Jump to content

User talk:C.Fred/Archive 27

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20←Archive 25Archive 26Archive 27Archive 28Archive 29Archive 30

PCI Express kerfuffle

Good afternoon C.Fred! I was just about to ask someone for dispute resolution, I see you already noticed there was something amiss. I don't know if there is any history between Arkhandar and Mark.malewski (before 26 May); Mark.malewski says there is, Arkhandar says there is not. But as far as I can see, it's happening something like this:

  • Arkhandar changes the infobox on the PCIe article.
  • Mark.malewski reverted with in the edit summary an accusation of vandalism. This is immediately followed by a message on Arkhandar's talk page again saying vandalism and saying to stay off if they don't know what they're doing.
  • Arkhandar reverts Mark.malewski's reversion on the PCIe article.
  • Then the activity moves to the talk page.

The changes that Arkhandar introduces to the table are as follows:

  • Entry fullname is added with content Peripheral Component Interconnect Express
  • alt and caption entries added, saying PCI Express logo
  • Entry key-persons removed
  • Entry width changed from 1 per lane; 1-16 bonded lanes to 1 per lane (16 maximum)
  • Moved part of the numdev entry into an explanatory footnote
  • Changed the phrasing of entries hotplug and external from Yes, if ... to Yes (...) (elided content stays the same)
  • Added the website entry pointing to pcisig.com
  • Change the layout of the speed entry, changing each entry from the form

    v. 1.x (2.5 GT/s):

    • 250 MB/s (x1)
    • 4 GB/s (x16)

    to

    1.x: 2.5 GT/s (250 MB/s - 4 GB/s)

Arkhandar later changed the proposed form of the speed entry to be identical to the original, re-instating the explicit indication of x1 and x16. Furthermore, the v6.x entry was changed from:

v. 6.x (64 GT/s):

  • 7.88 GB/s (x1)
  • 128 GB/s (x16)
    7.8 GB/s (x1) (RS-528/514)
  • 124 GB/s (x16) (RS-528/514)
    7.5 GB/s (x1) (RS-544/514)
  • 120 GB/s (x16) (RS-544/514)

to

Version 6.0: 64 GT/s

  • x1: 7.88 GB/s
  • x16: 128 GB/s

on the grounds that the extra detail was not touched upon in the main article. Furthermore, the speed entry was rewritten into a different form which renders the same as the original, but likely increases WP:ACCESSIBILITY as Arkhandar claims. Additionally, the proposed form of width was changed to 1 per lane (up to 16 lanes).

Zac67 and I agreed with Arkhandar on the proposed changes; we had some minor discussion between 27 May and 2 June. The original infobox as well as the proposed infobox contained the text (GT/s == Gbit/s encoded bit rate), which I objected to because I believe only people who already know what it means will be able to understand this phrasing. We agreed to remove this and let the GT/s wikilink do the explaining. Then Arkhandar published the result of this consensus, and Mark.malewski returned to the talk page. He posted a very long, angry message where he repeated that Arkhandar introduced errors in the speed entry, even though the only difference with the original by now was the way the layout was written, probably improving accessibility (plus the removal of detail for the v6.0 version). There is no further visible change to the entry. He also said the text in the explanatory footnote of the numdev entry did not belong in the infobox, but this text was originally in the infobox already, and Arkhandar already demoted it to a footnote instead.

When Mark.malewski returned on 3 June, an edit war erupted between Arkhandar and him. Arkhandar had applied the Archive top template to the discussion before Mark.malewski came back, and then they started accusing one another of violating the rules by posting to a "closed" discussion. An edit war erupted where comments by the other were moved in and out of the "closed" discussion. I removed the template because I think it was incorrect to use it in the first place; it is for uninvolved editors, Arkhandar shouldn't have placed it. Mark.malewski also kept repeating that Arkhandar "might want to go to school and get an engineering degree". Mark.malewski "can't explain 4-6 years of engineering courses to you in one paragraph", and "it would be best for [Arkhandar] to get an engineering degree". Because he kept driving home this point (this was not the first such comment), I pointed out I do have similar qualifications and it looks correct to me. I made an attempt to move both parties to work this out reasonably, but my message on the talk page was removed by Mark.malewski.

In conclusion, I think the current infobox was agreed upon through consensus between three people, @Arkhandar, @Zac67 and me. I don't understand the factual criticism of @Mark.malewski, the things he objects to were in the original infobox already, and the info is to the best of my knowledge correct. He objects to the text (GT/s == Gbit/s encoded bit rate) as if it was added instead of removed. And he claims that it is not consensus because he disagrees with us. Also, he seems very angry.

Pfew, it took a long time to compose this message, checking all the details. I myself no longer wish to be involved in this. If this goes for you as well :-), could you please tell me so I can find another court to put the ball into? Digital Brains (talk) 11:49, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

@C.Fred - There is no "PCI Express kerfuffle". The things stated falsely above by Digital Brains are "angry opinions" (and NOT actual facts). I didn't ask Digital Brains or anyone else for their education, or their non-factual opinions. Digital Brains claims to be an "expert" in the field of ECE, but none of the three seem to even understand what "RS" even is, and it is NOT speed related.

If you read the discussion on PCI Express Talk Page, all three continue to discuss "GT/s" and "Gbps" being equivalent (which they are not), and also discuss the removal of "RS" (as it's a "speed"), which it is not.

"RS" has absolutely nothing to do with speed. But clearly someone without an ECE engineering degree, might not understand this.

The original discussion was between Arkhandar and myself (Mark.Malewski).

Digital Brains started an "angry rant" in the closed PCI Express Talk discussion, which I removed. This "angry rant" by Digital Brains has nothing to do with "PCI Express Infobox" Talk discussion and should be moved to a separate topic on a talk page such as this here.

What Digital Brains and Arkhandar don't seem to understand, is that the term "RS" stands for 'Reed-Solomen' which is a codec, related to FEC (Forward Error Correction) and has absolutely nothing to do with speed. (But this is a separate topic, for a separate discussion, and this is something that we can discuss at a later time).

I don't appreciate the "angry rants" by Digital Brains and despite his personal opinion (and emotions and feelings), this is something he can discuss on his own personal talk page here.

I asked Digital Brains multiple times to please keep his emotions and feelings out of the discussion, and to please focus on discussing factual content concerning the PCI Express Page (as that is what the discussion between Arkhandar and myself was about).

Instead of discussing factual content, Digital Brains went off on another angry rant.

As I stated previously, if you read the discussion on PCI Express Talk Page, all three continue to discuss "GT/s" and "Gbps" being equivalent (which they are not), and also discuss the removal of "RS" (as it's a "speed"), which it is not.

I was not the one that added the "RS" information, but it is valuable information relating to the various aspects of PCI Express 6.0 (which is currently in DRAFT FORM, and has not been FINALIZED as of yet). So the editor that added the "RS" information was actually correct in doing so.

I believe the problem is, that Arkhandar, and Digital Brains clearly have "no clue" what they are even reading (and are unable to comprehend what "RS" even is), and without even having a discussion they chose to remove it (and then immediately attempted to "close" the topic/discussion).

Although I don't fully agree with the edit, nor the revert, I do believe a consensus was reached (among all four of us) that the changes were made and agreed upon. No more discussion is needed.

This original discussion was between myself and Arkhandar. Thank-you for your input and your contributions to the discussion. We don't need to go "back and forth" over what your emotions and feelings are, as the talk page is strictly for factual content concerning the PCI Express Page. Please keep your emotions and feelings out of it.

As far as what "RS-528/514" and "RS-544/514" are, they are both architectures for encoding and decoding Reed-Solomon (RS) codes, which can be carried out in both software or special-purpose hardware. (As stated in PCI Express 6.0 Specification, as per PCI-SIG).

As for why Arkhandar, and Digital Brains clearly have "no clue" what they are even reading (and are unable to even comprehend what "RS" even is), nor are they able to even understand the difference between GT/s and Gbps (which is basic elementary ECE 101, which even a freshman graduate of ECE would understand) and without even having a discussion they chose to remove it (and then immediately attempted to "close" the topic/discussion).

I clarified that GT/s and Gbps are NOT the same (and explained the formula, and rational between the two, why they are different and even posted reference links in the discussion that they can read for a better understanding of the topic and subject matter at hand).

Unfortunately NONE OF THE THREE could even understand (or comprehend) what GT/s or Gbps or "RS" even is, or the different between the three. It seemed to be "gibberish" to them, and the three had a "consensus" to remove ANYTHING that they don't understand or comprehend from the PCI Express Infobox.

Digital Brains chose to create an "angry rant" about his "qualifications" as an "engineer" and claimed to have a bachelors and masters in engineering (although he never confirmed this or discussed where he went to school, or what his major was), but that is a separate topic that Digital Brains can discuss on his own personal talk page, and not appropriate for the PCI Express talk page.

As for what "RS" is, you can watch/listen to this MIT lecture on Reed-Solomon Codes (which is what "RS" stands for, and what "RS" is). Reed-Solomon is unrelated to speed (as Digital Brains and Arkhandar seem to mistakenly claim).

I wasn't sure if this is "vandalism" or "ignorance", but in "good faith" I will assume it was just "ignorance" on the part of the 3 editors involved that don't seem to even understand what "Reed Solomon" even is (or why it's important, or why it was put there in the first place, as per PCI-SIG specifications on PCI Express 6.0 draft).

Before any "Editors" or "Administrators" choose to make drastic changes to important content (in the PCI Express Infobox, or PCI Express page in general) they should at least have a firm grasp and understanding of the topic and content that they are attempting to edit or change.

I can't pack 4-6 years of college courses into a 1-2 paragraph discussion (on a PCI Express Talk page), but there is an "importance" to RS (and that is why it was listed in the Infobox, as per PCI Express 6.0 specification).

If you choose to "educate" yourself on "RS" (Reed Solomon) you can watch the below lecture (by Prof. David Forney) at MIT (as part of the MIT ECE course on "Principles of Digital Communication" which is a 100 and 101 level class/courseware for entry-level engineering students, freshman-level education).

Reed-Solomon Codes can be found here: https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/electrical-engineering-and-computer-science/6-451-principles-of-digital-communication-ii-spring-2005/video-lectures/lecture-12-reed-solomon-codes/

It is clear that none of the three editors having the discussion on the PCI Express Talk page, know absolutely nothing about "RS" (or even what it means or what it stands for, nor can they even calculate or give a formula for this architecture), but they are claiming to be "experts" in the field of ECE, and "experts" in engineering (with a bachelors and masters in Engineer) as per Digital Brains and possibly Arkhandar

I don't believe any of the 3 editors have any clue as to what "RS" even means and it doesn't seem based on their discussion that any of the three have a degree (either bachelors or masters) in ECE, and don't understand the subject matter or topic at hand.

For this reason, I left the discussion alone (despite my own objection to removing "RS") and I simply explained the difference between GT/s and Gbps to the "misinformed" and "uneducated" editors that were having a discussion and claiming that "GT/s and Gbps are basically the same thing". (Which a professor in ECE with a specialization in Digital Communications would laugh at any student that would say such an uneducated or ignorant statement).

As I stated previously, you can learn more about "Reed-Solomon Codes" here: https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/electrical-engineering-and-computer-science/6-451-principles-of-digital-communication-ii-spring-2005/video-lectures/lecture-12-reed-solomon-codes/

and here: https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~guyb/realworld/reedsolomon/reed_solomon_codes.html#:~:text=A%20Reed%2DSolomon%20codeword%20has,)%20into%20r(x).&text=This%20can%20be%20done%20using,Massey%20algorithm%20or%20Euclid's%20algorithm.

I am not here to discuss 4-6 years of engineering courses to anyone in one paragraph, but these are not "minor edits" and these are extremely "drastic changes" that are being made to the PCI Express Infobox.

Minor edits would be capitalization, spelling, and grammatical errors. The changes to the Infobox were NOT spelling or grammatical errors, but instead were drastic changes (and omissions and errors) in PCI Express 6.0 specification. [Please keep in mind that this is a DRAFT SPECIFICATION, and is NOT FINAL, and is subject to change, and has not been finalized yet]

For this reason, it seems that the original editor listed each proposed entry (separately) as per the specific / exact PCI Express 6.0 specification.

Digital Brains and Arkhandar most likely don't understand this (as to the "how" or "what" or "why") because they don't even comprehend (or even understand) what "RS" even is. (Which is a separate topic and separate discussion that we can have privately, if they choose to continue to edit/remove things that they don't seem to understand what the subject matter even is, or the importance of it, or WHY it is even there or WHAT it even means!)

But "RS" has absolutely nothing to do with "speed" an there is absolutely NOTHING related to "speed" listed in the PCI Express Infobox.

GT/s is NOT a "speed". It is a "transfers per second". You can educate yourself by reading about "Transfers per second" topic here.

GT/s is "Gigatransfers per second" and is NOT a "speed". So please correct the errors you stated above, by claiming it is a "speed". It is specific to the number of operations of transferring data that occur (per second) in a given data-transfer channel. It has absolutely nothing to do with speed.

The formula for a data transfer rate is: Channel width (bits/transfer) × transfers/second = bits/second. [Basic elementary ECE Engineering 101]

Now Bit Rate is a separate topic, and a bit rate is quantified using the bits per second unit (symbol: bit/s). These are NOT the same thing.

I gave the formulas for each (on the PCI Express talk page, to explain the difference) and I chose to "ignore" the "consensus" (ignorance) about the "lack of understanding" as to what "RS" even means or what it stands for, or what it even is.

I will save that discussion for another day, and it's a not a "battle" that I wish to have on a talk page, with several non-technical (non-engineers) that have no clue what they are even discussing or editing and don't seem to even understand or comprehend the subject matter that they are editing or discussing, or changing (or removing).

If Digital Brains and Arkhandar (and anyone else) wishes to "educate" themselves on what "RS" is, you can read about it here: https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~guyb/realworld/reedsolomon/reed_solomon_codes.html#:~:text=A%20Reed%2DSolomon%20codeword%20has,)%20into%20r(x).&text=This%20can%20be%20done%20using,Massey%20algorithm%20or%20Euclid's%20algorithm.

As for WHY "RS" is important, I would probably need to give you an eight week college course on the importance of "RS" and how it relates to "FEC" (Forward Error Correction) and why it is specifically listed in the PCI Express 6.0 draft specification.

FEC is nothing new, and Reed-Solomon codes have been around since the 1960's, so I'm quite amazed that none of the 3 editors seem to have any clue as to what "RS" even is, or even comprehend the basic concept of what "GT/s" is and why it is different (and not the same) as Gbps.

This is extremely "elementary" ECE education (and is discussed briefly in 4th grade, and 6th grade science/physics classes). I'm not sure why none of the 3 editors even understand or comprehend the subject matter, but clearly they don't understand "data communications" and it's NOT a topic that they are 'experts' in (or even have a basic elementary education in).

If I don't comprehend French, I don't tell people that I am an "expert in French" with a "Masters Degree in French" (as per Digital Brains).

I don't believe Digital Brains fully understands the topic or subject matter at hand, or he would have explained what "RS" is, and WHY it's important (without relating it to "gibberish" that none of the 3 editors seem to even understand or even have a basic comprehension of what the importance of each even is, or how it even relates to PCI Express) or WHY IT IS THERE.

If you wish to discuss "RS", that would be a separate topic (and best suited for the PCI Express talk page), but I'm growing extremely tired of editors that are ignorant, but choose to represent themselves as "experts" in a topic or subject matter, that they don't seem to understand or comprehend and don't have the formal education (or basic understanding) to even comprehend the difference between "GT/s" and "Gbps" and "speed" and "RS". Which seems extremely comical, and any ECE Professor with a doctoral degree in ECE would probably laugh at this whole discussion that was taking place on the PCI Express talk page, between 3 separate "ECE" wikipedia "experts" in PCI Express and Electrical and Computer Engineer (with a specialization in Data Communications).

I don't believe any of the 3 editors (including Digital Brains and Arkhandar) based on the discussion in PCI Express Talk even have the proper qualifications (formal education and basic comprehension of the topic and subject matter) to be making such changes or edits.

These are NOT "minor edits" nor are they "increases WP:ACCESSIBILITY" as Arkhandar claims.

These edits are unrelated to "WP:ACCESSIBILITY" and should not be made (especially when Arkhandar and Digital Brains don't even understand what it is that they are discussing or removing, or even WHY they are removing it. It seems that the "consensus" between the 3 was that NONE OF THE THREE UNDERSTAND what it is that they are reading, therefore they don't understand it, so therefore they chose to REMOVE and DELETE anything that they don't comprehend or understand. (Which is not how the "education system" works). You don't delete history (and FACTS) because you don't understand them, and don't understand the subject matter, or how it relates to PCI Express (and Data Communications).

There are thousands of books on Data Communications that any Engineering student can read to get a good understanding of how data communications works, and I am not "angry" at anyone's IGNORANCE. I am just stating FACTS, and stating that this "discussion' is about 'vandalism' and how editors that don't understand subject matter are vandalising pages and removing (or deleting) content that they don't understand (because of their own personal ignorance and lack of formal education) but if they spent a few weeks taking courses on the subject matter, they might have a better understanding (although it would not make them "experts" in the subject or topic, despite Digital Brains's false claims that he is an 'expert' with a Masters Degree with a "great understanding" of this topic and subject matter, but at the same time believes that GT/s and Gbps are one and the same.

This discussion is making my head hurt, and it demonstrates the "problems" with "wikipedia" (couch experts) that make themselves Administrators and choose to randomly edit/delete/remove pages and content that they have absolutely no comprehension of what it is that they are even changing or editing (or the importance of the material that they are changing/editing/removing) because they don't even understand or comprehend the topic.

In conclusion, I believe the current infobox was agreed upon through consensus between four people, @Arkhandar, @Zac67, @Digital Brains and myself (Mark.Malewski).

Of the four editors, I believe 3 had absolutely no clue what they were even discussing (or talking about removing) but I did read the comments/discussion, and Zac67 was correct in many of his statements, and I chose to "remain quiet" till the end, and just explain that GT/s and Gbps are NOT the same, and I chose to ignore the removal of "RS" (as it relates to PCI Express) because the other 3 editors have absolutely NO CLUE what they are even discussing or removing (or even what "RS" even is, and keep claiming that it means "speed" and "RS==SPEED" which it does not) but Reed Solomon is a topic for a different discussion, and a different day, but today is just not the day.

I wish everyone all the best, but please "educate" yourself on the subject matter, and if you are NOT AN EXPERT, then please do NOT portray yourself to be an "expert" (especially when NONE of the 3 editors even understand what "RS" is, or even how it relates to PCI Express).

RS (Reed Solomon) is extremely important, and you will take at least two semesters (ONE FULL YEAR) of education on just Reed-Solomon alone, and it's comical that 3 wikipedia "experts" have NO CLUE what "RS" even stands for, or what "RS" even means, or how "RS" even relates to PCI Express.

This should be in every newspaper in America how "wikipedia" is no longer "factual" but is being edited (not by consensus) but instead by individuals that have absolutely NO CLUE what they are reading, and just making hundreds of thousands of edits (and deletions) on material that they don't even understand or comprehend, and how these deletions (and valandalism) is affecting the credibility of Wikipedia, and why I tell my students NOT TO EVER use wikipedia as a credible source, because of the lack of understanding (of the subject matter) by many of the admins and editors.

I have given plenty of citations, explanations and links (and references) if you so choose to "educate" yourself on the subject matter, but as I stated previously, it's probably best that if you don't understand a topic that you don't vandalize a page (despite making a claim a false claim that it was in "good faith"), but I don't consider "ignorance" to be an excuse for "good faith". These are separate things, and if I explain WHY IT IS WRONG, and you continue to do it anyways, that is no longer "good faith" but that is in fact "vandalism" (whether intentional and malicious, or whether just plain ignorance) it is damaging the PCI Express page, and the integrity of wikipedia as a reliable source of information. (Especially when the "expert" editors have absolutely NO CLUE what it is that they are editing, deleting, or discussing, and can't even understand what "RS" is or how it even relates to PCI Express, and why it is important, and instead just DELETE EVERYTHING that they don't understand and falsely claim that "GT/s and Gbps are the same thing" which is absolutely not true, and is not factual.

In conclusion, I believe the current infobox is fine, and it was agreed upon through consensus between four people, @Arkhandar, @Zac67, @Digital Brains and myself (Mark.Malewski).

I will save the "RS" discussion for a different day (and a different topic) and it's not something that I want to discuss (or try to explain) to 3 other editors (that have no clue what "RS" even is) or several of whom are "administrators" who have absolutely no clue what they are doing. That want to "gang up" on me, and attack me on my personal talk page, because they are "friends" with @Arkhandar (a "fellow administrator").

"And he claims that it is not consensus because he disagrees with us. Also, he seems very angry." - this statement made by Digital Brains is completely FALSE. If you read my own words, and my own statements, as I stated multiple times before... a consensus has been reached. I have stated multiple times that I agree with the "WP:ACCESSIBILITY" edits, but I don't agree with the removal of "RS" and I also don't agree with the statements that "GT/s and Gbps are one and the same" (which they are NOT and this is a FALSE statement that is completely wrong, and NOT TRUE) but that statement was probably made (by accident?) or made due to a lack of understanding in the subject matter (that they were choosing to discuss) and despite being WRONG and INCORRECT, I simply stated the detailed explanation (with references) in the PCI Express Talk Page (so everyone involved in the discussion can understand the topic that it is that they are attempting to discuss) and also the detailed explanation as to WHY their "assumptions" were incorrect, and that GT/s and Gbps are NOT the same, and NOT "equivalent" since data-transfer channels and transfer computing are expressed in GT/s, and I posted a link to "What does GT/s mean, anyway?" (by Martin Rowe), so that the editors can get a basic understanding of what it is that they are NOT understanding, and WHY there is an actual difference between the two (or three) items that they don't seem to understand or comprehend (GT/s, Gbps, and RS are three completely separate topics that none of the 3 editors seems to even understand or comprehend, and the consensus between the 3 editors was it's "Gibberish" that they don't understand or comprehend, therefore the removal seems "ok" to them).

It's NOT that it's ok, it just that they don't understand what it is that they are even discussing, and therefore they chose to remove it.

At some later point in time, I may start/re-introduce the "Reed-Solomon Error Correction" topic/discussion (on the PCI Express Talk page) to help "educate" the other 3 editors (and any Admins/Sysops that are reading or following the discussion) as to what "RS" even is, and WHY it is IMPORTANT, but that is not a topic (or discussion) that I want to have today, and it's best to just "walk away" (from ignorance) and I choose to just IGNORE the ignorance, and their simplistic attitudes and lack of understanding in what they are even doing or editing or removing (or WHY it is important) because NONE OF THE THREE would even understand or comprehend the discussion, because they don't have the proper education or background (nor are they experts in the field/topic/subject matter) and therefore it's best to just IGNORE THEM, and just say "Fine, I agree" with the edits, (which is what I did) and end the discussion (which is what I did).

Although they are still wrong, and I personally believe the removal of the "RS" what wrong (simply because it is an IMPORTANT SUBJECT and I could write a 3-5 page paper just on the various proposals and RS code architectures that were discussed at PCI-SIG and in the IEEE working groups relate to Reed-Solomon Error Correction (and why it is necessary) and it might be best for the 3 editors to go back and read about Reed-Solomon Error Correct here:

I myself, no longer wish to be involved in this. I truly don't care anymore about the "crazy insane" edits being made recklessly by editors that truly don't understand what they are even doing, but are just trying to "rack up" their "edit points" by making millions of useless random deletions and important content deletions, and just deleting anything and everything that they don't understand or comprehend (as Administrators) because unfortunately that is what Wikipedia seems to be "evolving" into. It's extremely sad, and when 3 of the 4 editors (making changes) don't even understand what it is that they are discussing or proposing to remove, then it's pointless to even have a discussion about the subject matter, because the other 3 editors won't comprehend, refuse to listen, and disregard the important details such as "RS" (Reed Solomon) and how it relates to PCI Express as "gibberish" (which is simply a topic in which they don't comprehend or understand).

For this reason, they just state the words "RS" means "speed" (because none of the 3 other editors even understand what "RS" even means, what the letters R & S even stands for, and that it means Reed-Solomon) and none of the editors involved in the discussion even know WHO Irving S. Reed and Gustave Solomon even are (and how any of this even relates to PCI Express) because they don't have a formal education in basic ECE concepts and principles (basic ECE 101 education that any college freshman would have).

You can read about Reed-Solomon codes here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reed%E2%80%93Solomon_error_correction

You can read about Irving S. Reed here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irving_S._Reed

You can read about Gustave Solomon here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gustave_Solomon

Gustave Solomon was best known for developing, along with Irving S. Reed, the algebraic error correction and detection codes named the Reed–Solomon codes. These codes protect the integrity of digital information, and they have had widespread use in modern digital storage and communications, ranging from deep space communications down to the digital audio compact disc (as well as data transmission technologies and modern data channels, such as PCI Express, and PCI Express 6.0).

"RS" is a form of error correction code, and is NOT a "speed" or even related to "speed".

You can read about Error Correction Code (ECC) here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Error_correction_code

"RS" (a form of "Error Correcting Code") is used for controlling errors in data over noisy communication channels, and has absolutely NOTHING to do with "speed". ECC does NOT equal speed, nor does "RS". Again, those are completely false statements (made by everyone involved in this discussion), and I am guessing that it's due to "lack of understanding" of the subject matter at hand (and truly not even understanding what "RS" even is, or how it relates to PCI Express specification).

As I stated previously, the "PCI Express Talk" discussion is already closed, and I no longer wish to be involved in this. A consensus was already made, the edits are completed, and I truly don't care anymore about "RS" or it's importance, and that is a topic for a completely different discussion that I don't want to have right now. I believe I have given you enough information/sources/links that you can "educate" yourself on the topic. (and hopefully you can understand that what you said about "RS" is "speed" is actually incorrect and wrong). RS is for controlling errors in date over noisy communication channels, and has absolutely NOTHING to do with "speed". It's error correcting!

You can read about the PCIe 6.0 specification and the two key changes that are planned to be implemented into PCIe 6.0 Specification (PCI Express 6.0 draft) as stated by Al Yanes (PCI-SIG Board Chair and President) here: https://pcisig.com/pci-express%C2%AE-60-specification-track-revision-03-complete

Two of the key changes that are PLANNED to be implemented are "PAM-4" (Pulse Amplitude Modulation with 4 levels) encoding and low-latency Forward Error Correction (FEC) which is NOT the same as "ECC" but is actually FEC (Forward Error Correction) with additional mechanisms to improve bandwidth efficiency. (Please note that this is NOT the same as "speed" and has absolutely NOTHING to do with "speed").

Please read here: https://pcisig.com/pci-express%C2%AE-60-specification-track-revision-03-complete

If you don't have an engineering degree in ECE (with a specialization in Data Communications) then it might be best to take a few classes, learn about ECE and data communications and possibly join a working group or attend a PCI-SIG developers conference, or take a few educational sessions to compliance programs, to help get a better understanding of what PCI Express is, and get a "basic understanding" of the subject matter (and topic) that is being discussed on the PCI Express page. Or falsely claiming that removing such content is part of a "WP:ACCESSIBILITY" edit as Arkhandar seems to have claimed.

I don't believe removing "RS" from the infobox had anything to do with a "WP:ACCESSIBLITY" edit, but instead it was a drastic change/removal of important content related to the PCI Express 6.0 draft specification. I didn't add that information, but I fully understand what it is and WHY it is there, and it does make complete sense to "leave it there" (for other engineers) so that they can/will understand. If someone doesn't understand what "RS" means (and doesn't even understand what Reed-Solomon coding even is) and doesn't know the difference between GT/s and Gbps, and has no clue what "RS" is (calling it a "speed") then that just shows that the editors are clueless and have absolutely no clue what they are even discussing on the PCI Express Talk Page, and the "consensus" seems to be that if you have no clue what you are doing, and you don't understand the subject matter, it's best to just delete everything and vandalize the page by deleting important valuable content, and using terms such as "WP:ACCESSIBILITY" as a justification to remove anything non-technical editors don't comprehend or even understand.

I don't really want to be a part of this topic or discussion anymore. This discussion was already covered in the PCI Express Talk Page (albeit without all the specific details above pertaining to "RS" and how it relates to PCI Express) but I believe a consensus has already been reached. The edits were already made. There is nothing more to discuss. Please consider this closed. Thank-you! ~ Mark.malewski (talk) 15:43, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Needed, not quite arbitrary, break

  • Seriously, dude....I wouldn't read the above if I was paid to; and no one here is paid to do anything. I had to open the next section and space it down just to reply here. If you cannot communicate any more effectively than that, one has to ask the WP:CIR question about you. Geez. John from Idegon (talk) 21:18, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
@John from Idegon: I don't want to go there just yet, but the way this user likes to stomp off from discussions and discourage people from responding on their talk page, I have my reservations about whether they're a net benefit to the project. —C.Fred (talk) 21:23, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Lea Salonga

Hi. Can you please semi-protect the article? People are edit-warring over her name again. -- Ssilvers (talk) 07:10, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

@Ssilvers: Done, especially noting that there's discussion at the talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 13:58, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Re Conrad Borg Manché Page

Dear Sir, I just emended my page to reflect the real picture about me. I can confirm that all the sources are fully reliable. Any one can verify all the links that are official links.

I just read the regulations and you are right I shouldn't have amended my page. Can you please help in order to have the amendments proposed published then.

I appreciate your help with this.


Thanks

Conrad — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbmanche (talk • contribs) 12:08, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

User:DJTonyPrep

This editor has returned to restore his or her edits without discussion again, please see [3]. The discussion is still open for discussion. Also, pinging admin Boing! said Zebedee. — YoungForever(talk) 17:22, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

@YoungForever: I have left them a pretty strong warning on their talk page. If they're going to keep edit warring, it's time for a partial block from that article. —C.Fred (talk) 17:38, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
I don't think you're going to get anywhere with that editor. He just doesn't seem to want to understand what he is being told.[4] --AussieLegend (✉) 17:51, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
I wrote another talk page message to resume dialogue/consensus, but yes it is frustrating for the editor to seemingly not have modified any behavior especially after a block. -- Wikipedical (talk) 17:55, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
Nothing has changed, this editor will probably restore the rest of TV series articles edits sooner or later without discussion. WP:SNEAKY. — YoungForever(talk) 18:20, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
@YoungForever: If that happens, feel free to report them at WP:ANI and ask for either a block or a topic ban. —C.Fred (talk) 18:22, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
Clearly, the editor has learned nothing since the editor repeatedly delete the discussion on the article's talk page just because they just don't like it and WP:NOTHERE. I saw that you have further their block. — YoungForever(talk) 18:37, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
@YoungForever: Yeah. When I gave them the opportunity to add to the discussion, but they deleted it instead, that told me that they're not here to contribute constructively. —C.Fred (talk) 19:40, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi

Hi I saw that you removed my edits. How was my edits unconstructive? I wasn't copying directly from the website. I did paraphrase. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnt96 (talk • contribs) 05:42, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

@Johnt96: You clung too closely to the website. You need to rewrite completely in your own words. —C.Fred (talk) 14:14, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

How do I upload artwork I created entirely by myself?

Hi, I tried uploading highlighted map to the page im editing but wikipedia has trouble determining whether the file is suitable. This is what was said:

We could not determine whether this file is suitable for Wikimedia Commons. Please only upload photos that you took yourself with your camera, or see what else is acceptable. See the guide to make sure the file is acceptable and learn how to upload it on Wikimedia Commons.

How do I rectify this issue? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnt96 (talk • contribs) 16:36, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

@Johnt96: How exactly did you create the map? And what base layer did you use for the map? —C.Fred (talk) 17:42, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi C.Fred, @C.Fred thanks for getting back. I downloaded a map template online,then used powerpoint to highlight the appropriate countries. Saved it as JPG.

Appreciate your concern

John

@Johnt96: That's part of the problem right there. What's the license on the map template?
Also, please make sure to sign your posts with four tildes ~~~~ to properly identify your post and the time it was posted. —C.Fred (talk) 18:59, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi @C.Fred I got the template from here: https://yourfreetemplates.com/world-map-free-powerpoint-templates/

In that case, do you know any way for me to get map templates suitable for Wikipedia so I can highlight countries and upload it to my article?

Johnt96 (talk) 05:29, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Maps will have suggestions for adding maps to Wikipedia articles. —C.Fred (talk) 17:07, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Escobar Inc

Was I in the wrong at all with the reverts I made to that page? I reverted the edits of User:Danielreitberg because I was almost certain they were a sockpuppet, considering their first edit was to create an SPI case, which the two opposing armies of sockpuppets edit-warring on that page had done before as recorded in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/WowWashington. Passengerpigeon (talk) 04:29, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

@Passengerpigeon: Per my comments, you fall into an exclusion for your reverts: you're exempted from 3RR because you were reverting what appeared to be sockpuppet edits. However, it might have been better to report the edits to a noticeboard a little earlier in the process. —C.Fred (talk) 12:26, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

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

hi - could you help me understand what is permissable to post regarding the school's founding? i would like to add information regarding the founder's motivations and the school's historical makeup. it seems odd to have the history section begin with commentary on segregation when it is is clear the school was NOT founded because of integration. thanks for your help.71.71.221.225 (talk) 20:14, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

One thing you need to do is add to the section, not remove. Also, for clarity, what is the source that you're citing? The footnote didn't make that very clear. —C.Fred (talk) 20:36, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Sebastian Roché

Hi C.Fred This is the real Sebastian Roché, i just tweeted you guys. Do i have to send you my passport in order for you to leave my edits and stop being corrected by someone who obviously knows my life less than i do or what? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avoman (talk • contribs) 00:10, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

I would also like to be designated as British French actor, i have spent most of my career as an english speaking actor — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avoman (talk • contribs) 00:13, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

@Avoman: No. You to provide published reliable sources to support your assertion. And copies of your passports are not an acceptable source—and I say passports plural based on your assertion of dual citizenship. —C.Fred (talk) 00:15, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

I used his Tweet from his verified Twitter account as a reference for him being Scottish. Per WP:SELFSOURCE, I believe that's sufficient. If not, feel free to remove it. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 00:33, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Virtue signaling

As I said in the AfD, there's not really a way for that to be closed other than keep, but could you clarify what you see consensus for? Given notability is the issue, it's a question of which of the subjects being argued for is the notable one? The pejorative neologism that's relatively new, or one of the sorta-kinda related concepts? (i.e. my request from the thread) — Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:31, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: What's clear is that deleting the article is not the way forward. There probably needs to be some discussion about how to focus the article, but that's a matter for constructive work at the article talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 12:47, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Selective school

Stuyvesant High School is a selective school. Zoe1013 (talk) 02:27, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

@Zoe1013: "Selective school" is not used in American terminology. —C.Fred (talk) 02:28, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Stuyvesant High School is an American High school. Zoe1013 (talk) 02:30, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
@Zoe1013: What's your source for it or its district/sponsor referring to it as a selective school? —C.Fred (talk) 02:31, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Stuyvesant High School is a specialized high school. Zoe1013 (talk) 02:36, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Is Stuyvesant High School not an American High school? Are you saying it is not a selective school? I don’t understand your logic. Zoe1013 (talk) 02:51, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Stuyvesant uses entrance exams so it is a selective school. [5] Zoe1013 (talk) 02:56, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Original research?

What does original research mean? Amelia Gaine (talk) 13:16, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Amelia Gaine Trespassing here: Amelia Gaine added content to an article. The reference for the crunchy vs. light mention was a website created by Amelia Gaine. If the Wikipedia editor is the same person as Website creator, then it is original research, i.e. not an independently published reliable source of information. If the Wikipedia editor is NOT the same person as the website, then the Wikipedia User name is forbidden and must be changed. David notMD (talk) 13:46, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
@Amelia Gaine: I agree with what David notMD said. The issue is that you have (apparently) added your own website as a reference to an article. Thus, you are inserting your own independent research and/or opinion into the article. Neither is allowed. —C.Fred (talk) 15:49, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2020).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

  • Following the banning of an editor by the WMF last year, the Arbitration Committee resolved to hold an RfC regarding on-wiki harassment. The RfC has been posted at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Anti-harassment RfC and is open to comments from the community.
  • The Medicine case was closed, with a remedy authorizing standard discretionary sanctions for all discussions about pharmaceutical drug prices and pricing and for edits adding, changing, or removing pharmaceutical drug prices or pricing from articles.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:25, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Longview Baptist Temple

Hi CF, because you've had some interaction with the Longview Baptist Temple, I'm letting you know I've AFDed it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Longview Baptist Temple (2nd nomination). After nominating it, I realized that it did have sources and information on controversies that was deleted at several points in the past decade. I'm not sure the best path at this point, but I'm leaning toward just letting the AFD run its course. I'm really not interested in spending any more time on the article than I have already, but perhaps some else might want to rescue the deleted content and restore it. To be honest, many of the previous sources didn't seem all that reliable, or were not significant coverage or irrelevant. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 08:05, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Also, none of the major contributors, including the original author, are still active on Wikipedia. You're the only active editor whose had any interaction with the article at all. - BilCat (talk) 08:08, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

User:RayanHetti

It appears that now that their temporary ban has been lifted that this user is back to the same behaviour of reverting information at the Geoffrey Bawa article, without any supporting explanation. I fear that this is goign to result in another a case of edit warring. Dan arndt (talk) 05:02, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

@Dan arndt: I've invited the user to a discussion at the article's talk page. Likewise, I'd like your input, since it looks like the section in question does not cite any sources. There's a case to be made for removing all of the early life section. —C.Fred (talk) 17:15, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
It seems we have a new sockpuppet in action. Dan arndt (talk) 09:12, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
@Dan arndt: Yep, it's a pretty obvious sockpuppet—and now a blocked one. —C.Fred (talk) 00:06, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Look

Take a look Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 00:39, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

@Synoman Barris: Salted. —C.Fred (talk) 00:40, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
C.Fred, Good choice Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 00:41, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Again Nicole C. Mullen (Everyday People album) Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 01:32, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
@Synoman Barris: Which does not qualify for speedy deletion. —C.Fred (talk) 01:57, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

July 2020

Warning icon Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Talk:Black Lives Matter, you may be blocked from editing. I have reverted your edit here, which appears to be unsupported editorial opinion and which has an edit summary that might be described as deceptive. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 07:19, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

When I placed this warning, I was not aware that you are an admin and a very experienced editor. That was called to my attention here. As the edit summary of the edit I reverted seems unconnected to the reverted edit, I'm guessing that this edit was anomalous and unintended. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 07:56, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
Well, this was a bone-headed error on my part -- which must have been clear to you all along. There is a mea culpa and apology to the community along with some explanation at here on my user talk page. I also want to acknowledge my bone-headed errors here and apologize directly to you. I'll try to have the judgement not to do anything like this in any future editing sessions during early-morning insomnia breaks, or to stay away from editing WP entirely during the foggy-headedness of such breaks. Sincere apologies. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:15, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
@Wtmitchell: Yeah, that quotation was a weird situation. We don't usually see parentheticals in quotations like that. When I first saw the removal, it looked like a good edit to remove somebody else's editorialism. I checked the edit history to see who added it, and I didn't find an addition. So I checked the quotation to its source, and the parenthetical was there. And thank you for the apology. If the WMF had a dollar for every time an editor had made an error because it was too late, too early, or they hadn't had their coffee yet, they wouldn't have to ask for money. :) Happy editing. —C.Fred (talk) 15:59, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Dark skin

Hi C.Fred. I wonder if you have any thoughts about what (if anything) to do about this editor? Seven reverts but over a period of 11 days. Editor made one response to a comment on the talk page, but otherwise has made no attempt at discussion. Do you think this is worth going to ANI? Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 15:19, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

@Sundayclose: I've left a comment on their talk page reminded them that we operate on consensus. Their latest edit summary also feels close to disrupting the article to make a point. Yes, if they change the image again, take then to ANI or ANEW—for the latter, mention that they were previously blocked for adding this image on 11 July and have made almost no attempt to discuss on the talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 20:29, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – August 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2020).

Administrator changes

added Red Phoenix
readded Euryalus • SQL
removed Jujutacular • Monty845 • Rettetast • Madchester

Oversight changes

readded GB fan
removed Keegan • Opabinia regalis • Premeditated Chaos

Guideline and policy news

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:20, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

30/500

Hi C. Fred,

I entirely agree with extended confirmed semi-protection on Kevin Deutsch - can you say the same over at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AlexVegaEsquire ? I kind of don't want to engage with the sockpuppet army since they're so obviously acting in bad faith, better to just get them banned. SnowFire (talk) 17:17, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

@SnowFire: I've put in a request at WP:RFPP and referenced the SPI. —C.Fred (talk) 17:37, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi Fred. Please see the latest on the talk page and assist us in reinserting the rolling stone correction, per MelanieN. Thank you. FTIIIOhfive (talk) 20:18, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Kevin Deutsch Dispute

We will be going all the way up with this one every day. Would appreciate a fair resolution. See talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WillieHowardCO67 (talk • contribs) 21:05, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

If the line goes in we are good. FTIIIOhfive (talk) 23:51, 3 August 2020 (UTC)


Same behavior from snowfire

Need your help man. FTIIIOhfive (talk) 02:47, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

@FTIIIOhfive: In regards to what? —C.Fred (talk) 03:11, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
I've mentioned you in the ANI thread. Acroterion (talk) 03:42, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

We need help on the Kevin Deutsch page. That man isn’t right. You know that. It’s unethical. Anyone would be angry we are humans and deserve respect. Subject does too.FTIIIOhfive (talk) 04:27, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

@FTIIIOhfive: Respect, yes. Special treatment, no. Other users raise valid concerns about whether the change is in keeping with Wikipedia policy. You may not override their concerns just by badgering them, as you have done at the article's talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 15:51, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Marvel Animated Universe

Can you block this user Aaa11769[1] from editing the Marvel Animated Universe page? because he is vandalizing and adding "Fan-term" even though it's official and confirmed it's the official name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NoobMaster01 (talk • contribs) 06:14, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Aaa11769&action=edit&redlink=1
@NoobMaster01: I took a look at the article today and found no sources that refer to the MAU by name. Accordingly, I have rolled the article back to a redirect, as the previous AfD is still in force. —C.Fred (talk) 13:51, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Tim eldred confirmed that Marvel Animated Universe is the official name. So, I will add the article again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NoobMaster01 (talk • contribs) 14:35, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

@NoobMaster01: Who's Tim Eldred, and where did you cite it in the article text? —C.Fred (talk) 14:37, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Tim Eldred is a writer of all Marvel Animated Universe shows. Do I need to cite it in the article?

Here's the link: https://twitter.com/TimJEldred/status/1290868953426702338 — Preceding unsigned comment added by NoobMaster01 (talk • contribs)

@NoobMaster01: Let's review. The article was deleted in large part because the term has no official definition. You're asking whether you need to provide citations showing that the term is official and is in common usage. I'll let you answer the question. —C.Fred (talk) 14:41, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
And the Twitter account is not verified, so it does not qualify as a reliable source. Even if it did, it would be far better to show that the term is in broad use outside of fan communities than to cite that tweet. —C.Fred (talk) 14:44, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

That article was deleted 9 years ago and it was about the 90's shows and they didn't said it was Marvel Animated Universe. And Now, It's about the 2010's shows and they said it's the Marvel Animated Universe and they officially confirmed it. All writers of Marvel Animated shows are not verified and it does not mean they're fake and I researched the accounts and they belong to the original writers and the term was used in outside of fandom.

@NoobMaster01: The writers are not authorities on the franchise, and you may not base an article on your own original research. Please cite some coverage of MAU where the writers of secondary sources, like magazine and news articles, refer to it as such. —C.Fred (talk) 14:52, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

You can see that they mentioned Marvel Animated Universe. https://thepopinsider.com/news/new-merch/marvel-animated-minimates/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by NoobMaster01 (talk • contribs)

@NoobMaster01: As a common noun, not as a proper title. (And please sign your messages!) —C.Fred (talk) 15:07, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

what do you mean? I saw some other sited too but they are not working now. And how to sign in?

Here is another one. https://www.comicbookmovie.com/avengers/avengers_age_of_ultron/disney-xd-to-release-something-avengers-age-of-ultron-related-tonight-a109183#gs.cpu2ww https://www.comicbookmovie.com/guardians_of_the_galaxy/trevor-devall-cast-as-rocket-raccoon-in-the-guardians-of-the-galaxy-animated-series-a115388#gs.cpuauz

They're inconsistent. One capitalizes it but the other doesn't. —C.Fred (talk) 15:44, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

They're consistent. That's just a typo.

Which one is the typo? And how can you be sure which one is the typo? —C.Fred (talk) 15:50, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

the one that doesn't capitalizes marvel animated universe because they're always capitalized and people sometimes forgot to capitalize words.

Here is another one. https://www.cbr.com/sdcc-new-characters-stories-rock-marvels-expanding-animated-universe/ https://biffbampop.com/2016/09/29/avengers-ultron-revolution-s03-e16-captain-marvel/

I am unconvinced. However, you're welcome to raise the matter at WP:Deletion review. —C.Fred (talk) 16:32, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

here is another one that mentions it. https://comicbook.com/news/avengers-ultimate-spider-man-get-new-season-orders-from-disney-x/ Can you now believe this?

Thank You to C.Fred for His Help in the Wikipedia ATOS Link March 14 2019. I Hope That I 'm doing this Correctly Not Sure how the Talk Setup works - Trying to Figure out How I can Thank C.Fred ! AlAdams12 (talk) AlAdams12 (talk) 13:30, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

response to Talk:Gabi DeMartino

@C.Fred, but i have a little question, the Little Mix members had articles even when they've never released at least a solo song, but Gabi did, even Camila Cabello released solo singles while she was still a member of Fifth Harmony and had an article, i really need more explaining, and also help, thank you. Gabriella Grande (talk) 02:52, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

@Gabriella Grande: See WP:OTHERSTUFF. Just because other articles existed—whether the subjects were notable or not—doesn't mean DeMartino should automatically have an article. You have to demonstrate that she is notable on her own and not as a part of a duo. —C.Fred (talk) 03:01, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
@C.Fred, but i did, and i added all the information about her as a solo artist and the only thing about her as a duo singer i added was how she started with the other member and when they released their EP, by the way thank you for giving me a little bit of your time! Gabriella Grande (talk) 03:33, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

"please get consensus before change"

Consensus by discussion is not required for every edit on Wikipedia, however reverts citing "no consensus" are explicitly mentioned in Wikipedia policy as a form of disruptive editing called "status-quo stonewalling". I have left an edit summary specifying that the primary topic is both far more culturally significant and the article has far more page views than any of the disambiguation topics, which get about 10-30 page views a day. This is sufficient for the edit and does not require prior consensus. By asking for consensus without initiating a discussion you are engaging in stonewalling. Antiepisodeorder (talk) 22:57, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

@Antiepisodeorder: Conversely, the burden is on you to discuss. Even if it were a good move, it would have to be fixed, because you did a cut-and-paste move. —C.Fred (talk) 22:59, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
"Conversely, the burden is on you to discuss" - uh, no, the policy explicitly calls out "no consensus" reverters as the stonewallers. Do you have a reason for your revert other than "no consensus"? Otherwise you're doing exactly what the policy warns about, stonewalling with no-reason reverts. Antiepisodeorder (talk) 23:02, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
@Antiepisodeorder: Yes. I call into question your assertion that Kricfalusi is the primary topic. —C.Fred (talk) 23:04, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
Anything specific? Was I wrong that John Kricfalusi receives an order of magnitude more views, and sometimes two or three orders of magnitude more, than John K (musician)? Was I wrong that Kricfalusi has a far wider cultural influence? Both of the reasons I gave tick both the usage and long-term significance boxes required for a primary topic. Antiepisodeorder (talk) 23:08, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
Sources for that data? —C.Fred (talk) 23:09, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Usage: Wikipedia's pageview statistics. John Kricfalusi vs John K (Musician). In fact the musician has started getting pageviews only after the disambiguation was put in place, meaning nobody was reading that article before and the pageviews it's getting now are likely misdirected because of the disambiguation.
  • Long-term significance: There is one unsourced claim of significance for the musician. There are ample sourced examples of John Kricfalusi's long-term significance through his work and his visibility in the public eye. Even if there weren't, merely having two non-significant articles with one of them having an order of magnitude or two or three more would make it the primary topic. But there is clear indications of long-term significance on the Kricfalusi article and one (unsourced) claim of significance on the musician's article.
Now that it's all a matter of public Wikipedia record you can point the redirect to its primary topic properly and maybe add a hatnote for John K (musician). Antiepisodeorder (talk) 09:08, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
I'm taking your silence as assent. Antiepisodeorder (talk) 11:43, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
@Antiepisodeorder: Conversely, the relatively low number of hits to the disambiguation page tell me that people looking for Kricfalusi are not going to the John K page; they're going straight to John Kricfalusi. That calls into question whether the term is a likely search term.
Bear in mind also that if we redirected John K to Kricfalusi's article, we would also need a hatnote pointing people looking for the musician to John K (musician).
@Chubbles: Since you created the dab page, what do you think? Is a redirect in order, or do we need to have a discussion at Talk:John K? —C.Fred (talk) 17:04, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
There are two ways to do this. One is to let the disambig page stand. The other is to declare Kricfalusi the primary topic, move the dab page to John K (disambiguation), and hatnote on Kricfalusi's page (which is not what Antiepisodeorder did). Is Kricfalusi commonly known as John K - more so than his full name? It's not clear to me he's the primary topic, but I don't know that area very well. The musician is new, but he is charting. Chubbles (talk) 03:48, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
"(which is not what Antiepisodeorder did)" - the redirect was reverted before I could add the hat note. Historically, sources used John K as often as John Kricfalusi: The Independent (1995), Wired (1997), Ain't It Cool (2000), Wired (2007), Rolling Stones (2014). 10 references in the article use "John K" in the headline versus 10 that use "John Kricfalusi", and the rest use neither in the headline. The reason search goes immediately to John Kricfalusi is very likely because Wikipedia had John K redirect to John Kricfalusi for 14 years so search engines picked it up. Searching news for John K turns up Kricfalusi about ten times more often than the musician. And there are the page views and the incoming links.
Every criteria in "Determining a primary topic" establishes that John Kricfalusi is the primary topic. The change on 2 February 2020‎ to a disambiguation instead of a redirect was unmerited, and as far as this discussion goes, it was based solely on the musician "charting".
I appreciate the attempt to help a "charting" artist get recognition but that is not sufficient to turn a redirect into a disambiguation. Antiepisodeorder (talk) 11:20, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
@Antiepisodeorder: It's not about trying to get the artist recognition; it's about attempting to determine what people are likely looking for when they type in "John K" on Wikipedia. If there were far more hits to the dab page than to the musician's article, it would be easy to infer that people are going to the John K title and then moving on to Kricfalusi's article. Further, if there were more hits to the dab page in general, it would be easy to conclude that people looking for Kricfalusi are starting there. However, the low traffic at John K make it hard to draw such a conclusion.
Side note: the Wikipedia page Trump is currently a disambiguation. There is a custom redirect there pointing to the article about Donald Trump to determine how many people are going to that page looking for him, in an attempt to determine if he is the primary topic. I don't think we need to go to that length here, but it shows that determining the primary topic for an overlapping identifier isn't always easy.
Finally, there's inconsistency among the sources. Wired says he's more commonly known as John K., but Rolling Stone never uses that name in the body of the article—so the short form seems to just be about saving characters in the headline. Ultimately, I think this is an edge case where it isn't clear that there is a primary topic at all, and that's why it makes sense to leave the title a dab page. —C.Fred (talk) 17:57, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
"there's inconsistency among the sources": Using both names is not an inconsistency. "John K" has been a prominent, recognizable designation for John Kricfalusi for decades. A different example, Mike D is the recognizable name of Mike Diamond. Mike D is called "Diamond" in the body of this Rolling Stones article not because he's more recognizable as Diamond but because stylistically that's preferable to calling him "Mike D" in the body of the article.
"it's about attempting to determine what people are likely looking for when they type in "John K" on Wikipedia": May I suggest using the primary topic guidelines to determine this. Antiepisodeorder (talk) 10:09, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
I will leave it to you all to determine what the primary topic is - I have no interest in this aspect of the debate. But I am interested in ease of navigation, so whatever the result, searching for "john k", "John K", and "John K." need to result in paths accessing both Kricfalusi and the musician. Chubbles (talk) 11:39, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
If nobody minds I'll be moving this conversation to Talk:John K as a more appropriate talk page for this conversation. I really see every point of the primary topic guideline being 100% in favor of redirecting John K to John Kricfalusi but apparently this is an "edge case" and it "isn't clear" that this is the primary topic despite every indication on the primary topic guideline being met. Antiepisodeorder (talk) 13:42, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Image Request

hello @C.Fred!, could you upload [this image] to Niki and Gabi, the article currently has no pictures, and my commons account is blocked, also i don't know how to upload non-free images, thanks! Gabriella Grande (talk) 16:34, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

@Gabriella Grande: If it's non-free you may not upload it to Commons; it may only be uploaded here. —C.Fred (talk) 16:52, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
@C.Fred, alright how can we upload it here? Gabriella Grande (talk) 16:54, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
@Gabriella Grande: The more important question is can we upload it here. I don't see where it qualifies under the non-free content criteria; it is still possible to get a free image of them, even if it's more difficult due to COVID-19. —C.Fred (talk) 16:57, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

GotG TV series

Can you please change the protection level for the Guardians of the Galaxy (TV series) page? A user keeps removing information that is sourced. Aaa11769 (talk) 07:00, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

@Aaa11769: It would help if there were some discussion on the talk page about why the prose presentation is appropriate and the related field in the infobox is not. —C.Fred (talk) 18:05, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Question

Hello @C.Fred, i'm really sorry to ask you this question again, but what information should i add to make Gabi DeMartino exist? i need to make articles about her albums and singles but i can't cause the artist's article is Redirected to another article, and i also added everything about her as a solo artist also she is notable for many things and not only as a member of a duo, she worked with Ariana Grande, Mina Tobias, Trisha Paytas (etc...), she also created her own series that people knew her from it and making her first solo world tour next year, again, i'm really sorry to ask again please don't get mad! have a great day! Gabriella Grande (talk) 21:13, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

@Gabriella Grande: You'll need to show that she meets the notability criteria for people (WP:NBIO). Remember that she needs to notable for what she's done on her own, not as a member of the duo. Some things, like having a song chart on Billboard or a similar chart make her qualify under WP:NMUSIC; otherwise, you'll have to have show that she has received significant coverage in independent reliable sources.
Also remember that her albums and singles must be notable to have their own articles; otherwise, they should just be mentioned in the article of the performer (assuming she's notable). —C.Fred (talk) 00:42, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

User:Umberto Bottura

Hi C.Fred, how are you? The user Umberto Bottura was blocked infinitely here at en.wiki, as you can see here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Umberto Bottura/Archive. At pt.wiki (his home wiki) he was not blocked endlessly, he was blocked for 1 month. So he went back to editing and has been doing a great job for many years and has behaved very well ever since (30 August 2020 — 8 years!). I'm sure that if he is unlocked here on en.wiki it will also do a great job, especially updating football related pages. Can you unlock the user? Thank you for the attention. OffsBlink (talk) 05:17, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

@OffsBlink: On the one hand, he was blocked indefinitely for abuse of multiple accounts. On the other hand, it was eight years ago. I would suggest that he put in a request for unblock here, mentioning his work at pt.wiki and stating that he will abide by en.wiki policies, including the prohibition against multiple accounts. I would look for other administrators' opinions, but I would consider unblocking his account. —C.Fred (talk) 17:21, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
Hi C.Fred. I informed you because I've talked to you several times in the past. In addition, I requested the blocking of Umberto Bottura in the past, but now I see that he is contributing very well and has never caused any problems more. He has more than 200,000 contributions on pt.wiki (Global account information) and has received the status of autoreviewer without asking, since his editions are of good quality. Is a good idea look for other administrators' opinions. Can you invite an administrator to give their opinion here? Thank you. OffsBlink (talk) 05:16, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
@OffsBlink: Before I did that, I'd want to see a request from Umberto Bottura, while logged in, at User talk:Umberto Bottura. Until they indicate that they want to return to en.wiki and will follow our policies, there's no need to go further. —C.Fred (talk) 18:22, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
The user is blocked, cannot edit pages. As I asked for his block the other time, but I believe that the indefinite block was unfair and now I see that he is contributing very well to Wikipedia, I make a statement: I, OffsBlink, guarantee that Umberto Bottura will contribute positively to the en.wiki and will follow the policies, just like he does on pt.wiki. So is it OK, C.Fred? OffsBlink (talk) 05:31, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
@OffsBlink: The user has not had his talk page access revoked. —C.Fred (talk) 15:48, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
OK, I'll talk to him on pt.wiki. Thank you. OffsBlink (talk) 04:11, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
The user Umberto Bottura made the request as you said. As we talked about earlier, can you now give your opinion on his user page and invite another administrator to give his opinion? Thank you. OffsBlink (talk) 17:27, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Help to create Sapna Choudhary and Swarup Solanki Articles

Hello I am new in Wikipedia I want your help to Create Article About

1st, Sapna Choudhary She is popular known dancer an, she have well reputation on internet but still Its block or ban
2nd, Swarup Solanki He is popular young generation entrepreneur, cyber security researcher, an he have well reputation on internet but still his article is block or ban

Requested to help creating article about Sapna Choudhary Swarup Solanki both are block or ban because some Vandalism recreating and spamming on both article, but I researcher on both Sapna Choudhary Swarup Solanki both are well known and have reputation on internet with multi valid references, I requested to you please help to create these article if possible
Priyanka Gupta Sharma (talk) 13:49, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

@Priyanka Gupta Sharma: Can you provide some links to reliable sources that have written about them. The first to hurdles are to show that they are notable and that they have been written about in reliable sources. —C.Fred (talk) 01:30, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2020).

Administrator changes

added Eddie891
removed Angela • Jcw69 • Just Chilling • Philg88 • Viajero

CheckUser changes

readded SQL

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:56, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Re: September 2020

Why do you keep reverting my edits on the fraternity and sorority pages?? Nike, Wawa and more do not have the full word “Incorporated” in their title. It is not necessary. Also I am the one who fully titled each of those pages with “Incorporated” some time ago as I thought it was necessary to have the full word in the title. They were originally “Inc.”. Banan14kab (talk) 18:04, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

@Banan14kab: When I spot-checked AKA's website, they spell out "Incorporated". It stands to reason that the name should be rendered in the styling that the company uses. —C.Fred (talk) 19:08, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
But that’s just one...majority of the other sites, mainly the fraternities, all just use “Inc.” on their website pages. The Alphas, Kappas, Omegas and Sigmas all use “Inc.” only the Iotas use the full word “Incorporated”. It’s understood. We should just switch all the articles back to “Inc.”. I’m the one who changed it anyway some time ago, but I realize we can just keep them as “Inc.”. They’re more commonly used with their abbreviations anyway. Banan14kab (talk) 03:57, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
In fact I just double checked. The AKAs are the only sorority that has the full word in their title. And Iota Phi Theta is the only fraternity. So only 2 of the 9 NPHC organizations use the full word on their website titles. This should further support my claim that they need to all be reverted back to “Inc.” Banan14kab (talk) 04:14, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Nothing to say? Banan14kab (talk) 00:52, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Information icon Dear CFred, your generous contribution to the community here is deeply appreciated. Please understand that our intention here is perfectly legitimate in trying to let people know the true loving side of a religion we have so loved. Our technicality may have issues as we are not so fast and with the tech know-how of wikipedia as you marathon editors. Our syntax of editing may change, but content we are adding is priceless. Regards Gursharan327 —Preceding undated comment added 23:47, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

The prohibition of Gambling we are talking about is also mentioned in Sikh Rehat Maryada, already a wikipedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gursharan327 (talk • contribs) 01:19, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

@Gursharan327: You need to show that it applies universally to Sikhism, or else you need to clarify that it only applies within the SRM. You still need to cite a source in the article. —C.Fred (talk) 01:22, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

@CFred there is no relationship with srigurugranthsahib.org. It is oldest and most authentic site. It was just surprising it does not find more mention here. This was honest surprise. For example if you want to see their contribution you can visit their channel by name of sikhvideos on youtube or facebook - same name. You can read it for yourself and realize its teaching can help greatly here. We are all for improving wikipedia.

Hi @CFred, while we are talking, may we ask if we may quote sikhiwiki.org (it is a wiki specific to sikhism) here, some things there are also more informative and quotable.

Also it seems you have some knowledge of sikh religion so you might also know the name of site itself is name of the current sikh guru Sri Guru Granth Sahib — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gursharan327 (talk • contribs) 06:54, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

@Gursharan327: sikhwiki.org is not a reliable source. However, you may use the sources it cites as sources in articles. —C.Fred (talk) 17:05, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Charting

Hello! you once said that Gabi DeMartino should have a song or album that peaked on charts to feature an actual article, i found out that her EP peaked on the iTunes charts (http://www.itunescharts.net/uk/artists/music/gabi-demartino/albums/gabroadway-ep/), so i don't know if this is notable enough, thank you, have a nice day! Gabriella Grande (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:23, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

@Gabriella Grande: The iTunes charts are not a national chart; see WP:SINGLEVENDOR for more info. —C.Fred (talk) 17:08, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Your revert on Jawad Naqvi

Please check the cit link, it is copy of wiki article.--14.142.206.26 (talk) 09:28, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Good catch. The problem is, there were enough other changes going on, it looked more harmful than helpful when you removed it. —C.Fred (talk) 17:06, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
Yup, that happens. I thought so. So, I thought I'll drop you a note. :) --14.142.206.26 (talk) 10:54, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Baltimore

Hi, I am updating the religious demographics by using Pew Research Center's data as the old data is from two blatantly unverifiable sources (namely "BestPlaces.net" and "WorldPolulationStatistics.com"), but it seems that I've been dragged into the water of edit war.

Could you please help us out? I believe PEW's data are widely accepted and, of course, safe in wikipedia.

My data update/edit is basically here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Baltimore&diff=next&oldid=977527205

Thank you. 219.73.68.83 (talk) 18:31, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

I think you need to discuss the situation with Praxidicae at Talk:Baltimore. I see where there are valid concerns with omissions and odd disaggregations of the data, such as the grouping of Protestant denominations while having the RCC and other Christian groups stand separate. —C.Fred (talk) 18:41, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

User:Umberto Bottura

Hi C.Fred. I saw that you posted a comment on Mattythewhite's user talk page and invited him to give his opinion on Umberto Bottura's user talk page. It's been over 10 days and he hasn't commented. But that's okay, he, like anyone, is not obliged to participate in the discussion.

Anyway, my idea is that you invite another administrator to give your opinion or else unblock the user, considering that it will not be your decision alone, since I, who asked for his block in 2012, recognize the great work he has come performing on pt.wiki for many years and in addition to requesting his unlock, I guarantee he will do a good job here on en.wiki if he is unlocked.

About the comments you made on Mattythewhite's user talk page, the user Umberto Bottura was blocked for 1 day in November 2016 due to an editing war with another user, but that was an isolated case. And regarding the warnings on his discussion page, most of them are about articles that he edited (his username appears in the history) being proposed for deletion, nothing serious. Thank you. OffsBlink (talk) 17:46, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

The user Umberto Bottura has been unlocked. Thank you for your help. OffsBlink (talk) 19:45, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

User causing issues through disruptive edits and personal attacks

Hi, this user is violating several guidelines, including WP:NPA, WP:BATTLE, WP:TRUTH, WP:RS, WP:OR, WP:CONSENSUS, WP:EDITWAR and WP:BRD. Hell, I might have missed some. Anyhow here are some examples from his short time in Wikipedia. He/she has already been warned/notified about some of these rules, especially the personal attack one:

There is currently no "copyright" notice for the painting depicting the Battle of Manzikert. So on what basis are you trying to remove the picture? Also, why do you Greeks attack the painting together? The painting does not tell lies, it tells the truth. And this painting is on display at the Istanbul Military Museum, so its copy is open to the public.

My friend Iranian writers in Wikipedia are writing chauvinist-minded articles. On the other hand, I cited Sami Frashëri's "Kamus-ı Türkî" as a source for my information in the Balkan debate. How can you see this work as "unreliable"?

There is no explanation in the style of "Turco-Persian tradition" in any of the Turkic sources, there is an explanation of "Turco-Islamic tradition". We take our resources from ourselves, not from observing European writers. So let go of the Persian chauvinism. By doing Persian chauvinism, you cannot come to any conclusion, with this in mind you are only dulling young minds here, but what you do in real life makes no sense. Stop fooling yourself. I don't want to meet hollow people like you in real life. Give a logical explanation. Because this tradition was formed with Islam, there are serious differences between the pre-Islamic Persian culture and the post-Islamic Persian culture. Accept this fact.

Correct information has been added. Iranian writers, please give up Persian chauvinism.

Stop erasing real information.

EDIT: Here's another one, now in Turkish, talking about me, as if Google translate doesn't exist. Selamlar, sizi bir konuda bilgilendirmek ve yardım istemekteyim. Wikipedia'da Fars şovenistler Türk devletleriyle alakali neredeyse her devlet için "Persianized" tabirini kullanıyorlar. Türk kelimesini aşağılayan makaleleri sayfalara ekliyorlar. Tarihimiz, böyle uluslarası özgür bilgi sitesinde tehlikededir. Bu Fars şovenistler içinde "HistoryofIran" gibi örgütlu yazarlar bulunmaktadır. Bu konuda sizlerden bilgi ve yardım istemekteyim

=>

"Greetings, I would like to inform you about something and ask for help. On Wikipedia, Persian chauvinists use the term "Persianized" for almost every state related to Turkish states. They add articles that humiliate the word Turkish to the pages. Our history is at stake in such an international free information site. Among these Persian chauvinists are organized writers like "HistoryofIran". I ask you for information and assistance in this regard."

--HistoryofIran (talk) 14:05, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Jill Kelley page

That Jill Kelley page is obviously being modified by someone with a conflict of interest. They keep inserting made up stuff to make her seem impressive and citing the advertisement for her new venture as the source.

I’m new to Wikipedia. What’s the procedure for addressing it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fat Irish Guy (talk • contribs) 03:52, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

@Fat Irish Guy: If you're sure it's a conflict of interest, report the matter at the conflict of interest noticeboard. —C.Fred (talk) 16:57, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
Fred, seems as if Fat Irish Guy has been purposely hired to target Jill Kelley and remove legitimate facts that have multiple citations and publications (and even sworn documents) that has been published in large media outlets. I looked into his background and seems as if he was hired by a political opponent- hence his savy 'projection' to say there's a conflict of interest to oddly justify his removal of clear facts by saying they are impressive, when let's be honest, her appointment as Mattis's ambassador is impressive like Ginsburg was impressive too, but you can't just neglect the fact because its impressive - but his paid sponsor/hiree does not want to keep these facts because of their immoral agenda. Fat Irish Guy evidently opened his account to specifically reduce her page (but knew to say Kress building as a distraction) and so it should be blacklisted. Babybottle2 (talk) 19:05, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Templates

Do not subst templates, or replace them with their text. The templates contain hidden metadata used by web browsers, Wikipedia bots and other software tools to extract the details, and display them using some other website or mapping tool, to index them and to search them. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:50, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

@Hawkeye7: Some templates are supposed to be substituted. I know that it's fallen back into favour to use birth and death date templates for dead people instead of subst'ing the dates, as used to be done. Is there another instance where I've subst'ed a template recently that should have been left as a template? —C.Fred (talk) 20:07, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Yes, a small number of templates do have to be substituted. These are marked as such on their doc pages. Just thought I would let you know. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:25, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Incorporated fraternities & sororities

Since this is an encyclopedia I thought about what you said and have changed the titles of the NPHC Greek orgs. The abbreviation is more commonplace, but the full name can be displayed here as it is an encyclopedia. Didn't mean for the edit wars. Banan14kab (talk) 20:50, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Generation Yes

HI,

Thanks for your help on Generation Yes (Scotland). Unfortunately the edit war is still ongoing, and the same user is trying to have the article deleted again.

If you have the time would you mind intervening and helping to sort this all out?

Thanks --Vitalis196 (talk) 22:27, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Fictitious names are contained in the article. If this cannot be addressed without correct information being continually removed then the article should just be deleted to stop this from continuing Swivvlekmk (talk) 00:20, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
@Swivvlekmk: It looks like Vitalis196 has removed the names that weren't verified in the published reliable source. —C.Fred (talk) 00:27, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

They haven’t removed them. Harper Macfarlane is not a real person and is not cited in the source yet Vitalis196 continues to add this name back in every time I edit it out Swivvlekmk (talk) 00:29, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

@Swivvlekmk: Please make youre case for removal at Talk:Generation Yes (Scotland). The article is now fully protected. —C.Fred (talk) 00:29, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
@C.Fred: Thanks for your help, Much obliged.. --Vitalis196 (talk) 00:34, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

I have done so. It would be beneficial to look at the difference between my edits and those of Vitalis196 before deciding on the outcome as my edits do not contain fictional characters. Vitalis196 has not showered themself in glory here Swivvlekmk (talk) 00:40, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

@Swivvlekmk: Although I'm hesitant to take up any more of @C.Fred:'s talk page here, I'd note that I did the best I can to clean up after the repeated attempts to vandalise the article today (of which it must be said you have played a part). If I've made a mistake here then you're free to point it out for all the world to see in the talk page. Until then I'm off to bed. --Vitalis196 (talk) 00:51, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

I wasn’t ‘vandalising’ the article, I was correcting it. You were the one who vandalised it with fictional names. Clearly trying to make up for some other inadequacy here on your power trip eh Vitalis196? Swivvlekmk (talk) 01:04, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

@Swivvlekmk: I didn't, Check the log. Vitalis196 (talk) 01:07, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

You made edits under an anonymous IP address before logging in and continuing. You admitted that yourself in the talk page. The anonymous IP added the fictional names, right before you logged in. You should really invest in a tv, you clearly need something to keep yourself busy... Swivvlekmk (talk) 01:16, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Have a nice evening, Vitalis196 (talk) 01:23, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Get a hobby. Swivvlekmk (talk) 01:36, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!

Happy First Edit Day, C.Fred, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Megan☺️ Talk to the monster 06:19, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Invitation to join the Fifteen Year Society

Dear C.Fred/Archive 27,

I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the Fifteen Year Society, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Wikipedia project for fifteen years or more. ​

Best regards, Chris Troutman (talk) 20:32, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

@Chris troutman: Thank you! Can I just accept here, or do I have to post a message to an AOL group or something equally archaic? :D —C.Fred (talk) 00:57, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
Typically editors put {{User Fifteen Year Society}} and/or {{15 Year topicon}} on their user page. It's not uncommon for a anniversary celebrant like you to post to the Society's talk page. We, the Wikipedia community, are recognizing that you registered your account 15 years ago but you don't have to take any action upon our recognition. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:20, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
@Chris troutman: I've already got the topicon on my user page. —C.Fred (talk) 19:08, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Varanasi Guru

How is it tourism spam??

The website is a community-supported local information website. Please check before you mark spam without reading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imdgod (talk • contribs) 20:04, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

@Imdgod: I notice enough similarity between your username and the creator of the website that, as I said, worst case is you are just trying to add your website to articles. In the best case scenario, there is no evidence of editorial review, so the site is unreliable per WP:RS. —C.Fred (talk) 22:57, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2020).

Administrator changes

added Ajpolino • LuK3
readded Jackmcbarn
removed Ad Orientem • Harej • Lid • Lomn • Mentoz86 • Oliver Pereira • XJaM
renamed There'sNoTime → TheresNoTime

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:42, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Syed Jawad Naqvi

I saw your edit on the Page Syed Jawad Naqvi . You have removed "Syed" which is part of the name and "Allama" which is the title. If you don't know about "Syed" then you can see the article Syed. "Syed" is cast or "Surname" not title. Change the name of article "Jawad Naqvi" to "Syed Jawad Naqvi". As it was befour. Thank you! Sharief123 (talk) 15:48, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

@Sharief123: I did look at Syed, and based on that, it appeared to be a title. It would help if there were some reliable sources that made it clear what his family name/surname is and what his given name is. If you have some, please provide them at the article talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 16:40, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

edit warring accusation

You ought to pay attention to the revision history before accusing editors of edit warring. Curzon showed up on Bondi's page on Sept. 24 and without discussion and little explanation deleted a large mass of material which is well sourced and most of which has been on the page for a while. Since then, he has repeatedly deleted the same information in conjunction with another looooooooooonnnnnnnnnnnnnnggggggggg time edit warrior, Niteshift36 (who spent years deleting various editors' contributions to this page, taking edit warring to a ridiculous pitch). If there is a case to be made why the material should be deleted, neither of them has made that case yet. The burden is on them to make the case first, not ex post facto.72.86.132.18 (talk) 01:16, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

However, they are editing in good faith, so your continued restoration of the material is edit warring. —C.Fred (talk) 01:38, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
No, Niteshift36 is not editing in good faith. When I first looked at this page years ago, I took an interest in it because it was so blatantly obvious that Niteshift36 was a partisan edit warrior who never relented. And so he has remained to this day. To what extent Curbon7 is editing in good faith remains to be seen. His aggressive behavior since his arrival a week ago on the page resembles nothing so much as the partisan edit warrior who tries to dismantle piecemeal embarrassing information about politicians of their own party.
There is no question that neither of them has ever made a case for deleting any of the facts or any of the citations they're fighting to delete. You and your editorial allies are simply locking in place their deletions of relevant information, because there's zero evidence they'll go back now and justify what they've achieved without ever having to justify it.72.86.132.18 (talk) 02:05, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
You need to scale back the personal attacks. Focus on the content; don't cast aspersions on other editors. —C.Fred (talk) 02:26, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
You need to figure out for yourself whether editors are acting in good faith, before asserting that some are and some are not. And no, focusing merely on content does not help when dealing with partisan editors acting in bad faith...as Niteshift36 proved dozens of times on the Bondi page over the last 5 years.72.86.137.221 (talk) 14:34, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
Then you need to escalate the matter to an administrators' noticeboard. Otherwise, your edit warring will lead to the article being semi-protected. —C.Fred (talk) 14:59, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
I have no fr*ckin' idea how to do that. But of course the partisan manipulators do, because they're experts at playing the system.72.86.137.221 (talk) 04:15, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
You also need to stop with the personal attacks. Either provide specific edits that show they've acted in a partisan fashion, or stop using the label "partisan". —C.Fred (talk) 17:26, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
@Niteshift36: Sorry for not pinging you in this conversation, but since I felt there were no concerns of merit expressed by the IP, I didn't think you needed dragged into this. —C.Fred (talk) 15:33, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Pupusas

Please remove that false statement about pupusas being from Honduras because they are exclusively of El Salvador. That Honduras copy it doesn't mean pupusas belong to them. You article doesn't even mention OLOCUILTA the pipil town where pupusas originated and boomed. Just because you can find tacos somewhere else doesn't mean they aren't original of Mexico, in the same way pupusas have always been a salvadorean dish spread in the whole country. Honduras dish is the "baleada" not pupusa. Toby the golden boy (talk) 16:42, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

@Toby the golden boy: You'll need to request that change at Talk:Pupusa. —C.Fred (talk) 16:43, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
User:Toby the golden boy, this matters only if secondary sources say it is so. Drmies (talk) 16:44, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Ricardo Lopez

I talked until I was blue in the face, I feel like it fell on deaf ears because I'm an unregistered user. The fact remains that the ABC article's interpretation of what was said is just one person's opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.112.248.92 (talk) 00:09, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
The consensus of the editors at the article talk page is that ABC is a reliable source, and the transcript provided in their article is accurate. —C.Fred (talk) 00:11, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
So you're not actually interested in talking. You're just going to reaffirm the circle jerk that went nowhere. You don't assert reliability in a broad stroke. It has to be verified on a case by case basis. In this case it was at best incoherent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.112.248.92 (talk) 00:13, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
What reliable source did you present in the discussion that said it was incoherent? —C.Fred (talk) 00:15, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
What source was presented that said he said "This is for you" other than one person's opinion in an article? Again, it was so ambiguous that someone felt the need to add "Do not put 'Victory' here". If it were clear beyond any reasonable doubt, there would be no need for that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.112.248.92 (talk) 00:17, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
A better question; By what metric did the editors on the talk page determine that the transcript was accurate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.112.248.92 (talk) 00:20, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
Other articles have similar notes when people put in misunderstood information or common misconceptions. Again, the burden is on you to provide sources that allege what you claim.
The determination on the talk page was that the source with the transcription was reliable. We do not make a judgment call on the transcript directly; we do report what reliable sources say it contains. —C.Fred (talk) 00:22, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
How did they determine that the source with the transcript was reliable? It's one guy, listening to the same video we are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.112.248.92 (talk) 00:24, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
I want to hear the reasoning by which the transcript is reliable without referring to the video itself or the article which refers to the video. Can you imagine if EB just assumed source X was infallible because they're mostly reliable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.112.248.92 (talk) 00:30, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
You've had your opportunity to present sources at the article's talk page and failed to do so. I will no longer discuss article content with you on my talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 00:38, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
My point is that the source provided is unreliable. There is no default just because it was put up first. There is only accurate and inaccurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.112.248.92 (talk) 00:49, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
You have failed to prevent a clear case for why the source is unreliable, either generally or with regard to this specific article, other than your own original research. —C.Fred (talk) 00:52, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
I presented a perfectly clear case. The video is ultimately the only source for any of it and it was even admitted by one of the editors in the original argument to be so garbled as to be unusable. So garbled that enough people heard "Victory!" that someone felt the need to tell people not to put it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.112.248.92 (talk) 00:54, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
You do realize that an organization like ABC is comprised of single individuals that are all entirely fallible? It's not just one giant continuous fact checking entity. People make mistakes, even people at ABC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.112.248.92 (talk) 01:03, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
Then provide a link to their correction. —C.Fred (talk) 01:28, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
That's not how it should work. I've already cast reasonable doubt on the ABC interpretation. ABC is not god, not infallible. It's a guy who heard X Y Z, that's it. That doesn't mean that's what was said and it certainly doesn't mean it should be treated as gospel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.112.248.92 (talk) 03:12, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
No, you have not cast reasonable doubt. You have made your own interpretation of the recording; we do not allow original research or synthesis. Unless reliable secondary sources have expressed doubt, there is no basis to distrust ABC. —C.Fred (talk) 15:21, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
Yes I have cast reasonable doubt. The interpretation on the ABC article was that of one person writing a clickbait piece. A single person, no more or less subject to error than myself. The fact that they're associated with a media conglomerate is irrelevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.112.248.92 (talk) 21:53, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
You seem more concerned with wikipedia being in line with secondary sources than with it actually being accurate. You do not have this site's best interest in mind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.112.248.92 (talk) 21:57, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
You seem not to understand WP:Verifiability or WP:Reliable sources. —C.Fred (talk) 00:45, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
It can't be considered a reliable source when you're using circular reasoning to say it's reliable. This should be on a case by case basis, period. In this case, the article is no more reliable than a random person watching the video, because that's what it was. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.112.248.92 (talk) 04:27, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
It was not. It was a reporter, who had their conclusions reviewed by their editors. This discussion is over. —C.Fred (talk) 17:27, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
"It was a reporter, who had their conclusions reviewed by their editors." Source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.70.2.200 (talk) 19:36, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Source? Because it sounds like you're just posting your original research/bare assertion to me. You're not in it for the good of this site at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.112.248.92 (talk) 01:19, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
If you're going to tuck tail and run instead of admitting you lost the argument then leave my edits alone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.112.248.92 (talk) 15:48, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
No further action is needed at this time. If you prefer, I can escalate the matter to WP:ANI and discuss whether your refusal to follow policy warrants some type of sanction against you. —C.Fred (talk) 15:51, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Sports seasons and bulk deletions

Hi C.Fred,

If you have any time, I would appreciate it if you could bring your knowledge to this discussion.

I was hoping to solve a problem of excessive deletionism which is based on poor arguments and evidence, but it's becoming the same go-nowhere debate as on the Deletion pages - it really needs an outside view.
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Sports seasons and bulk deletions / nuisance nominations

Best wishes, Demokra (talk) 19:50, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Kashmar

Hi, I would like this article to be a good article and I need help, I have made many edits in this article and I request you to review it And problems are solved, Thank you a world M.k.m2003 (talk) 15:06, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

October 2020

Hello , I would appreciate it if you helped me out with Conor McGregor’s height , it seems like an edit war has broke out and I would like to know your opinion on the talk page , thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiman122112 (talk • contribs) 12:13, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2020).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:51, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Sorry!

I thought I was rollbacking the strange IP edit to User talk:Telsho but I ended up rollbacking your edit which was undoing that disruptive edit. My apologies. Liz Read! Talk! 02:34, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Ricardo Lopez Redux

What is your problem? It's perfectly fair and accurate to say that the audio is muffled and it's a fair compromise to amend the article while it retains the sourced claim of his last words being "This is for you". The audio is so muffled, in fact, that it was necessary to add "Do not change this to such and such" in the source as so many people heard it, it was an issue. There's no way that can be in the source and it be said that the audio is clear.
The note is there because of your persistence in adding your original research to the article. Wikipedia relies on what is reported by reliable sources. —C.Fred (talk) 01:59, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
It's not due to my "original research" because the note was there before I ever edited the article the first time. The audio is, in fact, so muffled that people heard something else other than what's in the article so frequently that it became an issue. Therefore the addendum is more than fair. The very existence of the note is proof of poor audio. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.49.195.13 (talk) 03:00, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
All the note serves to prove is that people don't follow policy. It does not, in and of itself, say anything about the audio. —C.Fred (talk) 03:12, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
Fine, watch the video itself. You can't say the video isn't a source without being a hypocritical piece of trash. What's really sad is after all this you still probably labor under the notion that you have the best intentions of this site in mind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.49.195.13 (talk) 03:15, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
I could watch the video, but Wikipedia policy is clear to go with secondary sources rather than the primary source. —C.Fred (talk) 03:17, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
That's moronic, so much so that it sounds ad hoc just for you to be petty here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.49.195.13 (talk) 03:33, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
Please review WP:Secondary sources. —C.Fred (talk) 18:26, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Tara Smith

Thank you so much for helping out! --82.23.69.143 (talk) 00:43, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Back at it

The IP you blocked the other day for edit warring on Manny Pacquiao is at it again. – 2.O.Boxing 14:15, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

And again. – 2.O.Boxing 01:31, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

@Squared.Circle.Boxing: Not for another month, though. Article semi-protected. —C.Fred (talk) 02:17, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Mughal Maratha war

Have you read the talk page message yet? Can you WP:VERIFY how the added "outcome" is supported by the source? ArvindPalaskar (talk) 18:10, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Source misrepresentation

Hi. Since you seem to be familiar with the Pastilla article, I would really appreciate it if you can have a word with this new editor who is misrepresenting the sources, changing the sourced quote to fit their POV and edit warring over it. Regard. M.Bitton (talk) 21:28, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Restoration of Monday Morning (newsletter) page

Hello, C.Fred

This is regarding the speedy deletion of the page 'Monday Morning (newsletter)'. For your information, it is the official student media body of National Institute of Technology Rourkela and is the second-largest student media body in India. It has been in existence since 2006, with the Wiki page in existance since 2011. It has never had any issues before. Also, I expected a warning of some kind to be given before you proceed with deleting a page. On a different note, we are recognised by major news bodies like the Indian Express and Careers360. As for your endorsement that it is blatant promotion, it must be known that we would have made appropriate changes in it to make it encyclopaedic. But we were not even given any kind of notice or warning. I request you to restore it or atleast help in its restoration. We assure you from our side that the article would be modified with adequate references as well.

Yours sincerely, Parzival221B

Parzival221B (talk) 10:54, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

@Parzival221B: Nothing in the article as it stood indicated any evidence that the media body had recognition from non-collegiate news bodies.
If the article were to be recreated, it would need worked on by independent editors, not by a group of editors with conflicts of interest with the body. —C.Fred (talk) 20:07, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree with all that you've told. Just one thing from my side 'Proof of absence is not absence of proof'. The article has never had any issues before, so I strongly feel that you should have first informed us of the issues so we could have added external non-collegiate references. It's a shame that the page of the second-largest student media body of India was taken down in this manner of speedy deletion. Suffice to say, that such a hasty decision could have and should have been avoided had you been a little more lenient and given us some kind of notice or warning. No offence intended, just a reminder that pages and editors should be given a notice period, of say 15 days, before proceeding with rigid decisions like deletion. Parzival221B (talk) 06:54, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Seneca population

The given ref for 8,000 people was specifically for the Seneca Nation of Indians, which only represents Senecas in so-called New York. This excludes not only the Senecas resident at Six Nations in "Ontario", but also those of the Seneca-Cayuga Nation in "Oklahoma". In fact, 11,000 is quite likely a few thousand short of the true number. Given these facts, for Wikipedia's usual standard to be met, several refs will have to be cited. If I don't get to it, I'm sure someone will. If you have so much time on your hands, why don't you? It's all public record. 2607:FEA8:BFA0:BD0:B104:FAA9:9858:D2C9 (talk) 21:02, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:19, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Juan Branco

Dear C. I have digged out the last consensual version, which was the fruit of many users work, and justified my words in the following link. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Juan_Branco#Prelibel_version I recommend you to give a quick look at the evolution of the historic of the page, in order to check my words and see how indeed, the page never became consensual after the intervention of the said accounts. It would be, in my opinion, absurd to consider the current version as "consensual" seen the editorial wars that have sparsed it since more than a year. Preserving this version in the perspective of an always very illusory work of the community on the sources of the conflict, in a ponce pilatian fashion, would be the equivalent of letting two anonymous individuals destroying, for unknown reasons, the reputation of a 30 years old person, and everything he has built during that time, making him unable to ever go further. Over what merit ? Brancojuan (talk) 20:44, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

@Brancojuan: I'm not sure what the last consensus version of the page is, but it's certainly not the one you prefer. However, since another administrator has protect the page, there will be no further edits to the page until there is discussion and a consensus reached—and frankly, the consensus needs to be reached among independent editors, not those with a COI. —C.Fred (talk) 20:47, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
C.Fred, this is why I have refered to two very different versions, one which was prior to the intervention of these two accounts, and another which happened after. I don't have any "preference" and do not want to have one. But I don't see why you should consider, as an administrator, that this version is consensual, since the violent disputes it has triggered even before I intervened. Again, maintaining this version in the hopes that, someday, an administrator will take the time to actually dig into what has happened, or at least look at the French Version, and so forth, is the equivalent of basically deciding definitively over what this page would look like. And in the meantime, I'll be supporting the damages. Finally, I'm not pretending to be the consensus builder or judge, in any case. I'm asking that in the expectancy of a possible intervention of independent editors, a minimally consensual version should be preserved. As this is not one, both factually (the historic of the page shows), as subjectively I believe for anyone who has minimal knowledge of the subject, has had access to the objective elements presented in previous versions or in other WP versions, would think. Brancojuan (talk) 20:57, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
As I noted in the talk page, I'm not clear whether this is a consensus version or just status quo ante. Or, frankly, your interference in the article might have gotten The Wrong Version protected.
My recommendation is that if you want to make specific recommendations about how to change the content, do so on the talk page, and cite reliable sources.
Please have that discussion on the talk page. I will not engage in further discussions here about the content of the article. —C.Fred (talk) 21:02, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

See Also Contents

How do these work, for e.g. in Outlook Express It mentions Windows Mail right in first para but still mentions in See Also

Perhaps strong connection not sufficiently covered may is also included in See Also. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gursharan327 (talk • contribs) 20:33, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – December 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2020).

Administrator changes

removed Andrwsc • Anetode • GoldenRing • JzG • LinguistAtLarge • Nehrams2020

Interface administrator changes

added Izno

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:37, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Paris (La Defense)

Paris has an impressive financial district (La Defense) but its skyscrapers aren't very tall. Only two skyscrapers in Paris (Tour Montparnasse, 201 m / 60 floors; and the Tribunal de Paris (160 m / 38 floors)) are taller than 150 metres. The third tallest skyscraper in Paris is Hyatt Regency Paris Etoile (137 m / 39 floors). Paris has many skyscrapers above 100 metres, but only two of them are above 150 metres. Source: https://www.emporis.com/city/100603/paris-france/status/all-buildings GigaBiga (talk) 18:06, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

@GigaBiga: That's a content issue; that should be discussed at the article's talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 18:07, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, I thought they kept the Emporis page about Paris up-to-date but obviously I was wrong (I shockingly realized that not all cities in Emporis.com are up-to-date, even a famous city like Paris; but Istanbul's data are up-to-date). Evidently, Emporis.com is not as good as it once used to be. I apologize for behaving foolishly, I won't edit the European skyscrapers list article anymore. Only 2/3 of Istanbul is in Europe, anyway. GigaBiga (talk) 02:12, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Dispute resolution on the lede of the article on Domenico Losurdo

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Domenico_Losurdo 188.252.196.122 (talk) 17:17, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Cherry Hill High School East - Notable Almuni Edits - Jeff Devlin

Hello C.Fred.

I was surprised that you rejected an addition of Jeff Devlin form the notable alumni section of the Cherry Hill High School East page as "not notable."

The man was a competitive world class triathlete for over 10 years finishing 3rd (overall) in the (well known and highly regarded) Ironman World Championship in 1991 and 1994, and was the US National Triathlon Champion in 1995 and 1996 (among other career highlights) He's been featured in countless magazine and newspaper articles.

I realize that triathlons (and related endurance sports) aren't valued in the United States as much as the MLB, NHL, NBA... but endurance sports and events such as the Ironman Triathlon do have their fans. Without wanting to call out any specific example, I do feel comfortable that Jeff's accomplishments are, at least, on par with many of the other notable alumni currently cited on the page.

This was my first wiki edit, and I'm sort of proud of it. Hopefully, you recognize that this was a serious nomination with the full intent of making the Cherry Hill High School East entry and Wikipedia just a little more complete.

Can you elaborate or possibly reconsider? (I'm not really sure how this whole process works). I am curious of there is any Wikipedia editorial standard that you can share that governs these matters.

Thank you.

Nickecono (talk) 05:02, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

@Nickecono: The benchmark for being listed as a notable alumni is being notable enough to have an article written about them. Since there is no Jeffrey Devlin article, it was an easy call.
If there is significant coverage of Devlin in independent reliable sources, then he may qualify for an article. Please review WP:GNG for the level of coverage needed to support an article. —C.Fred (talk) 13:27, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

C.Fred, that is very helpful. Thank you. Nickecono (talk) 17:50, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

United Daughters of the Confederacy monuments to the KKK

Contrary to your edit comment in reverting my edit, there was no discussion at all when this sentence https: [6] was silently added to the UDC article six months ago. There had been earlier discussions about whether the UDC was a Neo-Confederate organization promoting white supremacy, but no discussion at all about whether it had erected monuments to the KKK until "recent decades". Tbobbed (talk) 23:15, 4 December 2020 (UTC)Tbobbed (talk)

Arab Fashion Council

Dear C.Fred thank you for your contribution and for protecting the Arab Fashion Council and Jacob Abrian page from the consistent edits by GoLucky2020. I would like to request a review for your last edit on that page because it seems that there is confusion with the entity mentioned in the Gazette. The Arab Fashion Council's website (about section) mentions that it is registered in the UAE with a number 234932 while what appears on the Gazette is 09227268 which not related to this Wikipedia page. Furthermore, news on credible sources confirm that the Arab Fashion Council is based in UAE and is still active today; its most recent event was Arab Fashion Week on 21-24 October 2020. I am watching your page and no talkback message is necessary. Many thanks for your effort and contribution. Robschnell (talk) 21:30, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

I didn't dig deeper than what was in the Gazette. If you've done further research that shows it's not the same AFC, then feel free to remove the passage. —C.Fred (talk) 18:19, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
Thank you C.Fred, will do so, I confirm performing deep research on AFC. Robschnell (talk) 19:09, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Colombia Reports page

Hi Fred,

Is there a way to address my concern, please?

I am Dutch and work in Colombia. I sincerely have no idea what center-left implies where you live, in the Netherlands it means Marxist and here it's enough to get expelled, which means losing all my belongings. I received two death threats already. I understand things get lost in translation and I do not wish to vandalize, but please comprehend that I cannot afford that my cultural or ethnical biases, the way my mom raised me, are interpreted as political, it makes no sense and isn't accurate. I know it's not meant like that, but it poses a threat to my security.

If there is no way to prevent me from being labeled with some political affiliation I have nothing to do with, please remove the Colombia reports page from Wikipedia for the sake of my personal safety. It's full of inaccuracies anyway.

Thank you very much and my apologies for the nuisance, Adriaan Adriaanalsema (talk) 01:09, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

@Adriaanalsema: If you're going to claim that Colombia Reports advocates what you say it does, you must back it up with an independent reliable source. —C.Fred (talk) 01:11, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
@C.Fred: Hi Fred, thanks for the quick response. I flagged the thing un purpose, because I needed someone to look at this and knew no other way. Colombia Reports keeps being politicized and stigmatized, not just on Wikipedia. "Fanny" in American English means bottom. In British English it means vagina. I don't even what "center-left" implies there. I'm a journalist, I haven't voted in 25 years, why would I care about any editorial line? I've been in journalism for 23 years and it has never occurred to me to put a political label on a news website, the whole idea makes no sense to me. Confusing my cultural heritage with politics is not factual but some guy's personal interpretation that in my case is compromising my safety. Understand, please, I'm an investigative journalist in Colombia. My colleague was murdered. I received two death threats. Please comprehend that whatever is fashion among zealots over there is interpreted differently over here. I don't care there is a Wikipedia page about my website, but surely it's not supposed to compromise my security. If you want to take it down, please be my guest, if not, I don't care. But please don't allow people to compromise my security, I'm vulnerably and not exactly in Alaska.

Big hug, Adriaanalsema (talk) 01:56, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

@C.Fred: Hi Fred, I'm sharing my passport with you, so you can verify my identity. No need to block me, I have never resorted to vandalism and would never, but I needed a senior editor to consider my concern as we're dealing with a recurring thing. All I ask is that my personal safety be guaranteed by preventing my work is being politicized while I work in a country where my colleagues and I are under constant attack. Let me know when you've seen the pp, please, so I can take down the link. [REDACTED--obviously: Drmies]

EDIT: I'm confused why you believe other edits would constitute vandalism. I'm a journalist, for crying out loud. The few times I made edits, I did so because I have evidence that merit them. I've been reporting on Colombia for almost 13 years, I know a lot about the subject by now.

Big hug, Adriaanalsema (talk) 15:12, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Spider-Man (2017)

Hello, on the Spider-Man (2017 TV series) page, NoobMaster and some incognito users (which I'm sure is also NoobMaster) won't stop putting that only the third season of the Guardians of the Galaxy TV series is set in the Spider-Man's series universe, even though it was confirmed that all three seasons of GotG is set there. They keep removing the source of where that was confirmed. Can you please do something? Aaa11769 (talk) 06:39, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

I want to show you the sources, here is Cort Lane's 2015 interview [1] And here is Cort Lane's 2019 interview [2] Aaa11769 (talk) 06:57, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ [1]
  2. ^ [2]

NoobMaster01 removed the disputed section. Aaa11769 (talk) 00:52, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Also can you restore this in the continuity section? It includes both sources.

This series takes place in the same universe as Guardians of the Galaxy, which initially seemed to have been set in the same universe as Ultimate Spider-Man[1], however, executive producer Cort Lane later stated while discussing the third season of Marvel's Spider-Man, "The most epic conflict in the history of Marvel Animation. We planted the seeds in two seasons of Marvel's Spider-Man and three seasons of Marvel's Guardians of the Galaxy, but you don't need to have watched them to be blown away by this colossal confrontation."[2] Avengers Assemble's fifth season, Black Panther's Quest, is also set in this universe, due to the fact that this series' version of Spider-Man appeared in that season, while his counterpart from Ultimate Spider-Man appeared in the previous seasons of the series. Aaa11769 (talk) 00:58, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "2015 Cort Lane interview". USA Today.
  2. ^ Cort Lane interview with CBR

The International Ecotourism Society edits

Hello C.Fred,

I am confused why you say the material is copyright material. The article as is stands was put in place in 2020 after years of a real article, well researched and verified. This one appeared in 2020 and is just designed to be defamatory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert James Logan (talk • contribs) 03:52, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

@Robert James Logan: As I noted on another user's talk page, the text you added was copied wholesale from https://ecotourism.org/ties-overview/ in violation of their all-rights-reserved license on the material. —C.Fred (talk) 03:54, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
@C.Fred: Agree whitewashing isn't the answer, but this article is up while I try to put together the original that was overwritten by user Roi. Can we revert to the original that was there for years? Many users contributed to it.
@Robert James Logan: There is no obvious clean version; I can't find where another version stood for a long period of time before any recent major changes. —C.Fred (talk) 03:58, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
@C.Fred: There is the 2013 version, which was added to for 7 years. It is a shorter version of the original, but I cannot find anything older. Robert James Logan (talk
@C.Fred: Those quotes you took out were directly from the NY Times. Volunteers are trying to rebuild the article, and that is a very very credible source. What is the basis of your removal? Thanks. Robert James Logan (talk
@C.Fred: The article was edited for clarity by another user. Thanks. Robert James Logan (talk
@Robert James Logan: Times articles are reliable sources; Times op-ed pieces are not. —C.Fred (talk) 18:17, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
@C.Fred: The second NY Times article quoted was not an op-ed piece at all, I'm very confused as to why you say it is. It is an information article on sustainable travel that demonstrates that the NY Times used The International Ecotourism Society's definition and information. Further, the negative article quoted in a small local newspaper actually identifies itself as a user letter, clearly an opinion. In addition to this, an "article" quoted by Roi Ariel in his attack no longer comes up, and eturbonews is simply a paid press release service, further asianecotourism.org is a competitor site. Therefore we have an non-article, a paid press release, an op-ed quoted against TIES, and a competitor site, but you have disallowed an information article by the NY Times. Robert James Logan (talk 18:23, 7 December 2020‎ (UTC)
@C.Fred: Hello - you mention a letter to editor, yet that is what user Roi (Roi Ariel of competing organization GSTC) is using, a letter to the editor. We have never used a letter to the editor. We are unable to add legitimate references due to attacks by him, which then revert back to removing ALL articles [User:Robert James Logan|Robert James Logan]] (talk
@Robert James Logan: Please see this edit, where you add this letter to the editor as a source. —C.Fred (talk) 18:33, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
I have rolled back to a version from two days ago, hopefully before the COI editor made their changes. —C.Fred (talk) 18:40, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
@C.Fred: Thanks I'll take a look Robert James Logan (talk
@Robert James Logan: Also, please fix your signature so it has a time stamp at the end. —C.Fred (talk) 18:54, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

How to deal with repeated copyvio

Since we're both involved in the discussion about Holocaust Genocide and Human Rights Initiative, I'd like to ask an honest question: I've recently been granted the new page review right and I'm trying to figure out how to deal with situations like these. Now, the creator of the article, Mks558877, has a history adding copyvio material to a set of articles. They have been cautioned for this but don't seem to want to learn. I'm wondering what I should do next: is it already appropriate to ask for an article or topic ban at ANI or is another warning enough at this stage. Thank you for the advice. Modussiccandi (talk) 21:48, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

@Modussiccandi: This is the time when I think about leaving a hand-written (i.e., non-templated) message stating that I have concerns about their edits and copyright infringement, and that if they continue, they will likely get reported to the administrators for further action. —C.Fred (talk) 21:51, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Commander-in-Chief's_Trophy

I responded to your comment there Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 18:21, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Continuous disruptive editing

Hi. I just wanted to let you know that Noname JR is now adding baseless OR (that contradicts sourced content) to another article and removing the source (under the pretense that it's no longer available). M.Bitton (talk) 21:08, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

I have reverted their revert of your edit, but I have a feeling that they won't stop until they are made to stop. M.Bitton (talk) 21:22, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
@M.Bitton: I feel like there's a language barrier, but I'm worried that this will end up at ANI with WP:CIR mentioned. —C.Fred (talk) 21:38, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
I thought about the language barrier, but they wasted so much of time, they literally exhausted my good faith stock. It's already at ANI. M.Bitton (talk) 21:43, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Regarding RoboDebt Please do not provide incorrect, misleading or false information. Examples include your references to 2011 The version you published is incorrect. I have fully references my changes. Your continual posting of incorrect information suggests your familiarity with the topic is not sufficient to be a contributor on this page. My familiarity with the topic is extensive and your version is very misleading and includes factual inaccuracies I have read all of your content prior to making changes, I suspect you have not done the same To write what you have written is offensive to the victims of Robodebt, particular those families who have had family members committ suicide. This is not a topic that shuold contained the misleading information you have provided. I have you nicely, please do not put your misleading information up again. I also not that a small error has appear when I put my version back in, I will be fixing that shortly — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nothereorthere (talk • contribs) 00:39, 18 December 2020 (UTC)


I note your response "our continual posting of incorrect information suggests your familiarity with the topic is not sufficient to be a contributor on this page" I am not posting incorrect information. I have fully refeenced my sources. Additional I have included refernces to the "LAW" that show the inception was not in 2011 by Gillard etc. Your commentary on this matter is offensive to the people who have been the victijm of this system. I expect you are not familiar enough with this topicm as to put such incorrect information would only be possible if you have been poorly informed.

I ask again do not overide my changes. And be respectful to those who have lost loved one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nothereorthere (talk • contribs) 00:43, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Blocked editor back to add the disputed content

Hi. Sorry to bother you again, but Special:Contributions/Noname_JR is adding the disputed/unsourced content after their block expired. I don't what else to say to them. Your help in this matter is greatly appreciated. regard. M.Bitton (talk) 01:10, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

@M.Bitton: Looks like another admin has given them a site block for one week. —C.Fred (talk) 03:22, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
Indeed. Sadly, they're still insisting that the random road signs are a reliable source. M.Bitton (talk) 23:01, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

ROBODEBT

Hi C.Fred , I trust this is the correct way to engage with you, if not can you please let me know the appropriate way.

I am writing to let you know that you have included false and misleading information on the RoboDebt Scheme page.

The article you reference regarding Julia Gillard is incorrect, I will be replacing that reference with the truth, I will also replace it with Government documentation and not the newspaper clipping that is both factually incorrect and misleading

I will be making other alterations, however I will wait to give you time to respond.

As you will have seen with my previous contributions, which used extensive references and citations, my expertise in this topic is vast. I have extensive first hand knowledge stemming from my involvement with the Victims of RoboDebt, through to reviewing the entire evolution of of social security in Australia, from the 1947 referendum through to the introduction of the first computerisation of centerlinks debt tracking in 1984 and the evolution of data matching stemming from the 1990 Data Matching legislation.

FI would also want to make it 100% clear, the errors you have included are deeply upsetting and offensive to people who have been the victim of RoboDebt, including people who have lost family members to suicide, these people have written their stories down to have them read in parliament.

I look forward to your response and receiving your endorsement to correct the false and misleading content that is within the page now.

Nothereorthere (talk) 01:13, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

@Nothereorthere: I would advise against replacing a newspaper story with a Government document. Wikipedia prefers secondary sources over primary sources. For this reason, a news story about an event is better than government documentation.
Based on your claim about first-hand knowledge, it appears that you have a conflict of interest and are unable to edit this article while maintaining neutral point of view. I strongly advise that you do not attempt to edit the article directly. Instead, request edits via the talk page and let independent, unbiased editors make the changes. —C.Fred (talk) 01:16, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi C.Fred

1/ Re: Primary Source & NewsPaper-I note that the wikipeda makes a statement saying the opposite. ( Here is my reference https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_and_using_primary_sources) Can you please provide a reference that supports your statment. 2/ Re: Primary Source & NewsPaper- I assume, unless you are abl;e to provide a reference otherwise, that Wikipedia does not support the posting of information which is known to be a lie 3/ Re: Neutral- The changes I am making are factual and I would suggest leaving incorrect information that misleads people and perpetuates a lie is unwise. 4/ Re: Neutral- This is not a statement that is valid, nor is it wise. The entire premise of wikipedia is to crowd source the truth. If I, or anyone has knowledge to correct information then wikipedia is better for this. As it stands your changes includes lies that are clearly biased in nature. The article and its statements are false. To make any suggestion that would leave them there must surely be against the objectives of Wikiipedia Nothereorthere (talk) 01:26, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

@Nothereorthere: The premise of Wikipedia is not to crowd source the truth. It is to collaboratively create an encyclopedia. WP is not the place to publish original research or right great wrongs. —C.Fred (talk) 01:32, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi C.Fred

Re: Wrongs: The only wrong I am seeking to right is the lies and misinformation posted on the RoboDebt page. 1/ Question: Do you agree that posting lies on wikipedia is unnaceptable? 2/ May I ask what your interest is with RoboDebt, as I have explained mine. I have provided you with statements showing that the information contained is incorrect. You appear to be strongly attached to maintaining the lies posted. What is your attachment to RoboDebt?

Re: Crowd Sourcing 3/ I disagree, For example a closed sourcing model of the encyclopedia Britannica would be the opposite of Wikipedia's open contribution model Nothereorthere (talk) 01:47, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

@Nothereorthere: Wikipedia should contain accurate information. It should also be written in an unbiased fashion. Your edits have introduced unacceptable bias.
I have no connection with Robodebt. My interest in this article is as an administrator who sees abusive edits being made by an editor with a now-declared conflict of interest. —C.Fred (talk) 01:50, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi C.Fred


This is the definition from the page you sent me An "interest" is a commitment, obligation, duty or goal associated with a particular social role or practice. I have no commitment, no obligation, no duty or goal associated with RoboDebt.

As I said I undertake volunteer work, for which I have no commitment or otherwise.

To suggest otherwise would mean a football coach in under 14s football would be unable to write about football or sport or healthy sport programs.

Or if I was to volunteer fixed computer problems in elderly peoples houses, then they would be deemed to be unable to write about the elderly, computers, or even volunteering in general.

To be clear, I am not or ever have been a member of any political party or lobby group etc.

If I may, I would like to repeat some of my questions as I am not sure what your answer was. I have also added more 'direct' questions as I am keen to understand why the person posting lies is being supported.
1/ Question: Do you agree that posting lies on wikipedia is unacceptable?

2/ Question: Why are you or wikipedia discouraging the removal of false information

3/ Question: Why are you saying a secondary source is better than a primary source

4/ Question: How are you interpreting the description of a "Conflict of Interest" when the definition you provided states " An 'interest' is a commitment, obligation, duty or goal associated with a particular social role or practice"

5/ Question: Why are you not considering the lies about what Julia Gillards (government) to be unacceptable. Julia is a living person, how is posting lies about a living person not a breach of the Biography of living person rule. This lie has been posted for considerable time and continues to be reposted. All of that content is biased as well as being misleading.

6/ Question: Why are you allowing the lies and misleading statements to keep being posted Examples include: the 'formal announcement', the 'two staged' rollout, the 'public announcement' (I have further examples, but in the interests of time I will stop here

7/ Question: Why are you allowing the omission of the Auditor Generals report. This was a pivotal moment in RoboDebt and it keeps being removed.

Thanks

Nothereorthere (talk) 02:18, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Question

Hi C.Fred.

Apologies for any miscommunications. I am new to wiki editing and I do not want any conflict. :)

All that is asked is that the part about "The Hollywood Reporter said that while he was flat in the first of the two episodes, his performance was rescued in the second" be taken out. Although The Hollywood Reporter wrote it, Mr. Deferrari would like it removed since it doesn't really reflect what he would want written about him on Wikipedia. That is all. If this message isn't sufficient, how should we proceed? All the best. Hysenwins 82 (talk) 03:07, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

@Hysenwins 82: The Hollywood Reporter is a well-known publication and their opinions are suitable for inclusion. If you want to balance the article with a positive review, you can suggest one for inclusion; however, we do not remove negative information just because the subject doesn't like it. —C.Fred (talk) 03:11, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

But none of this was authorized by the subject. Why would you amplify something subjective and negative about them?Hysenwins 82 (talk) 03:44, 21 December 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hysenwins 82 (talk • contribs) 03:41, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

@Hysenwins 82: Because WP:NPOV says to report all information about the subject, positive or negative. It would be a violation of NPOV to only include positive reviews. —C.Fred (talk) 03:46, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

The subject did not authorize WP or any of its administrators or editors to write about him, good or bad. Please take down the page. Hysenwins 82 (talk) 03:59, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

@Hysenwins 82: We do not take down articles at the request of the subject. However, you may have a point that Deferrari's roles have all been so minor that he is not a significant or important person, so the article should be deleted per WP:CSD#A7. Would you like me to do that? —C.Fred (talk) 04:01, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

CFP

Hello, the CFP table that I had updated, is by Conference, so to me, the 2nd column should represent the number of appearances by the conference. However, if I am outvoted, I would suggest that you change thhe column header to be 'Team Appearances', for more clarity. Paulmec (talk) 20:42, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

I added the note to explain the situation. If you think it's better flipped the other way, I can flip the note. —C.Fred (talk) 22:00, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Amy Lee "vocal range"

Hi C.Fred. Where exactly did you get your reliable source that Amy Lee is a mezzo-soprano? Because I'm pretty sure there is none. If you are relying on your ears for that assessment, what is your music education/experience background? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Giannis Targontsidis (talk • contribs) 05:04, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

In the video source that you cited Amy Lee herself literally says that her vocal coach in college told her she is a soprano. At 12:26 she says her vocal coach told her she is a "lazy soprano". Lazy soprano/tenor means a high voiced singer who is under the false impression that they have a lower voice.

By the way, you shouldn't even require the video "evidence", you have to be actually clueless to think that Amy Lee's voice is anything lower than Lyric Soprano. Her songs literally sit in the stratosphere and her tone and range scream "soprano". Just ask any competent voice teacher or vocal coach (especially classically trained ones). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Giannis Targontsidis (talk • contribs) 05:36, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

You also need to edit out source 1 and 2 (I don't know how to do it) and use source 93 for Amy's voice type on your first paragraph. The magazine review pages are NOT sources LMAO. Are any of the people certified vocal coaches? Amy herself said her COLLEGE teacher said soprano, so that should be considered the most reliable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Giannis Targontsidis (talk • contribs) 07:47, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

@Giannis Targontsidis: When two reputable music publications—Billboard and Rolling Stone—describe her as a mezzo-soprano, that's what we use to describe her range. I'm not sure what video you're referring to. —C.Fred (talk) 13:54, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

User:C.Fred the "reputable music publications" are not certified vocal instructors, they are just regurgitating the info they read on Wikipedia and they certainly don't trump Amy Lee's statement or her college vocal coach. I'm talking about source 93 at 12:26. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Giannis Targontsidis (talk • contribs) 15:07, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

@Giannis Targontsidis: Nonetheless, they are secondary sources, as opposed to the primary sources. And to be clear, is Lee's vocal coach interviewed? —C.Fred (talk) 16:49, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

C.Fred Why does he need to be interviewed?? Amy Lee herself said so (it's literally in one of your own sources, number 93). Why are you opposing this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Giannis Targontsidis (talk • contribs) 23:10, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

@Giannis Targontsidis: Let's review. We can go with two journalistic publications, or we can go with the subject claiming what her coach said. WP:RS clearly says go with the former. —C.Fred (talk) 17:52, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Please restore

Please restore Draft:Scarlet Sofia Spencer. Thanks --154.158.130.94 (talk) 23:12, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello- what is wrong with the link to the new Star video?

thanks,

andy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Massiverobot (talk • contribs) 23:07, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

01001001110101001 (talk) 23:14, 3 January 2021 (UTC)


Are you just rolling around the entire 'pedia reverting things? Any reason why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Massiverobot (talk • contribs) 23:15, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

@Massiverobot: Yes. I monitor recent changes. Reverted an anti-spam bot is a red flag. I've taken a look at the video, and it seems to be useful, so I've restored it. Please see your talk page for my concerns about your username. —C.Fred (talk) 23:22, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Ok thanks- is having this username really going to be a PITA for me? I can't help that 'bot' is inside the word 'robot' :)

01001001110101001 (talk) 23:23, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

@Massiverobot: Potentially. I won't be the only user to draw the same conclusion. —C.Fred (talk) 23:26, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

ok, there was another hit about my name with the same exact wording as yours. I'll create another account, now I hope that won't set off anti-spam-bots that now I'll have a fresh, newly created account making edits.... :(

And, clearly now - what actual bot creator would name their account xxxx-bot ? Wouldn't it be quite easy for malicious bots to never name themselves in a word that ends in bot?

But thanks for the advice.

01001001110101001 (talk) 23:32, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

@Massiverobot: There are a fair number of authorized bots; the "bot" suffix on a username is reserved for them. —C.Fred (talk) 23:52, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:C.Fred/Archive_27&oldid=1044471974"