here to be included Please Look where this Link Goes !! — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlAdams12 (talk • contribs) 21:38, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

References

@AlAdams12: I'll add it accordingly. —C.Fred (talk) 21:56, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

deleting of F. Le Diascorn page

Well one can only abide by your decision to delete the page in question but as for the Le Diascorn page being "blatantly promotional" that is a bit of a joke about this particular artist who is a poet of photography rather than a promoter of himself (the text was intended to convey the poetic, original and individualistic nature of his work and life though clearly it failed to do so), and in the ten years or so his page has been around, he has never had a single contact resulting from it! Blatantly promotional!??? The page was created by a few admirers of his not to "promote him" but simply to be available to lovers of photography and of the work of this particular photographer, greatly respected by his peers but not known to a large public because of the very fact that he has never been a self-promoter! (I don't believe he has even ever read his own Wikipedia page!) As one of the admirers of his talent and dedication to his art, I'm sorry the page is down but it won't change his life or his work or his eventual importance to the history of French photography (recognized by the French state which will house all his work and archives).Larsdatter (talk) 16:17, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-Protect Edit Requesting for Famous Model/TV Personality: Surname Shouldn't be Used More Than Once

Please take this edit request for a high-profile model and TV personality namely that of Kardashian, Kim: Her surname shouldn't be used more than once after leading sentence of said professions as in "Kardashian first gained fame when a 2003 sex tape of her and Ray J leaked in 2007..."

It should be changed into "She first gained fame when a 2003 sex tape of her and Ray J leaked in 2007...."

But for the other two Kardashian sisters Kourtney and Khloe their last names should be repeated after lead sentences. And so as the younger Jenner sister Kylie.

Fellow admin Ymblanter got confused and said that he "never heard about any of them" in his talk page.

The main article for those two pages: Talk:Kim Kardashian#RE:Less Redundant Use of Surname and Talk:Kylie Jenner#Less Redundant Use of She. Same Goes for Kourtney and Khloe. You must leave a comment for those two semi-protected edit requests.

Cheers,

67.81.163.178 (talk) 17:44, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Falsely Deleted Page

Hello, you deleted a page https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyler_Morris that was originally falsely deleted despite discussion and reason of why the topic should stay. I have been editing this page for over 3 years and the subject matter has had his material chart at #8 on the Billboard Charts. (Week of Jan, 12, 2019). Could you please undelete this page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BobKelley (talk • contribs) 13:26, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

@BobKelley: The community's decision at WP:Articles for deletion/Tyler Morris still stands; there is no new information about him. See User talk:Stacey196#Re-deletion of Tyler Morris for more on my rationale. —C.Fred (talk) 13:31, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello, I provided new information from interviews and the Billboard.com website directly. Please see some of these below: https://www.ultimate-guitar.com/news/general_music_news/rock__rolls_new_hope_meet_tyler_morris_an_experienced_19-year-old_guitarist_with_three_solo_albums_behind_him.html Epiphone Tyler Morris Van Halen I: http://www.epiphone.com/News/Features/News/2019/Tyler-Morris-Tributes-Van-Halen-1.aspx Tyler Morris Band Billboard Charts #8 Jan 12, 2019 Link: https://www.billboard.com/charts/blues-albums/2019-01-12

BobKelley (talk) 13:35, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Advice for me to become an admin someday

I’m pretty much just under rehabilitation (no I’m not hurt or injured whatsoever). I remember that time when I opened a discussion of the article “List of Yoshi video games” demanding that the page be moved to Yoshi (series). The repliers had therefore agreed to my post on the talk page. The link is at https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Yoshi_video_games#/talk/3. You may also want to take a look at my latest contributions during the rehabilitation at https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/MetricSupporter89. If you have read the post at the first link and seen the contributions during my rehabilitation, you can get me some advice if I ever want to be an admin someday by replying below. Metric Supporter 89 (talk) 00:15, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Redirect article En-PH

I created a redirect to the article “Philippine English”, but the redirect doesn’t work. Can you please delete the redirect article “En-PH” because I know you’re an administrator. Metric Supporter 89 (talk) 03:07, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

@MetricSupporter89:  Done —C.Fred (talk) 03:09, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Metric Supporter 89 (talk) 15:37, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Project for the New American Century

Really? While I had presented credible, referenced facts from reliable publications by award-winning authors, all Goethean has got was his political opinion, not a single argument, fact or source. There's no more original research anymore in my edit you've deleted, only award-winning authors' articles and books explicitly discussing PNAC's own quote from their main strategic blueprint R.A.D.. Goethean simply ignores that and edit wars on without any valid argument, as before, but he is already indefinitely topic-banned from editing Tea Party articles due to his weird political opinions. I was just citing facts from an official document award-winning journalists have discussed in articles even solely dedicated to a dangerous and horrible quote of genotypical bio-warfare appraisal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.26.189.18 (talk) 16:50, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Casperti

He is back to edit warring and making personal attacks in edit summaries,[7] despite he agreed with what you told him.[8] Shashank5988 (talk) 17:58, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

@Shashank5988: So, what was your reason for reverting and removing the maintenance template? —C.Fred (talk) 18:00, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

My gratitude to you for taking the time to investigate this C.Fred. I removed the template because a wide consensus exists on the talk page that the material in the article should be retained. Despite the fact that several users have provided reliable sources for the material, including a sysop, Casperti continues to edit war with other editors on the article even after he was censured for doing so at WP:AN3 [9]. Others have asked him to drop the WP:STICK but he continues to try to push nationalist POV through synthesis and original research backed up by his personal interpretation of a YouTube video. His personal attacks are also not stopping.[10] Shashank5988 (talk) 20:25, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Comment @Shashank5988: None of the diffs you provided above actually supports your accusations of personal attacks from this new user (Casperti), please let me know if you think i'm mistaken or missed something. This editor understands Persian (and so do i) and the Youtube video in Persian he provided is from a media, not from a random Youtube user, thus, while it's not the best source ever, it can be considered as reliable. Also, you and some other users should remember to avoid biting newbies and this thread, where you refuse to help this user, and even ask him to stop seeking for help from others along with accustions of sock puppetry, is, to be honest, quite questionable in my opinion. Again, if i missed something or if you think i'm mistaken, please let me know. C.Fred, sorry for blowing up your talk page. All the best.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:20, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Hedgielamar‎

Hi, I saw your disposition of the ANEW report and wondered what accounts you think Hedgielamar‎ has used to sock with "again".--Bbb23 (talk) 13:01, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

@Bbb23: I apologize for commenting unrequested, but Hedgielamar previously used JMB2019 as a sock after a previous ban for edit warring. You recently banned Patrice Starr and Caprae Lac as sockpuppet accounts, and they had very similar editing patterns to Hedgielamar. Are those accounts not related to Hedgielamar? Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 16:47, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

@Bbb23: Based on behaviour, my assumption was that Patrice Starr and Caprae Lac are both socks of Hedgielamar. I saw the connection between the first two through checkuser, but not to the third. —C.Fred (talk) 19:07, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

I understand the inference. The two accounts I blocked are  Confirmed to each other but  Unrelated to Hedgielamar. Given Hedgielamar's previous socking, had they created additional socks, I would have blocked them indefinitely. Regardless, I think your block of one week was well-deserved.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:03, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

@Bbb23: And now the account EJLevywriter is active again at BLPN. Suggestions on how to handle them? —C.Fred (talk) 01:33, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

The account is  Unrelated to the Patrice Starr socks. It is  Possilikely (a mix between possible and likely)/ Inconclusive to Hedgielamar.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:14, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

@Bbb23: What about the issue of the username, since they are holding themselves out as the subject of the article? They've been pointed in the direction of OTRS and probably haven't had time for a request to go through, though. —C.Fred (talk) 11:44, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

The username issue occurred to me, too, but I personally didn't feel like blocking on that basis. It would be a valid block, though. They can always request an unblock if OTRS confirms.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:12, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

@Bbb23: Yeah, it feels just a little too bite-y to me, especially if they aren't directly editing the article, so that's why I haven't blocked. —C.Fred (talk) 15:19, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Re: Edits to Carolyn Murphy Page

Hello, I am new to Wiki and have seen you have removed my edits several times with regard to the biography page on Carolyn Murphy. You cited a conflict of interest. Though I am not employed by Carolyn or get paid by her in any way, I do know her. She asked me to return her Wiki page to it's original content before it was trolled by someone who removed it and replaced it with the barebone details that you have put back up.

How does Carolyn get her original bio back up? She wants the accurate full story of her career up there, not a barebones placeholder as appears now. Please advise as to how to move forward.

Thank you Ajsl348 (talk) 16:29, 16 April 2019 (UTC)Ajsl348

(talk page watcher) @Ajsl348: If you know her, you have a conflict of interest. - FlightTime (open channel) 16:33, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

@Ajsl348: Please provide links to reliable sources that have printed the "accurate full story of her career". Then independent editors—editors who, unlike you, have know connection or relationship to Murphy—can expand the article. —C.Fred (talk) 19:50, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Operate my bot

My new proposed bot (TalkPageArchivingBot) got denied because I’m inexperienced. I’m pretty sure that you are more experienced than me. In this case, you will need to make the request at WP:BRFA. Metric Supporter 89 (talk) 02:29, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Don't ask other editors to do complicated things you don't know how to do or have been prohibited from doing. Please stop making bot requests - it's becoming disruptive. Bots require specific skills and experience that you do not possess. Acroterion (talk) 02:56, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

@MetricSupporter89: Further, what does your new bot do that existing archiving bots don't? As Acroterion noted, bots require knowledge and skills that, to be honest, I haven't picked up yet. I'm sure I could if I had the time, patience, and a good idea for a project, but yet another archiver bot does not seem like a good project. —C.Fred (talk) 04:31, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

iHorror

The page had sourcing from relibale publications such as Yahoo, Deadline, Canyon News and the Tampa Bay Times. Why did you delete it without even a warning to me?★Trekker (talk) 18:23, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

@*Treker: Because it's the third time the page has been created, and I didn't see anything to boost the claims. —C.Fred (talk) 18:24, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

So reliable sources and coverage means nothing because it was delted before? Did you not even look at the sources that were there? And what exactly about your reasoning makes it ok to just delete somthing before even alerting the creator?★Trekker (talk) 18:26, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

If you had at least said something before I could have put it in one of my sandboxes or a draft. Now it's all just gone in the ether.★Trekker (talk) 18:27, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

@*Treker: Fair point. I've restored it to Draft:IHorror. —C.Fred (talk) 18:31, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks.★Trekker (talk) 18:32, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Question

Hello C.Fred. The editor who is messing with the Tom Baker article also created this. Now it is mostly messing around but there is also the potential for it to be a BLP violation. Is there a speedy delete tag for something like this? I looked through them wasn't sure if any of them applied. I did think that maybe hoax or test page might work but wasn't sure. I did blank the page as you can see, If doing that is enough then fine but I did want to check with you. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 03:42, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

@MarnetteD: It doesn't specifically fit a CSD criterion. However, you're right: there's a BLP issue, and it's enough to maybe push it to the realm of G10. I've erred on the side of caution and deleted it. —C.Fred (talk) 13:41, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look C. Much appreciated. MarnetteD|Talk 14:13, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Article about Daniel Strachman

Thank you for getting in touch with me. I don't understand why my article was deleted and would like to get it back up. I am accomplished financial writer - the author of nine books and hundreds of articles. It seems that there is some sort of mistake. Can you help me. Daniel Strachman (talk) 16:26, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

In addition, my work is cited in a number of places on Wikipedia. It is very confusing to see my page being deleted Daniel Strachman (talk) 16:28, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

@Daniel Strachman: The first problem—though not fatal in and of itself—was the complete lack of sourcing provided in the article. The only things backed up by a source were your alma mater and marriage. The rest of the article was unsourced. One would expect an "accomplished financial writer" to have been written about in reviews or other sources that discuss him at length (note: him and not his works).

The greater problem was the tone. I see the concerns that were raised by other editors, both that the creator of the article had a conflict of interest and that the article felt like a promotional blurb (e.g., book jacket) than an encyclopedia article.

IMHO, if you are a notable person who warrants an article, then an independent editor should be able to write one based on reliable secondary sources that clearly show your significance or importance. The last version of the article lacked independence and was weak in showing significance. —C.Fred (talk) 16:39, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

confused by your comment

Why is this article appropriate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_D._Schwager

and the one about me not appropriate? I don't understand. I would appreciate some guidance here. 76.233.5.126 (talk) 16:44, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Looking at the deletion discussion, it appears people feel he meets WP:AUTHOR and do not have concerns about the tone. —C.Fred (talk) 16:53, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Roy Anderson

Regarding this edit [11], removing any mention of the name is not a viable solution. A page on people named Roy can't just pretend this whole bunch of people named Roy don't exist because they happen to be clustered together on a separate disambiguation page. Agricolae (talk) 00:01, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

@Agricolae: But not all of them go in that category. I think technically, if the dab gets listed, it has to go to the See also section. —C.Fred (talk) 00:54, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Unless there is explicit inviolable policy to the contrary, I would think it much more useful to the reader (which should count for something) to have an entry at its appropriate point in the alphabetical order, even though it points to a disambiguation page that in addition to a dozen appropriate real-world entries also includes a single fictional one (that is also separately listed on the Roy page). I'd rather see them duplicated in their entirety on the Roy page than their existence obscured by only putting a link to the disambig page all the way down at the bottom in the See Also section. Agricolae (talk) 01:27, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

@Agricolae: Wikipedia:WikiProject Anthroponymy/Standards is the relevant standard page. The way I read it, the dab page shouldn't be in the list proper. —C.Fred (talk) 01:44, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

That is one way to read it, but though it mentions disambiguation pages, it doesn't appear to be referring to this specific scenario. What it does do is give links to example pages representative of the different types of name pages. List of people with the surname Spencer includes disambiguation pages in their alphabetical position (plus all the individual names found on the disambiguation page). Spencer (given name) does the same thing. Either there are significant quality-control issues with regard to the examples they have selected, or the policy is not intended to prohibit the listing disambiguation pages. Agricolae (talk) 02:13, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Adil Omar

Hello C.Fred, I am a fan and long time supporter of Adil's who routinely updates this Wiki page based on his music releases and announcements, usually backed up with references from reputable news sources. I have been given permission from the artist himself to upload his pictures to keep the page up to date. Would be happy to further discuss how to manage it more to the guidelines of Wikipedia while having all desired content and imagery up. I am still learning the ropes and happy to grow, but do note that every addition made is referenced and language is neutral and not biased based on Wikipedia guidelines. As for using imagery from music videos, I can provide evidence of artist consent privately via email. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IkonRock (talk • contribs) 15:40, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

@IkonRock: If you have been given permission from the artist himself, you do sit close to the COI line. More importantly, you are not the creator of the images, so they have invalid license tags. You must contact Wikimedia Commons via email (I don't have the directions for there handy; for the English Wikipedia, WP:VRT has information) so they can verify that the image was properly donated. —C.Fred (talk) 17:17, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Project for the New American Century

Aaaaaaand it's back.

@Goethean: Noted. I've pointed them to the talk page. Hopefully they go there voluntarily instead of involuntarily. —C.Fred (talk) 21:29, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Only because somebody doesn't agree with Einstein's relativity theory, it doesn't enable me to delete it from Wikipedia and this is way more proven to be factual reality, than Einstein's theories, which are still theory. The quote is evidence, not theory and Bkobres has established consensus with me and factual evidence from reality.185.26.189.18 (talk) 16:05, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

The difference is, Einstein's theory is well-supported. Your PNAC evidence is objected to by at least two editors (one at the talk page in the last discussion, and Goethean as noted above), so a 50-50 split is hardly consensus. —C.Fred (talk) 16:19, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

The evidence is clearly on our side, so we win, no matter how many reality-deniers the censorship camp can recruit, as PNAC's evidence is supported officially through its' discussion by award-winning journalists I've referenced and have caused multiple documentaries about it, due to these two inhuman quotes. There are a lot of physicists who doubt Einstein's explanation will hold up in the end and will be replaced by a full theory of quantum gravity, or even by string theory, so the support for Einstein is 1:3 (or actually even more against him...Bohm, Susskind etc.)... 185.26.189.18 (talk) 16:39, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Have you read WP:CONSENSUS? —C.Fred (talk) 16:41, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes and it's clear that opinions-only "arguments" are less supported than quotes based from the official evidence released by the organization itself which are discussed by award-winning journalists and documentaries, which is the central topic of the article named after it and the support for the quote is the inclusion of it in the article till from at least 2015 till November 17th 2018, when the Breitbart-reported, Tea-Party-topic-banned, obvious right-wing politics fan Goethean had censored it out without any evidence, or quote at all to support his opinion-only deletion of this officially released information which had been accepted for years. 185.26.189.18 (talk) 16:54, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

So you're relying on a primary source for your position? —C.Fred (talk) 16:57, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

No, I'm relying on multiple, award-winning journalists, who discuss PNAC's own official main strategic blueprint and explicitly this quote and a years-long consensus, deleted by some editors. 185.26.189.18 (talk) 16:59, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Please remember to assume good faith in your fellow editors. —C.Fred (talk) 17:02, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

That would be more easy, when they aren't already topic-banned from editing other right-wing extremists' articles due to their political bias-edit war and when they don't try to censor factual reality in a fascistoid/Stalinist manner that tries to keep the public from becoming aware about inhuman statements that are a clear breach of Article III of the BWC, but are part of the officially released main strategic blueprint by an invasive, right-wing extermists' government that has been the centre of discussion of multiple, award-winning journalists I've cited in the article that was part of the article for years, before denying facts was popular in political discussions, due to Trump's undemocratic behaviour. 185.26.189.18 (talk) 17:11, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Generation X

Hi, I noticed that you reverted an edit on the Generation X page yesterday. The edit you fixed had incorrectly changed the birth dates, so thank you. However, I saw that your revert edit did not work for some reason, which is very strange! Could you take a look at it again please and fix the problem? I appreciate it.64.183.43.88 (talk) 20:18, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

The page looks fine to me. What problem are you seeing? —C.Fred (talk) 20:22, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Deleted Page

Hi Fred,

I just created a page to be reviewed for the American Academy of Implant Dentistry. However, it appears either you or someone deleted it. I did not receive a notice that it was going to be removed nor did anyone ask for verification. Please let me know how I can get the missing page back and any background information you may have.

Sincerely, Karina — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theimplantdentists (talk • contribs) 20:39, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

@Theimplantdentists: Please check your talk page again. You received a notice after you created the page the first time that it would be deleted for copyright violation. When you recreated it with the same infringing text, it was deleted again. —C.Fred (talk) 20:47, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi Fred, I work for the American Academy of Implant Dentistry. You are welcome to call our headquarters to verify: [redacted]. We are willing to abide by the Commons guidelines. How can I get our page back up? Thank you, Karina Theimplantdentists (talk) 21:30, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

@Theimplantdentists: You also need to abide by WP:PAID, WP:COI, and the other guidelines of the English Wikipedia. One of the problems with the page, in addition to copyright, was that it bordered on blatantly promotional. The page would need to be completely rewritten in the style of a neutral encyclopedia article—and usually we get better results when that's done by an independent editor, not an employee of the subject.

Please also review WP:Donating copyrighted materials for information about releasing copyright of text—or of images. If the Academy is notable enough for an article, I would assume the logo should be uploaded to the English Wikipedia as a non-free logo, rather than having the Academy place it under an irrevocable free license. —C.Fred (talk) 21:38, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 special circular

Administrators must secure their accounts The Arbitration Committee may require a new RfA if your account is compromised. Use strong, unique passwords for your Wikipedia account and associated email Change your password now if your Wikipedia account password or email password is reused on another website, exposed, or weak Enable two-factor authentication now for improved security

View additional information

Why have I received this message? All administrators are receiving it. What prompted you to send this message? Recently, several Wikipedia admin accounts were compromised. The admin accounts were desysopped on an emergency basis. In the past, the Committee often resysopped admin accounts as a matter of course once the admin was back in control of their account. The committee has updated its guidelines. Admins may now be required to undergo a fresh Request for Adminship (RfA) after losing control of their account. What do I need to do? Only to follow the instructions in this message. Check that your password is unique (not reused across sites). Check that your password is strong (not simple or guessable). Enable Two-factor authentication (2FA), if you can, to create a second hurdle for attackers. How can I find out more about two-factor authentication (2FA)? You can find out more about 2FA at m:2FA.

This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 02:32, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Administrator account security (Correction to Arbcom 2019 special circular)

ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.

Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.

We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.

For the Arbitration Committee, -Cameron11598 21:03, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Apology

Sorry I will only contribute actual facts and not vandalize I apologize. Biggayt12 (talk) 23:47, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Somebody without admistrative powers has edited my user page

A user named Marchjuly had edited my user page even though the user doesn’t have administrative powers. I know that on user pages, only the user who owns that user page and users who have administrative powers can edit the user page. I’m pretty sure that the diff of revision 896237708 on my user page has to be deleted. What do you think? Metric Supporter 89 (talk) 00:43, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) MetricSupporter89, I think you've misunderstood. The restriction on editing other editors' user pages only applies to editors who are not autoconfirmed (i.e. very new editors). Marchjuly removed an image from your page which is non-free, which means you cannot use it on your user page. So no, their edit does not need to be deleted. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 00:53, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi MetricSupporter89. You pinged me so I might as well comment. I left an edit summary explaining why I removed the file from your userpage. If there's something you don't understand about this, feel free to ask. Finally, just for reference, users don't own their userpages; they can technically be edited by anyone at anytime just the same as any other Wikipedia page. Most of the time, however, userpages will be left alone as long as there are no policy or guideline issues (i.e. WP:USER#NOT, WP:BLP, WP:COPYVIO, etc.) which need addressing. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:04, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

MJ omitted one of the most common reasons to edit another editor's userpage, that being WP:CHILD. That or WP:FAKEARTICLE are generally the only reasons I would, but as MJ works extensively with non-free images, his edit makes perfect sense. John from Idegon (talk) 01:24, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

@MetricSupporter89: There is no prohibition against editing another user's user page. Now, it's typically considered bad form and bad etiquette, but there are a few situations when editing another user's page is appropriate. John from Idegon mentioned a few of them, and non-free content is another valid reason to do it. I have removed non-free images from user pages before, or else changed the code by putting a leading colon so the non-free image is linked from the page but not rendered on the page. —C.Fred (talk) 01:53, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale

Hello. I would like to request you in light of your recent contributions. Can you lock this article for IP editors? There is a whole lott of vandalism in it. I am still struggling to recover it. Dagana4 (talk) 09:31, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

@Dagana4: I don't see a level of vandalism that supports protecting the article, but I will continue to monitor it. —C.Fred (talk) 11:49, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

• I concur with the assessment of C.Fred. This militant's bio is a prime target of zeolots, hence the glorification and also vandalism. The recent spurt was taken care of by blocking the editor. The article is watched by many admins and contributors so it should be ok and does not need protection as of now. --DBigXrayᗙ 05:40, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Thandai to beat the hot summer

		A glass of Thandai for you
		Here is a glass of Thandai for you. Thandai is a traditional Indian cold drink prepared with a mixture of almonds, fennel seeds, watermelon kernels, rose petals, pepper, vetiver seeds, cardamom, saffron, milk and sugar. Fred, it is sad to see that you were repeatedly harassed by what appears to be a zeolot. (The name Khalsa in Sikhism religion (Punjabi language) means a religious warrior. So that word in the username is a useful hint. I do not recommend that these usernames with this word be reported to UAA but it is a good hint of what to expect. The edits themselves are clear indication. Also thanks to User:Drmies for putting an end to this. Appreciate your contributions in keeping that article neutral, and here is some Thandai for it. Thank you. DBigXrayᗙ 05:49, 10 May 2019 (UTC) For more Indian dishes, visit the Kitchen of WikiProject India.

Template to encourage IP users to make account

Do you know of any subst templete to tell an IP to make his account? Dagana4 (talk) 10:50, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Hi Dagana4. Maybe {{welcome-anon}}, {{Createaccount}} or one of the others in Category:IP user welcome templates will work, but you can't really "tell" (i.e. "demand") an IP to register for an account; the best you can do is suggest it. Sometimes a brief personal message and linking to a page like Wikipedia:Why create an account? works better than a template. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:40, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Dagana4 (talk) 08:53, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Selena Gomez

I tried to add information to her page but it's locked. Her networth is $70 mil. Not $50 mil. She can play the piano too, her instruments shouldn't only be her vocals. Whoever receives this could you do me the favor and change it? Thatstankdude (talk) 14:25, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

@Thatstankdude: What reliable sources do you have for the net worth update? Further, the instruments listed aren't a laundry list of everything she plays; we only list the ones where she plays them extensively professionally. —C.Fred (talk) 14:29, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

I saw it on this other source on Twitter, but it's outta my reach atm.(You could search her networth on Google, there'll be a website, trust me). I've seen pages with artists who have more instruments than vocals and they don't play them "extensively professionally" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thatstankdude (talk • contribs) 14:43, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

@Thatstankdude: Sorry. If you can't provide a more specific source, I'm not doing your search work for you. If you have a specific source, though, I can vet it for reliability. —C.Fred (talk) 14:46, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

What about the vocal saga? - Thatstankdude

That will need to be discussed at the article's talk page, to see what consensus is. —C.Fred (talk) 14:53, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Geapsu ready

Hi Fred, Thanks for your message. "we" just means me and few of my colleagues. The page for Steve Damelin is ok with us. It was edited by an editor and based on some suggestions given to us, we also edited it--- we are waiting for it to be moved. The suggestions and help were good and thank you. Please have a look.

Geapsu (talk) 15:29, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Republican Main Street Partnership

I am employed by the CEO/President of Republican Main Street Partnership (Sarah Chamberlain), and have been asked to update the RMSP wikipedia page to reflect that Rodney Davis is no longer affiliated with RMSP. Additionally, the Caucus that he once chaired as been entirely dissolved, and is no longer affiliated or a part of RMSP.

To get this officially stated on the page, would I have to go forward and have a press-released written about the dissolvment? Aside from past news articles, all mentions of the Caucus & Rodney Davis's affiliation with Republican Main Street have been removed, and we hope for this to equally reflect on Wikipedia. Please let me know if there is anything I can do to solidify these changes for RMSP and to best reflect the current Republican Main Street Partnership. Ceceme20 (talk) 14:49, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

@Ceceme20: First, thank you for disclosing your involvement and status as a paid editor. Because of your conflict of interest, you really should not edit the RMSP article directly, nor should you edit Davis's article, since he was a member.

I have removed mentions of Davis as a current member; however, that does not change that he was a past member of the organization. That should reasonably be listed in both his article and the partnership's article.

Rather than a press release, it would be better to cite a news story about the dissolution of the caucus. See WP:Secondary sources. —C.Fred (talk) 14:57, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, I will follow this protocol in the future, as well as refrain from editing the articles. And thank you for the explanation. Ceceme20 (talk) 15:01, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

@Ceceme20: That said, given the short life of the Caucus compared to the Partnership, I have de-emphasized the Caucus in the RMSP article and removed it from the introductory section. —C.Fred (talk) 15:12, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Bill Lee

I see you undid the edit I had made to Bill Lee's page. I had done the edit and cited two sources indicating that Bill Lee probably never played varsity baseball at LSU and you took that out. Now the article states that he played baseball at LSU without indicating that it was merely as a freshman, leaving the misimpression that he played varsity baseball. I'm curious why you erased my edit. My email is [redacted].

Thanks, Jerry Talbot — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:14e1:27a0:9ea:3ff9:97f6:6792 (talk) 20:17, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

The giveaway word is "probably". We need a reliable source that says he didn't, and sources I saw indicated he did. —C.Fred (talk) 20:44, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

The SABR biography by Gregory Wolf specifically says that he played his freshman year at LSU. The email I got from Bill Franques, the Sr. Associate Communications Director and the LSU baseball program’s media relations director that I cited specifically states he did not letter for the LSU varsity and he could find nothing indicating he played for the varsity. I cited a book summarizing the role of freshmen around that time, also casting doubt on the suggestion that he played varsity ball. Wolf's article specifically says he entered LSU in the fall of 1928. Your source you relied on says he signed a minor league contract in 1929, severely casting doubt on the suggestion in the original article that he played two seasons for LSU. My edit noted the discrepancy, did not erase the original source, but merely pointed out it was probably wrong. Your opting for certitude gives the piece an air of certainty that does not exist. When I first read the original article, I contacted LSU and found out they had no record of him playing varsity ball. I spent several hours researching this to determine he probably could not have played as a freshman and the extant evidence suggests that is all he played. The article as you edited it is misleading and leads the reader to conclude that he played for the LSU varsity, while my changes were entirely accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:14e1:27a0:9599:16f5:61c9:7a36 (talk) 19:00, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

I took a closer look at the source in the article and noticed that it came from a fan community. I then took a look at the SABR biography, which was written by a SABR editor with an extensive publication history. The SABR source is clearly more reliable per WP:RS, so I changed the article to note that he played as a freshman. The letter from Franques is not acceptable as a source. —C.Fred (talk) 19:55, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

The article still doesn't inform the reader regarding the status of freshmen in the 1920's. I cited a book that addressed that issue. If he only played his freshman year, he probably would not have been eligible for varsity participation, as most schools and conferences did not allow freshmen to participate in varsity sports at the time. Ronald Smith, Pay for Play, A History of Big-Time Athletic Reform, p. 201-202. That should at least be footnoted in footnote one after the Wolf cite. Otherwise, LSU fans like me are left wondering why LSU never talks about him as a former LSU college baseball player, which is why I started all this research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:14e1:27a0:9599:16f5:61c9:7a36 (talk) 20:21, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Reason for Edit

The reason I made my part of the edit is I don't see the information as useful or vital. The link given for the passage is all a projection and not something official like a census. The projections part of the Demography of the United States is fine, but to have it on the main page isn't needed. Hopefully that clears it up. —HauntingStomper (talk) 16:48, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

@HauntingStomper: Many articles use the updated projection data rather than reach back to the last census. It is therefore acceptable to have it on the main page. At worst case, rather than remove it, you'd need to restore the data from the last census. —C.Fred (talk) 20:50, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Good to know for the future. Thank you for telling me. Wikipedia is still a learning process for me so it's nice to learn something new. —HauntingStomper (talk) 16:58, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Meyer's article

What you have done is dishonest. The question is why?

Laughton was not involved with the court case. Laughton's visit was in 1990. The pretrail deposition in 1995.

The conclusion that Professor Michael Laughton, Dean of Engineering at Mary College, London, Admiral Sir Anthony Griffin, a former controller of the British Navy, and Dr Keith Hindley, a UK research chemist came to was:

"After hours of discussion between ourselves, we concluded that Stan Meyer did appear to have discovered an entirely new method for splitting water which showed few of the characteristics of classical electrolysis. Confirmation that his devices actually do work come from his collection of granted US patents on various parts of the WFC system. Since they were granted under Section 101 by the US Patent Office, the hardware involved in the patents has been examined experimentally by US Patent Office experts and their seconded experts and all the claims have been established."

The witness at the hearing was Michael Leverich, an electronics engineer.

Now, all of this is in various sources, so why are you reverting to a falsehood?

Admiral Sir Anthony Griffin was not only a former controller of the Royal Navy but in charge of its investigation of hydrogen technologies during his career, therefore would be considered an expert and reliable source.

Thank you. --82.132.184.102 (talk) 01:58, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

What I have done is reverted a change made by an unregistered editor repeatedly against the consensus of other editors. Any discussion of the merits of the edit should be handled at the article's talk page, not here. —C.Fred (talk) 02:04, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

I came back because I saw you had reverted the topic yet again, and apparently had it locked.

Nope, sorry, you're one exercising your powers in denial of factual evidence, so I need to take the matter up with you in order to stop you doing so.

I've highlighted and copied out the quote regarding the factual errors/evidence above, so let's start by addressing that, in order to justify your actions.

To be frank, your response is - how do I put this politely - disingenuous. But you know that. You attempt to discredit because I am "unregistered", or rather not logged in and you pluck a plausible looking policy to distract from what you are doing.

I've highlighted a factual error. Provided the evidence to support it. "Consensus of unsubstantiated wrong" does trump that. Justify your repeated removal off it.

Thank you. --82.132.246.123 (talk) 22:43, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

‎Jaelyn Young

Laughing at myself for getting the alpha order wrong..Thanks for the description improvement.. Meters (talk) 18:00, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Legal threat on the talkpage of Joey Maggs

Our friend who claims to be his wife has now threatened a lawsuit. So much for discussion of reliable sources on the talkpage... NekoKatsun (nyaa) 17:03, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Just saw your response; thanks! NekoKatsun (nyaa) 17:04, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

An award for you!

		The Good Friend Award
		Thank you for helping and giving advises to me related to Sock puppetry, SPI, etc. Thank you so much. This is for you. Regards. PATH SLOPU 09:51, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	This is for your valuable efforts on resolving the issues on Wikipedia peacefully. You also give best remedies for that . Thank you. PATH SLOPU 09:59, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Editing other users' comments in a discussion.

Hello, C.Fred. This is PurplePetals221, and as you know, I am new to this cite. I apologize for the minor edits I made in the other discussions. I wasn't even sure if I was allowed to edit others comments, but next time, I'll keep contact with them for permission if I want to re-edit their comments. Thanks! (talk) 4 June 2019

@PurplePetals221: As a new editor, the safe rule of thumb to follow is to never edit another user's comments in a discussion. Minor spelling errors are usually overlooked in discussion and don't need to be corrected. Major points, it's better to let the other user correct themselves.

It is acceptable to add an {{unsigned}} template if a user does not sign a post. Text can be removed from posts if they are copyright violations, WP:BLP violations, or personal attacks—but that's usually better left to experienced editors or admins.

One other note: there is a link to your talk page in your signature, but it's usually a good idea to display your name as part of your signature, so other users know who signed the post. —C.Fred (talk) 00:26, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Ashley Massaro

Hey ~ nice to meet you ~ the official cause of death has not been released yet ~ thanks Mitchellhobbs (talk) 23:56, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

@Mitchellhobbs: On the one hand, it's sourced in the article. On the other hand, the source is a TMZ story that cites "multiple sources connected with the situation". This probably warrants discussion at the talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 00:15, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Shaftesbury High school

Hey C.Fred! I have a quick question that I hope you can help with. I see you removed the bold text of the sports teams for improper use. I am new to Wikipedia and would like to know what the proper use is. If when you have time to reply to this that would be great as I want to help contribute to Manitoba wiki pages properly and ensure that I am following the rules. I am asking you as I see your an admin and have been on here since 2007 and have great knowledge about the site. Thanks in advance! Jaywill10 (talk) 16:15, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) It isn't so much about rules as it is guidelines and consensus, Jaywill10. The guidelines that apply to Shaftesbury High School are the same as apply to any high school, WP:SCH/AG. Also, there are WP:MOS guidelines that apply to all articles. The way you used bolding was not within those guidelines. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a collection of webpages. There are guidelines in place to ensure that we maintain a uniform style from article to article. Editing Wikipedia is fun, but not necessarily easy. I've left a large list of links on your talk page to help you find out more about Wikipedia. Please take a look at the help guides linked in the text and review some of the policies (especially the five pillars). Someone else left you an invitation to Teahouse. That is a great resource. Please take advantage of it. John from Idegon (talk) 16:56, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

@Jaywill10: John from Idegon hit the key points. We have a Manual of Style that has been agreed upon by consensus that indicates how articles should appear. One of the sections, MOS:BOLD, talks about the limited times bold text should be used in articles. In most cases, it's only used in the introductory paragraph on the first mention of the subject. —C.Fred (talk) 18:10, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Hey guys thank you so much for pointing me in the right direction I've been reading the tutorial page the last couple days trying to understand everything. John thank you for leaving those links on my talk page its much appreciated!! Jaywill10 (talk) 16:13, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

[Ticket#2019022710010202] Proposed entry on Ziegel medal

Dear C.Fred Your was given to me by Mr. Robert Johnson of the Wikipedia Volunteer Help Group when I asked him for assistance in bringing new evidence of publication to your attention.

As I understand your objection to my submission, it was based on the absence of independent confirmation of the facts related. I have recently found an item of that nature. It is a published comment on the presentation of the medal by Sir Royston Goode, Emeritus Professor of Law at Oxford University in England. It may be found at HeinOnline at this address: https://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?collection=journals&handle=hein.journals/canadbus54&id=338&men_tab=srchresults

I reads as follows: the title is :"The End of an Era: A Tribute to Jacob Ziegel" and the passage of the comment that confirms my text as to the bestowal of the medal to Professor Ziegel at a banquet in his honour is as follows:

"At the conference dinner [in 2010] a commemorative medal, designed by a well-known Canadian sculptor, was presented to Jacob amid acclamation from all his friends and colleagues .. "

I hope that you will agree that this is independent confirmation of the creation and award of the Ziegel Medal as required by the rules by which Wikipedia respects the privacy of living individuals. And I hope that you will now approve my submission for inclusion on the Awards page of Wikipedia.

If I can be of further assistance to you in coming to a decision, please contact me again. We would like to inform the public in Canada of the existence and the recipients of the Ziegel Medal that only an item on Wikipedia can provide.

Regards,

Bradley Crawford, Q.C. 2607:FEA8:87C0:1DCC:BCD4:3373:2473:84E8 (talk) 23:18, 11 June 2019 (UTC))

ANTIWORLD help

Hello! You comented on a page that I was trying to publish and suggested that i asked for help before I tried to publish it again. The page is for a band ANTIWORLD. would you review and let me know if its ok to publish now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bonnieblagg (talk • contribs) 05:18, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

@Bonnieblagg: I'm not clear on how the band meets WP:NMUSIC. have there been independent sources written about the band in depth? The references don't seem to show any. —C.Fred (talk) 14:30, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Edits to Lori Gruen's Wiki Page

Hi C.Fred,

Thanks for the message you left me about the edits I made to Lori Gruen's page. I am new to making Wikipedia edits, and in the last five hours since making the edits you took issue with, I have already learned a lot about the ethics of Wikipedia editing and the standards of the community.

As you can see, I made an edit, previous to the one you removed, adding books that she has written missing from the list. In the edit you removed, I also added missing information to the intro of her bio about work she does at Wesleyan University and information about a companion website to the one already listed on her page. I also have plans to make further edits adding info about her work that is entirely missing from her page and to remove existing mistakes. All of these edits are factually based I can provide citations for all of them. However, I do not believe such edits are the ones you take issue with.

If I am correct in my speculation, the reason you have removed my most recent edit is because I deleted the Hypatia section of the page. In full transparency, I am being paid by Lori Gruen to made edits to her page, and I believe I have taken the appropriate steps to do this in compliance with Wikipedia's policies. I removed that section at Lori Gruen's request. However, since making that edit, and speaking with you and other Wiki users, I understand the issues that arise from such an edit. I realize that removing well cited information is not in keeping with Wikipedia's mission, and I do not want to do anything that will negatively impact the positive work Wikipedia is trying to do.

That being said, I do think that the Hypatia section is biased in its own right as it is predominantly not about Gruen herself, but a scandal she was not directly involved in, but did participate in. It features information that is true, but does not paint an accurate picture. For example, it relies heavily on an article by Jesse Singal in which Singal voices her opinions on the controversy and her opinions are quoted in the Wikipedia page. I do not deny that Singal wrote such an article or held such beliefs, but just because a reporter's opinion is published does not mean it should be treated as fact by quoting it in a Wikipedia article with little context. Furthermore, the Hypatia section discusses the criticisms that the author of the controversial article received on twitter and facebook. Although it is factually true such criticisms occurred on these platforms, this fact has nothing to do with Gruen's involvement in the controversy, which is only the open letter which she signed. Therefore, although I recognize that deleting the whole section was in poor taste, I stand by the fact that to truly achieve an unbiased Wikipedia, edits to the Hypatia section of Lori Gruen's Wiki page must be made. I propose that a possible solution is to add additional information that makes the narrative more balanced or to remove irrelevant information like the commentary of the reporter and the discussion of social media criticism that does not involve Gruen.

I would greatly appreciate your help in making these balancing edits. As I previously mentioned, there are also other additions I want to make to Lori Gruen's page (all of which have citations) that I would appreciate your help with should you be interested.

I truly want to help Lori Gruen with her page while also maintaining the mission of Wikipedia in being a crowd sourced, unbiased, factually accurate, information source. I believe with your help I can achieve that, so I hope to here back from you.

Best, indiafdixon Indiafdixon (talk) 03:59, 15 June 2019 (UTC)June 14, 2019

@Indiafdixon: One of the immediate issues is that, given your conflict of interest, you removed the session. That immediately creates the appearance of whitewashing. If you have concerns that it is not balanced, then the best route forward is to discuss the matter on the talk page. Present additional information to be added to the article to mitigate the claims against Gruen, or bring up reasons why the current text distorts the situation. —C.Fred (talk) 04:03, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Camila Cabello - Artistry

About the interpretation of Camila Cabello's voice, I just used that for why I took that one sentence off. I never was going to use that source to put it in this page to prove that she's another voice type. Hope you know what I mean. However, I apologize for what I did. I'll make sure to give better proof next time... PurplePetals221 (talk) 22:39, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

@PurplePetals221: The problem is, other sources say she's a soprano, so you're using your original research as a basis for removing sourced text. —C.Fred (talk) 22:48, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

@C.Fred: Yes, I find that very funny! :) People need to understand that she is not, and they do not even give right evidence for her in being a soprano. I know this because I take vocal and study about voice type. Comparing her to other mezzos, her tessitura sounds very similar to them. Now please, I promise I will leave her be, I don't want to take this further.

@PurplePetals221: Wikipedia is not a platform for advocacy; what people should understand by reading the article here is what has been reported in reliable sources. —C.Fred (talk) 23:31, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

@C.Fred: Yes, I understand. Let's not take this too seriously. I don't mean to be offensive, and I'll be careful with my edits next time! Sorry again! :) PurplePetals221 (talk • contribs) 23:37, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Kiwi Farms

Kiwi farms remains blocked in Australia because if I try to access it from various ISPs, I cannot access it. Under a VPN, it's perfectly accessible.

The block was put in place after the NZ shooting. So provide a source that says the block has been lifted. (Or i'll check back tomorrow and revert) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kbbbb (talk • contribs) 11:51, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

@Kbbbb: We do not go by first-hand accounts. If there is a published sources that says the site is blocked, then we can include it in the article. —C.Fred (talk) 12:03, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Deletation Nomination for Mbeu

Good afternoon, i noticed you tagged a page i created titled Mbeu. The musical artist is indeed a prominent and has been covered in several articles available online, however i had not finished my research to put more information as i was still developing it, maybe we could consider making it a draft. Can you kindly untag for deletation as its still being developed.

Kind Regards Hurungudo (talk) 13:43, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

@Hurungudo: In the future, please create such pages in draft space until you have made a clear assertion of the significance/importance of the subject.

With nothing to show that the artist was significant per WP:NMUSIC, the page was deleted. Draft space allows for development without being subject to that speedy deletion criteria, although draft pages can still be deleted for blatant spam or copyright violations. —C.Fred (talk) 20:01, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

You were right!

You were right, it should be ==See also== *[TripAdvisor]], and not ==See also== *[TravelAdvisor]].--Dthomsen8 (talk) 01:49, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

maryland health connection

Hello! I really appreciate your help with the page I have been trying to make edits on. I just need to delete a few lines from it, can I do that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Exchange123 (talk • contribs) 19:37, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

@Exchange123: Which lines and why? —C.Fred (talk) 19:39, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Thtriumph/sandbox

Hi Fred, I am working with several young students on a edit-a-thon - "Girls Talk math" a summer program at University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. Four of the women mathematicians they will be learning about do not have Wikipedia pages so I am trying to make four pages in the next few days, publish them and then have the students add additional information to the pages. All in all I was trying to learn how to have several sandboxes going at once! I think am following the instructions I found in Wikipedia. I have set up links to the four sandboxes on my userpage. Make sense? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thtriumph (talk • contribs) 20:19, 9 July 2019 (UTC) Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thtriumph (talk • contribs) 20:27, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Invitation to Mantate Queeneth Mlotshwa

Good evening, i have just created an article Mantate Queeneth Mlotshwa, kindly have a look and assist in ways to improve the article.

Thank youHurungudo (talk) 20:51, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Interesting

I guess we've wasted enough time on this. Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Radicalux. GSS (talk|c|em) 15:56, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

@GSS: I've seen similar situations unfold. I've got a feeling the first admin action taken will be blocking (one of) the user's account(s) for persistently removes the AfD tag. —C.Fred (talk) 19:04, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Vinaya Seshan - Notability Clause

Hello Fred, you have suggested article Vinaya Seshan for deletion based on Notability WP:N and Reliable Source WP:RS and WP:IS. Please note that the International achievements (Dance World Cup - Gold Medal) have appeared in Independent sources over 3 years. In 2018, she is the winner of the Solo Hip-Hop gold (not team) as you have suggested. Additionally, there are achievements in other fields at the National Level (Football) covered in reliable independent media sources for each of these items referenced in the article.

Also, it is preferred to use her known name of Vinaya for the text body. I am making this edit back to use of "Vinaya" instead of "Seshan". Please do not revert this change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Radicalux (talk • contribs) 07:02, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

@Radicalux: First, please provide a source that says she won solo hip-hop gold. In the sources I checked, she won bronze. Second, please explain how the Dance World Cup is a notable event, particularly for junior performers like her. —C.Fred (talk) 19:00, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Ulmus edits.

Hello. 193.39.159.73 is a shared (library) IP address; the Ulmus edits are genuine, based on facts & knowledge (i.e. not vandalism). The x hollandica Superba edits that you deleted foregrounded the point that herbarium specimens show more than one hybrid clone was called Superba. Worth moving to Intro. Have been sorting the various Superba cultivars. Sorry if the wording was unclear. Regards, ‎213.48.83.176 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.48.83.176 (talk) 12:35, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

The wording was beyond unclear: it was ungrammatical in places. That is a large reason for the revert. —C.Fred (talk) 18:34, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Use of Rollback...

This wasn't obvious vandalism and likely deserved an edit summary. Please don't use rollback to advance a content dispute. Cheers! –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 02:47, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

@MJL: It looks similar enough to other changes I'd seen in the past that were non-constructive that I hit rollback. I'll double-check the diff on the next one to see if there's baby in with the bathwater. —C.Fred (talk) 02:49, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

[Thank you for the ping] It's not about whether or not the edit is constructive, though. It's about whether the edit qualifies for one of the five reasons to use rollback. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 03:02, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Looked like a perfectly good use of rollback. "advance a content dispute"??--Bbb23 (talk) 06:32, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Stricken that portion. Bad faith remark that likely came out of a poor mood on my own part due to IRL circumstances. Fred you have my apologies there. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 00:11, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Lamar University Editing

C.Fred As a newbie to Wikipedia merely trying to update incorrect information on Lamar University's Wikipedia page, I was unaware of the conflict of interest policy. What is the best way to get the information updated - almost all of it needs some revisions - and not violate any policies? Truly didn't mean to cause problems. Please advise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shellyvitanza (talk • contribs) 20:41, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

@Shellyvitanza: The best way is to follow the guidance for editors with conflicts of interest. In short, don't change the article directly. Instead, request your change on the talk page. Specify what you want to change or add and what reliable sources—preferably sources independent of the university—support the change. Then, independent editors can review the changes and make them, if everything checks out. —C.Fred (talk) 20:58, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Need help

Bonaniiiia (talk · contribs · count) I see that you have warned this user before, they are hell bent on this article (Melissa Benoist) and they obviously want it their way. Not sure how to get their attention, maybe you have a solution. Thanx, - FlightTime (open channel) 15:24, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Note: I haven't gone through all the edits, but it just seems excessive, I could be wrong here, hence the request that you have a look. Thank you, - FlightTime (open channel) 15:28, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Question About Edits I Made

Hi C.Fred, thank you for reviving the Childhood Emotional Neglect page so I can edit it. I did the edits last week and I thought I submitted them but I got no email or confirmation of anything. I am concerned that if it didn't actually submit, the page may go defunct again. How can I find out the status of this page? Thank you for any help you can offer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwebbphd (talk • contribs) 16:04, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

@Jwebbphd: I can see where you added the link to the draft. I can also see where Ruslik0 removed the link to keep the draft in compliance with Wikipedia's guidelines on external links. You can look at the editing history of the draft to see what edits have been made. If there's no activity on the page in six months, then it's subject to automatic deletion. —C.Fred (talk) 17:35, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Article recreation

Good afternoon, thank you for your contributions lately, very helpful and i have improved. So there is an article i made several weeks back which was deleted and blocked for recreation because of repeated recreations. However the subject i see it relevant and also because being local, i see what and who is prominant or a name that is getting attention locally thus becoming notable.

I am referring to Ashlee Nyathi page, and i am seeking your assistance in creating it because i think the last time i created it i did not structure it well and some editors were not impressed but then the way it was deleted looking at the time in research i put, it was disheartening but however i know you can make it better.

I also noticed that the person has been featured on some new news articles since the last time the page was deleted and below are the articles;

• https://www.263chat.com/five-emerging-entrepreneurs-under-25/

• https://www.hmetro.co.zw/harares-rising-matemba-entrepreneur-ashlee-nyathi/

• https://www.thestandard.co.zw/2019/06/19/govt-urged-support-smes-sector/

Some of the articles from previous creation include;

• https://www.newsday.co.zw/2019/04/nyathi-breathes-life-into-ghetto-dancers/amp/

• https://www.herald.co.zw/dancer-dreams-big/amp/

• https://www.hmetro.co.zw/dancer-turns-entrepreneur/amp/

• https://allafrica.com/stories/201905020851.html

• https://www.thezimbabwedaily.com/news/330604-nyathi-breathes-life-into-ghetto-dancers.html/amp

• https://www.263chat.com/amp/the-story-of-a-23-year-old-who-saw-dubai-by-selling-kapenta/

• https://www.sundaymail.co.zw/from-the-dancefloor-to-entrepreneurship

With this coverage i think with your assistance in creating this page we can have a better article.

Hurungudo (talk) 19:04, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

@Hurungudo: Unfortunately, I don't think those new sources show that there is in-depth, significant coverage of Nyathi. They are primarily interviews. —C.Fred (talk) 19:43, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

• Ok so can you create then we develop it or we wait to see if there can be further coverage? Hurungudo (talk) 20:09, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

@Hurungudo: You could ask the deleting admin if they're willing to restore it to draft space and work on the article there. —C.Fred (talk) 20:23, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

got milk?

Hj. I edited the History section for "got milk?", factually stating the phrase itself was submitted for consideration by David Williams. He's my father. I have no association to the advertising agency, and I'm not employed by any group or company mentioned on this page. My father was a milk transportation executive, from MEDA, to WDCI and then with DFA, before his unexpected passing. He was highly respected in the transportation industry. He came up with the phrase "got milk?" long before it was used in advertising. I clearly remember him talking about it, and as a member of the Western Dairy Council, submitting it for consideration. A period of time went by, with my father mentioning to the family the advertising agency didn't think much of the phrase because it was grammatically incorrect, before he said they chose to go forward with it. My father explained someone going into a convenience store would dispense with "Do you have milk?" to the cashier in favor of "got milk?", which was shorter, simple, and to the point. And, while the grammar was incorrect, it was something someone very well might say, and for a slogan, it sounded better than "do you have milk?". I have personal knowledge of the origins of the phrase, and wanted to share it with others. Is this a conflict of interest? I don't believe so. My father isn't mentioned on the page, and I neither criticize nor support any single person, entity, group or company mentioned before my edit. I merely chose to state the truth and facts. I noticed KH-1 removed my edit, and I read a message from said person asking for "source" on my edit. As I stated in reply, I'm the source by knowing the factual details, by personal knowledge.

Is there something wrong with this? ChrisCO303 (talk) 00:49, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @ChrisCO303: Personal knowledge is not verifiable, either by an editor or one of our readers and therefore not acceptable. Yes, (if your claim is deemed true, I not it's not) it would be a conflict of interest. - FlightTime (open channel) 00:57, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

@ChrisCO303: First, you very clearly have a conflict of interest, because you are writing about your father. There is always a COI when a person is writing about themselves, a family member, or a spouse. Second, you are trying to add information which is coming from personal recollection. This is considered original research, and original research is not allowed in Wikipedia articles. Wikipedia articles must be verifiable against information found in reliable sources. —C.Fred (talk) 00:59, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Question

I was wondering if you could assist me in creating a page for my company that doesn't violate Wikipedia's guidelines. The thing is, I modeled the page I created after other pages about companies in my business space. Those pages haven't been deleted, but mine was, which honestly seems hypocritical to me. Here are URLs for those pages: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pimcore, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akeneo, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informatica. Thank you! Ceejaysteku (talk) 14:30, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

@Ceejaysteku: I reviewed the three pages you mentioned, and I also reviewed the page you created that was deleted. One of the key differences is tone: the page you created reads like an advertising brochure, while the other three articles read like neutrally-written encyclopedia articles. As a recall, your article also relied heavily on primary sources, while the other articles use secondary sources. —C.Fred (talk) 17:45, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Deletion

Whether I initially stated "Keep" or not, my statement can hardkly be interpreted as being anything but a statment in support of keeping the article...GWFrog (talk) 18:29, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

@GWFrog: True. However, the statement was not backed up with a solid argument based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines. —C.Fred (talk) 18:34, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

request for help re: bg knocc out discography

Hi C.Fred.

Some user called Huon completely deleted the BG Knocc Out entry in wikipedia. I can't understand why he would do that???? I was not the sole contributor. Is there a way to get it back?

Older note:

I wonder if you can help me understand why the sources I cited (which are identical to the sources for D.O.C.) are not acceptable for BG Knocc Out? For your review: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deuce_(The_D.O.C._album) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MsKathyFellows (talk • contribs) 23:35, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

@MsKathyFellows: One issue is it doesn't matter what sources you use, so much as you don't make an assertion that the album is notable. Wikipedia has notability guidelines for albums; the albums have all fallen far short of being notable. —C.Fred (talk) 00:36, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Jason Kidd

As per NBA website:
EL SEGUNDO, Calif. (AP) -- Former NBA head coaches Jason Kidd and Lionel Hollins have joined new coach Frank Vogel's staff with the Los Angeles Lakers. The Lakers formally announced Vogel's full coaching staff Wednesday. Riodamascus (talk) 15:00, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

@Riodamascus: It's your responsibility to cite that in the article when you make the changes. Further, don't just say per the NBA website; you need to cite the specific news story/press release. —C.Fred (talk) 15:07, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Not really, please don't revert edits from 佳峰 that has 41,000 edits and majority about the NBA and its official news. The reference shall be filled in the bar...if you leave enough time to the editor Riodamascus (talk) 15:13, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

@Riodamascus: If he has that many edits, he should know the rules. Get your sources straight before adding. —C.Fred (talk) 15:52, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, C.Fred. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:01, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Well I guess I dont have those but looking at it that way. Im a fellow American just like you Fred. He didnt say he is Puerto Rican. So we only got to rely on prescription. They indicate he is. I hope you will do the right thing. Brcause him being American makes more sense then him being Puerto Rican. Samuel Malik (talk) 01:40, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

With all respect

I have just seen this. Yesterday's 3RR matter is closed and I accept it, but perhaps a more neutral editor should had closed that discussion.--Tenebrae (talk) 19:33, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

@Tenebrae: That was eight months ago, and I don't recall having been involved in editing that article. —C.Fred (talk) 19:41, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Keegan Allen

Hi! The actor officially confirmed that he was born in 1987, not 1989. Source: link--TheDariaG (talk) 19:40, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

@TheDariaG: Please review reliable sources. A screenshot of a chat session is not a reliable source, especially when there's already been one obvious alteration made to it. —C.Fred (talk) 19:47, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

checking G13

I see that you and I may be the only admins checking G13s , as opposed to deleting them. Perhaps we can to find some way to do this more efficiently DGG ( talk ) 15:05, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

@DGG: Noticeboard backlogs come in cycles. I've seen it happen at AIV before, or 3RR. I guess it's REFUND's turn. :\ —C.Fred (talk) 17:03, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Editorial invasion. Publishing false information and locking a public page

Dear C Fred,

You have been editing fake information and you locked the page of Carl Eduard von Bismarck.

There are several mistakes at the page and important biographic items missing.

I’m a researcher and biographer. The quote you added is fake. Even if sounds promising such quote of Mrs. Merkel never happened. It gives the clear impression you are being paid by Nathalie Bariman to expose her lies at a public page. I already notify by letter and email the office of the family about your editorial invasion writing false information and about the fact you deliberated locked a public page with the clear intent to damage the reputation of a public person. You are requested to unlock the page immediately. Best regards, Joseph.JosephLewis9 (talk) 18:28, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

@JosephLewis9: The quote was qualified as "reportedly" by the National Post, but nonetheless, it was published in a reliable source and is admissible on Wikipedia.

Your comment that you have contacted the office of the family is unacceptable per Wikipedia policies. If you wish to address the matter of the article, please pursue on-Wikipedia remedies, starting with discussion on the talk page. The accusations you made above are clearly intended to have a chilling effect; if you continue with such behaviour, you are likely to have your account blocked for making threats of legal or other off-Wikipedia action. —C.Fred (talk) 18:31, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Your statement : The quote was qualified as "reportedly" by the National Post, but nonetheless, it was published in a reliable source and is admissible on Wikipedia.

Is untrue and qualifies as Fake news.

The reason you, out of the blues started editing that page and that you persist on adding fake unreliable source is unclear.

You must have an direct interest on that in order to persist in editing false information, otherwise you would not react this way.

Threatening to have my account blocked when you are deliberately adding fake informations to a public page and locking it is simply outrageous.

I will therefore continue report your editorial invasion with a direct intent to mislead readers by providing false information.

JosephLewis9 (talk) 19:59, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks and just to let you know

Hey, thanks for intervening on User talk:Vif12vf. I guess the disruptive IP is in fact this user. Just to let you know. Cheers.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:25, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

@Wikaviani: I just found that user and have blocked them. I agree that the IP was the same person as the user. —C.Fred (talk) 00:35, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Take care.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:36, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Oath Keepers

Fine, you want to revert my edits and make me waste more time on Wikipedia, take it up on the talk page. I've already been discussing this there Barwick (talk) 01:59, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

@Barwick: And you should wait until you get consensus there before making your change. Wikipedia goes with what is verifiable, not what is "true". —C.Fred (talk) 02:04, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Consensus... much like diplomacy, is about 2 wolves and 1 sheep deciding what to eat for lunch. I can tell you which way this will go... Barwick (talk) 02:06, 19 August 2019 (UTC)