Jump to content

User talk:C.Fred/Archive 32

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 25←Archive 30Archive 31Archive 32

Happy New Year, C.Fred!

Happy New Year!

C.Fred,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Abishe (talk) 14:55, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

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

Abishe (talk) 14:55, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Mike Johnson ( American Politician)

A tag has been placed on Mike Johnson ( American Politician) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section R3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a recently created redirect from an implausible typo or misnomer, or other unlikely search term.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 17:12, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

There's that space between ( and American. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 17:14, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
@MJL Yep, I left it as a breadcrumb so the person who moved it would see it. No objection to it being cleaned up. —C.Fred (talk) 18:22, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Erik Paaske

Hi there - I admit I am new to this so thank you for any help you can provde. Why is it now allowed to link directly to primary sources, in this case a church book entry? Trouble at the mill (talk) 18:50, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

@Trouble at the mill First, it's a primary source, which is to be avoided except in very limited circumstances. Second, all it does is indicate a person by that name was born that date in that location; there is nothing to link that record to the subject of the article. —C.Fred (talk) 18:56, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
Understood, thanks. That being said, as we are dealing with unique names for both subject and parents I would argue that this is indisputable the original church book entry from the Kolding church that recorded the birth of E. Paaske. Trouble at the mill (talk) 19:04, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – January 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2023).

Administrator changes

added Clovermoss
readded Dennis Brown
removed

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:54, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

User talk:2600:8804:51B:8500:6A05:CAFF:FEE6:3DB4

The ip's talk page needs to be revoked. Untamed1910 (talk) 04:50, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

@Untamed1910 If they keep up, they'll lose TPA before too long. —C.Fred (talk) 04:52, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

There was no reason for removing that portrait I changed.

As I perfectly described it is a clearer and more high quality image so the face of the person talked about in the article is more easily discerned. What is the reason for instantly reverting my edit? 2A02:587:5468:2800:29E8:BD2A:59CE:FB12 (talk) 02:06, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

As I noted in the edit summary, there is no clear evidence that the image is under a free license. That's why the image is also up for deletion. —C.Fred (talk) 02:07, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
It's the official portrait of a prime minister used for half a decade in the entire country. How can it not be under free license? 2A02:587:5468:2800:29E8:BD2A:59CE:FB12 (talk) 02:08, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
The Creative Commons license did not exist in 1973, which is the latest possible date for the official portrait to have been taken, yet that's the license it's claimed to be under. That claim is thus patently false. —C.Fred (talk) 02:11, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
For the polite and quick handling of a new editor's initially unclear edit request at Talk:Timeline of Philippine history‎. CMD (talk) 02:31, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Alaqua Cox

MOS:ETHNICITY Explicitly says that Native American is not an ethnicity and is allowed to go in the lead. Please stop removing it from the lead of Alaqua Cox. She was born and raised on a reservation and is a member of the Menominee nation. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 04:18, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Edit Josh Cahill

None of the provided sources mentions any of the included name. How come the edit isn't accepted? It's not fair to brand it as edit warring.

https://archive.is/WKioM - only mentions Josh Cahill. 2402:D000:8100:A97A:FD03:A31D:4128:1CC8 (talk) 03:49, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

It absolutely is. This is the same issue that led to the page being protected before. —C.Fred (talk) 04:08, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2024).

CheckUser changes

removed Wugapodes

Interface administrator changes

removed

Guideline and policy news

  • An RfC about increasing the inactivity requirement for Interface administrators is open for feedback.

Technical news

  • Pages that use the JSON contentmodel will now use tabs instead of spaces for auto-indentation. This will significantly reduce the page size. (T326065)

Arbitration

  • Following a motion, the Arbitration Committee adopted a new enforcement restriction on January 4, 2024, wherein the Committee may apply the 'Reliable source consensus-required restriction' to specified topic areas.
  • Community feedback is requested for a draft to replace the "Information for administrators processing requests" section at WP:AE.

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:01, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi C.Fred. Would you be willing to take a look at User:AAPS Attorney? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:12, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Also see User talk:Jjjerry14, probably the same person. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 04:54, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Question about a deleted page

What were you seeing at Draft:Md Mehedi Hasan Prince that I wasn't? To me it looked like someone was trying to draft an article which is what draftspace is for. I didn't really see how it fitted within the realm of G11. The only two red flags that stood out to me were a previously deleted version of the page and how it looked like they were working off of some guide on how to create an article (which could have some good faith reason behind it). So I was just wondering if you could elaborate on your reasoning so I could understand when approaching similar situations myself? Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 13:07, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

@Clovermoss Looking at their username and the title of the draft, it was clear they were trying to write an autobiography. There was no claim of significance, just their website address, so it was pretty clear they were mainly interested in using Wikipedia to promote themselves. —C.Fred (talk) 13:09, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
Oh, I missed the username. That explains it. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 13:09, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

BLP noticeboard concern re: Trivium ex-band member

Hello, could you remove my username from the top of that topic?

Kinda feels weird because it makes it sound like I am an alt of galamity, and that's kinda making me feel uncomfortable.

I feel I made the edits that I did in good faith, supported by what I felt were valid citations. I've undone the edits I made on the various pages (including a couple that I self-reverted) and I won't engage in any edit-war. Joe Capricorn (talk) 19:56, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

@Joe Capricorn If you've been added to the report, it's because there's a good-faith concern that you are a party to the situation, especially in light of your low edit count. —C.Fred (talk) 04:44, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
I can see how the concern could be brought, since I am not terribly active on Wikipedia, but I am not a party per se, but galamity did message folks on the Metal-Archives discord and I figured I'd look into it. No intention of causing trouble! Joe Capricorn (talk) 05:47, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
@Joe Capricorn …but galamity did message folks on the Metal-Archives discord… Quoting from WP:MEATPUPPET: Some individuals may promote their causes by bringing like-minded editors into the dispute, including enlisting assistance off-wiki. These editors are sometimes referred to as meatpuppets… —C.Fred (talk) 11:51, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
I see. I guess I interpreted the term "meat puppet" to mean a literal alt, not a separate individual taking a user's side.
I did involve myself on my own volition though, and I did tell galamity that edit warring isn't likely to produce a desirable outcome. Joe Capricorn (talk) 15:04, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

What makes you think that

Fangraphs is not an RS? And - for that matter -- that all blogs without exception are not RSs? 2603:7000:2101:AA00:5837:9D9C:6FE8:2843 (talk) 01:55, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

WP:RSOPINION and WP:USERG both cover why blogs are not reliable. —C.Fred (talk) 01:57, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
Not only are newsblogs potential RSs, but sources may be considered reliable when work in the relevant field by the source has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. Are you suggesting that Fangraphs is not an RS? If so, there are loads of entries that should be deleted at the project. --2603:7000:2101:AA00:5837:9D9C:6FE8:2843 (talk) 02:00, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
I am suggesting that the burden is on you to demonstrate that Fangraphs is a reliable source. —C.Fred (talk) 02:01, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
And why in the world are your restoring a non-opinion. Asserting as your basis WP:RSOPINION? I don't get it?
And you assert that Fangraphs is not an RS. Have you even explored that that is the case? Looked at whether it meets our RS criteria? Notice that it is in the wp template for every single major league baseball player on wikipedia? Are we wasting time here?

It's in 9,655 Wikipedia articles. Is this a joke? --2603:7000:2101:AA00:5837:9D9C:6FE8:2843 (talk) 02:06, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

I've not found anything yet that says it is a reliable source, although it is a valid external link to include in articles, particularly for players. —C.Fred (talk) 02:14, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
This is in an article for a player! And we only include in that template what the community finds to be RSs.
And this is the writer -- https://www.si.com/mlb/astros/author/leo-morgenstern
A writer for Inside the Astros and Inside the Phillies on Sports Illustrated. His work has also appeared on Pitcher List, Baseball Prospectus, and SB Nation.
And you can read all about Fangraphs at their site and see it meets wp requirements.
And you can read at wp's rules how with a writer like this it's PERFECTLY APPROPRIATE to site him. He's cleary a writer in all manner of RSs on this subject.
This is a waste of time caused by failure to do mere seconds of checking before reverting. That hurts the project. Assume good faith. 2603:7000:2101:AA00:5837:9D9C:6FE8:2843 (talk) 02:18, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
One, I don't see it in the template or suggested article. Two, not all external links are reliable sources. (Classic case in point: IMDB.) Three, I could not find the Fangraphs masthead to determine who wrote the article in question and, thus, whether it was a reliable source. —C.Fred (talk) 02:19, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
What don't you see? That template was formed our baseball experts after much discussion on the project's talk page, which you can find on wp. This isn't IMDB - just read its characteristics on its home page. Also, this is used both in the template and in all manner of articles. The article clearly states who wrote the article in question. I indicated it above. Don't you agree that sources may be considered reliable when work in the relevant field by the source has previously been published by reliable, independent publications? Are you questioning whether Sports Illustrated, for example, is an RS? 2603:7000:2101:AA00:5837:9D9C:6FE8:2843 (talk) 02:26, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
Sports Illustrated is a separate discussion outside the scope of this discussion, but as a general statement, historically SI is reliable. Again, you have failed to prevent evidence that Fangraphs is reliable and independent. Further, where is said template? If it's at WP:BASEBALL, it's not anywhere obvious. —C.Fred (talk) 02:28, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
Here's a nice discussion about an editor being blocked indefinitely for among other things arguing against consensus that Fangraphs is not an RS, and deleting it. JUst search for Fangraphs on the page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Community_sanction/Archive10
And SI is indeed within scope. Because ,, and I asked you if you disagree and you did not .. sources may be considered reliable when work in the relevant field by the source has previously been published by reliable, independent publications? 2603:7000:2101:AA00:5837:9D9C:6FE8:2843 (talk) 02:41, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
I need to search the archives to see if there has been a recent discussion on SI in light of the AI incidents. —C.Fred (talk) 12:24, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
And the community sanctions discussion does not address whether Fangraphs is a reliable source, only whether to include it as an external link. There is a difference. —C.Fred (talk) 12:25, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
Since there is no clarity on whether FanGraphs columns/blogs/articles are RS, I have escalated this to RSN, at WP:RSN#FanGraphs as a source, not just an external link. —C.Fred (talk) 12:42, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
Finally, regarding sources may be considered reliable when work in the relevant field by the source has previously been published by reliable, independent publications: The operative word is "may"; it does not imply reliability in all cases. For instance, work by TMZ is widely published by reliable, independent publications, but there is no consensus to deem TMZ itself as reliable. —C.Fred (talk) 12:46, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
I'm confused by your parsing of "may" in context. Of course we won't say "must" or "should" or "had better." Because use of any ref - if it is acceptable - is a matter of choice by the editor considering using the source. Here, may indicates that it is permitted. As in "is permitted to do the following." As in, "you may now withdraw your retirement funds." We can understand this from context. Anyway, as to RSN, if my ability to convince you is not effective, of course that sounds like a great idea. If you are undertain as to whether SI is a reliable source, you may (this is a case of "not permission," in this particular context) wish to post that there also. One last point. You speak of the use of the blog source - which you deleted - being about opinion, not facts. Have you checked? I am not sure that is correct. 2603:7000:2101:AA00:5837:9D9C:6FE8:2843 (talk) 17:17, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Dr. Coal

Hello. I hope this finds you well. There is a User from the Turkish Wiki you deleted due to vandalism back in 2021, Dr. Coal. He is back and accusing me of Sockpuppetry even though I am innocent. He is vandalizing pages I have made and took time to edit. I have no objections to a sockpuppet investigation opened on me, I have had two in the past and I have no problem whatsoever with a third, but the way he is handling it is extremely unprofessional. Kindly advice. Serrwinner (talk) 21:58, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi C.Fred!
I hope you're doing fine. I wanted to share some insights regarding the message above.
Firstly, as far as I'm concerned, sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry may not have found place here on en.wiki but I think keeping this in mind should be of help in the future. In this regard, IP check is not always useful since it's absolutely -and unfortunately- no big deal to get over, especially when it comes to meatpuppetry. The user already stated here: "A random guy sent me an email (which I have been receiving over the last year or so asking for help) asking me to help out and check out his page." There is no way to be certainly sure of it, but even this single statement makes suspicion of a puppetry "reasonable". So, this is not a thought I make up myself. By the way, it could mean more if I told you that the user created the "almost same article" (impossible to be coincidental) in Turkish on tr.wiki which other puppets also had and was first created on the 5th of February. Even an IP user told here that the person, subject of the article, asked for help to get the article created. Anyways, I wanted to explain this part so you wouldn't get a false impression about my acts.
The article in hand is Yasin Şöhret. You see, it was moved to draft and then came back to main page etc. Even Ldm1954 wrote here: "I think you have done a good job with the improvements, but others may not agree -- many are harsher than I am!" Tags regarding notability and sources build the context of this message. So, as someone who saw the article both in Turkish and in English, and whose native language is Turkish, I found the sources not satisfying since they were either primary or not "about" the subject, such as listing the subject's name or mentioning incidentally. This last correspondence between me and Serrwinner shows that they might not be able to understand Turkish since they were able to challenge their ban on tr.wiki which is written on their talk page on tr.wiki and apparently didn't know (understand) that. If that's the case, I think I have the right to ask, how they can be so sure that the subject is notable and sources prove it? Because they should be sure to remove the tags three times (1, 2, 3) without saying anything about the tags' (in)legitimacy? Far from doing this, they told repeatedly (1, 2: "STOP DELETING THESE you vandal", 3) what I did was vandalism. How could they call it vandalism if they have no idea about the content of the sources they added? They told "there are tons of secondary sources" and this is exactly what "refbomb" is about. Either way, I don't think it was appropriate to remove the tags without saying anything about it, especially regarding what Ldm1954 told them only 3 days ago.
Even though I deleted the article on tr.wiki, I just wanted to tag it here since our guidelines in this regard may somewhat differ, and it would be the best if the community here on en.wiki oversee it.
Please accept my sincere apologies for the headache I caused. I hope to get in touch in the future for nicer reasons.
Best,
Dr. CoalMessage 23:23, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
Unfortunately Dr. Coal has misrepresented my discussion with Serrwinner about Yasin Şöhret. I worked with Serrwinner to improve the article after I draftified it. I think he has done a reasonable job, and had the option to either go via WP:AfC or create himself so it goes through new page review. He chose the latter.
IMHO notability is not something that Dr. Coal should be questioning until others have reviewed his contributions and he has New Page reviewer rights or more. I think his various edits (which Serrwinner has been reverting) are inappropriate. Leave it to the New Page reviewer. Ldm1954 (talk) 23:43, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for explaining this, Ldm1954. I didn't know that such a user group exists and they would do it if necessary.
However, my edits in hand which were reverted cannot be described as "vandalism" and the essence of disagreement still stands. I'm at least glad that I might have drawn attention for further inspection.
Best,
Dr. CoalMessage 23:59, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
@Serrwinner Please clarify your statement that I deleted (sic) this user due to vandalism in 2021. What was their prior account, if they were blocked then? —C.Fred (talk) 01:00, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
Hi again,
It's just a misunderstanding. As I told Serrwinner here, you deleted my userpage in 2021.
Best,
Dr. CoalMessage 01:29, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
Ahhh. *checks archives* Yes. User:Dr. Coal was the target of a vandal's attack. I deleted the page to remove the grossly inappropriate attack from the history. @Serrwinner: I suppose I should consider the possibility that Dr. Coal is the target of an attack again, yes? —C.Fred (talk) 12:42, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
Dear C.Fred,
I'm truly sorry that I intervene this much, but there seems to be another misunderstanding now. Let me explain what it is all about by breaking it into small pieces. (Details already above.)
  1. I tried to tag the article "Yasin Şöhret" (See history) in terms of notability concerns.
  2. Serrwinner thought (and told) that it was vandalism. (Diff links above.)
  3. They came to my user / user talk page (obviously) and saw that you deleted my user page once.
  4. They completely misunderstood it and thought I was blocked by you because of vandalism.
  5. They wrote here so to imply that I was back and vandalising, which is completely inaccurate.
I hope I could be of help to figure things out.
Best,
Dr. CoalMessage 14:07, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
@Dr. Coal It looks like the AfD is proceeding based on the merits of the article's sources. —C.Fred (talk) 20:19, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
Indeed. Unfortunately that was not the case at the time of all this correspondence. My sincere apologies again...
Best,
Dr. CoalMessage 20:32, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Haplgroup F

Hi I just wanted to talk about haplgroup F. Someone edited it recently just to remove text and changed the orgins of haplgroup F to west Asia with older sources. purposly targeting to remove South Asia from the text https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Haplogroup_F-M89&diff=prev&oldid=1199832154&title=Haplogroup_F-M89&diffonly=1 also originally you see it says South Asia orgins. With sources https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Haplogroup_F-M89&diff=prev&oldid=1156823998&title=Haplogroup_F-M89&diffonly=1

these are nationalist from iran purposly not wanting to expose to the world that haplgroup F orgins being in South Asia.

as you can see in this edit sources that mention South Asia where removed which you reverted https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Haplogroup_F-M89&diff=prev&oldid=1107888044&title=Haplogroup_F-M89&diffonly=1

Here you can see recently they edited by another user into west Asia to remove South Asia on purpose using older sources. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Haplogroup_F-M89&diff=prev&oldid=1199832344&title=Haplogroup_F-M89&diffonly=1 Zishan12345 (talk) Zishan12345 (talk) 08:36, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2024).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • The mobile site history pages now use the same HTML as the desktop history pages. (T353388)

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:21, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Is it okay if you check my work on 2,000 zlotych note?

I just published the page 2,000 złotych note, and I want you to check it. PolskiSlaskiegokowa! (talk) 15:13, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for expanding my ancestors Wikipedia page

Thank you for expanding the Wikipedia page of Samuel Jordan. My Family respects the work you guys put in to help it.- The Jordan's 2601:244:8300:48C0:9C7D:8148:6B3E:740F (talk) 04:57, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

I apologize

Dear C.Fred, I'm deeply sorry for engaging in an edit war. I am just deeply passionate about following the rules and I got carried away (plus I'm still pretty new here). I will never do it again. Autisticeditor 20 (talk) 22:32, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

I apoligize for the copyright issue at the 2,000 złotych files, and forgot to ask permission. I want to reupload those files and TRY to follow the copyright rules. I am right now in the process of making a 5,000 złotych note draft.


Thank you.

Sincerely and apologetically, PolskiSlaskiegokowa! (aka in real life Marek Cholewicki.) PolskiSlaskiegokowa! (talk) 01:08, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

About BlueSpectre5

This new editor appears to have WP:COMPETENCY issues, in addition to the test edits at WP:RPPI, they insist that their articles are ready for mainspace when the articles clearly are not. Example: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Supercard_of_Honor_(2024)&diff=prev&oldid=1213838494   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 13:59, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Is it okay if you check my work on 5,000 złotych note draft?

Just finished Draft:5,000 złotych note. Can you check it? PolskiSlaskiegokowa! (talk) 11:29, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Edit summary

Hello C.Fred, can you hide this revision edit summary? Thanks. Wooze (talk) 02:47, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Tessa Violet's DOB

Hi @C.Fred, I saw that you reverted the changes to that I made in regards to Tessa Violet's date of birth. You claimed that the cited source that uses for the information wasn't a reliable source. To the best of my knowledge, It should follow all the relevant guidelines and I got the approval of @Toddst1 to use the source (see User talk:Toddst1). I would prefer not to continue to have an editing battle with Wikipedia admin over this, so can you explain why the source is "unreliable" in this instance? Madalyn the Rose (talk) 02:28, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

@Madalyn the Rose The source is user-generated content, since it derives from contributions by general editors. Such sources are generally unacceptable. —C.Fred (talk) 05:18, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
Thank you for your persistent anti-vandalism efforts and please keep up the good work! CanonNi (talk) 12:47, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
Thats a strange title to give someone like you. InsurgentOwl (talk) 02:11, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

I am a human being.

I am a new user.
I want to talk to a human being. InsurgentOwl (talk) 02:11, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
@InsurgentOwl What's your question? —C.Fred (talk) 02:12, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

About accepting a wikipage edit

Hello sir,

Myself Dharmarajsinh , we had talked yesterday if you remember. So as in our wikiproject, one of my colleague Jayesh gohel1111 have done editing of wikipage Breast Cancer , where in types of cancers he added some information about Krukenberg's Tumour and also a image related to it and also made proper citation and reference

But the edit is not normally seen now , it shows that it need to be accepted so only it would be further seen.Can you do something about it sir ? Rathod Dharmarajsinh (talk) 10:12, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

@Rathod Dharmarajsinh Taking a look at the Breast cancer article, the edits in question have, correctly, been reverted by another editor as being unrelated to the topic of breast cancer. Krukenberg tumors have their own article, as was noted in the edit summary of the revert. —C.Fred (talk) 13:05, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

List of substances used in rituals

I hope this message finds you well. I wanted to touch base regarding the recent changes made to List of substances used in rituals. I noticed that some of the work I had put in was reverted without prior discussion. I understand that we all have different perspectives and approaches, and I value collaboration and open communication in our team. In the future, I kindly request that we discuss any significant changes before implementing them to ensure alignment and avoid any unintentional setbacks. Clear communication is key to our success, and I believe that by working together and sharing our thoughts, we can achieve even better results. I appreciate your understanding and look forward to discussing this further with you. Thank you for your attention to this matter. --94.255.152.53 (talk) 03:16, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Kali Muscle revert

I went ahead and reverted your revert. No context has changed. Look at the diff before assuming/reverting things. – Brenr 05:22, March 31, 2024 (UTC) 05:22, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

@Brenr I did. The "known professionally as" clause makes clear that it's a stage name. Leading with the "Kali Muscle" name implies that it's a legal name. It's a subtle thing with biographies, but it makes a difference. —C.Fred (talk) 12:29, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
See Kanye West for an example. Also, you're reverting wikilinks and formatting that is not related to the reason of your revert. – Brenr 17:09, March 31, 2024 (UTC) 17:09, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
See another example, Lil Wayne. I also fixed the Person infobox, so please refrain from further edits. – Brenr 17:13, March 31, 2024 (UTC) 17:13, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
Thank you for saving Wikipedia by removing unnecessary discusions. PolskiSlaskiegokowa! (talk) 22:38, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2024).

Administrator changes

removed

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • The Toolforge Grid Engine services have been shut down after the final migration process from Grid Engine to Kubernetes. (T313405)

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • Editors are invited to sign up for The Core Contest, an initiative running from April 15 to May 31, which aims to improve vital and other core articles on Wikipedia.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:47, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Corey Rutgers Wikipedia page

Hi. I was asked by Corey Rutgers to create a proper profile page with the text that he provided me. One of the first things I had to do, was remove the auto-redirect to his Wikipage, as it transferred it directly to Belgian Cricket team page. Naturally, this is not helpful for Corey, as it basically by-passes his biog which I have now set up on his behalf. I have included a link to the Belgian Cricket team in his biog. Anglobreton (talk) 19:22, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

@Anglobreton Thank you for disclosing your conflict of interest. This is all the more reason you should not attempt to create a page. I'll follow up at your talk, but in short, since the community has already deemed him not notable, I'll be moving your draft to draft space. —C.Fred (talk) 20:11, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is COI and possible legal threats at Bennett S. LeBow (BLP). Thank you. Wracking talk! 04:54, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Good Humor
For bringing me some amusement here. Cheers! JeffSpaceman (talk) 23:29, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Sorry

His last words were not said by him, but by John I of Johnsburg instead, who also happened to be a Nazi. So, I confused the two. It will not happen again, thank you.

- TrueReveration TrueReveriation (talk) 01:24, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

John Paul (scientist)

Hi. Thank you for commenting on the speedy deleted article. I'm a beginner on Wikipedia. I spent months writing an article then hours editing the article in response to comments made by Wikipedia editors. It was about a scientist who worked in Scotland and was deceased at the end of last century. I still am not sure how it breaches copyright violations but certainly no-one stands to gain in any way, publicity or otherwise from the article. I would prefer not to have to rework the entire article. Is there not an old copy of it on Wikipedia somewhere? Gcwcd (talk) 16:38, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

P.S. Thanks for being available to talk. I doesn't seem possible to talk to the person who speedy deleted it. Gcwcd (talk) 16:40, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
@Gcwcd As I noted, the old copy was speedy deleted because of copyright concerns. It is still in the system archive and accessible by administrators. You can ask at WP:Requests for undeletion if somebody is willing to mail you a copy of the text. I don't email old text myself. —C.Fred (talk) 17:14, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Hi C. Fred. Thank you very much for sending on this WP:Request for undeletion link. As a beginner this was quite a shock. I will make a request that someone can email a copy of the text. This is good news that I can request this. Gcwcd (talk) 17:22, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi C.Fred, the disruption has moved to Russ Cook and Project Africa. mostly by an IP who is adding their own commentary to the articles (ex. [1] and [2]). Can you please watchlist them and keep an eye out? S0091 (talk) 17:34, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

@S0091 The Cook article had made my radar; Project Africa is on it now. —C.Fred (talk) 02:14, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Deletion of an addition to Franklyn Harvey's Wikipedia page on 24 February 2024

I was surprised as the de-facto executor of Franklyn Harvey's estate to discover the other day that you have deleted my catalogue of contributions Franklyn made under the Publications heading of his page without notifying me. You seem to have implied that they were not sourced. Yet you have not removed two of the three publications above my addition which do not have links and therefore presumably "not sourced". I have copies of all of these referred works/contracts and many of them are already stored in the archives of Concordia University in Montreal. They are not digitized and not online and I don't believe the organizations he worked with would necessarily want their internal documents made public. The list is an effort to demonstrate the broad impact Franklyn had on a wide range of NGOs and was taken from a copy of his resume that he distributed while working as a consultant. I have added the list again and would ask that if you are going to delete them you at least advise me of your action and suggest why you are taking such action. Bthomson (talk) 16:33, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

@Bthomson Wikipedia is not a CV. We do not need a catalogue of community consulting projects that Harvey undertook. Further, if the projects were not written about in independent sources, they may not be significantly notable to be included. Finally, thank you for declaring your conflict of interest with Harvey; based on that, you should refrain from directly editing the article. —C.Fred (talk) 19:32, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
So as the holder of Franklyn's library and historical work I am not eligible to make his contributions to world development public? Bthomson (talk) 20:33, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
Certainly not. That is not the purpose of Wikipedia. We aspire to be a compilation of published information from impartial reliable sources unrelated to the subject of the article. (That is not "Franklyn Harvey's Wikipedia page" but rather an article in Wikipedia, an online encyclopedia, about Franklyn Harvey.) "an effort to demonstrate the broad impact Franklyn had on a wide range of NGOs" is pretty much a taxtbook example of the kind of promotion which has no place here, no matter how admirable you deem his contributions to have been.--Orange Mike | Talk 20:55, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Gurdeep Singh Deepa

Hi Can you explain the reason for restoring this source here . It looks lika a Self published book, which failed to verify the information provided. Regards Sid95Q (talk) 10:27, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

@Sid95Q The appearance was the article was undergoing death by 1,000 paper cuts. Had your explanation of a self-published source been in an edit summary, I'd have left your edit intact; without that context, it looked like part of the pattern of what was going on last night. As a result of your explanation, I have re-removed the source. —C.Fred (talk) 10:53, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Request action

An editor you recently warned (Wicorbottt) posted material that contained personal information about me. It's been oversighted (love those guys) but I'd appreciate some sort of action being taken. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:36, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Reversion of Utah Historical State Flag Image

Regarding the question of the ratio of 5:8 vs. 3:5, the long-standing dimensions of the Historical State Flag are 5:8. The new 'Beehive Flag', which is now the primary State Flag is a 3:5 ratio. The UT State Code does not specify this, but these are the actual ratios used which are commercially produced. The previous versions of this page never cited the ratio.

Please revert your edit.

Respectfully, Trace Trace.estes (talk) 21:47, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

April 28, 2024

I would recommend that you thoroughly check the original "sources" on the List of Kenan & Kel episodes page. My edits were made with completely good intentions and good faith, as literally every source online about the show cites the airdates I provided as being the original airdates for the episodes. Also, some episodes are listed completely out of order and do not match up with the order in which the episodes originally aired on television. It would be nice if I were able to freely provide my knowledge of this show without all of my work being constantly reverted. SLSmith96 (talk) 02:38, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

@SLSmith96 I did check the sources. For instance, the source cited for the airdate of "The Tainting of the Screw" supports the October 25 airdate. Not only did you change the airdate, but you failed to cite any source to support your change. Accordingly, your edit violates WP:Verifiability. —C.Fred (talk) 10:19, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2024).

Administrator changes

readded Nyttend
removed

Bureaucrat changes

removed Nihonjoe

CheckUser changes

readded Joe Roe

Oversight changes

removed GeneralNotability

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • Partial action blocks are now in effect on the English Wikipedia. This means that administrators have the ability to restrict users from certain actions, including uploading files, moving pages and files, creating new pages, and sending thanks. T280531

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:25, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Removals by User: Kautilya3

Hi, could you please kindly check if these removals, by user: Kautilya3, fall under the category of vandalism? I find these removals really disruptive but I am not interested in edit war.

Thank you. - MainBody (talk) 11:46, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Imam al-Quduri

Here is the reference that he was a Maturidi.

https://www.masjidsalahudin.com/630/ Muslim Bonaparte (talk) 14:51, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

@Muslim Bonaparte I don't see anything in the translated text that says he was a Maturidi (unless it was mangled in the automated translation). Further, how does this particular mosque meet the definition of a reliable source? —C.Fred (talk) 15:55, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

IP editor talk page abuse

The editor behind 64.114.197.204 continues to post random article-like content on their talk page, in defiance of your last warning. Just thought you should be aware. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 17:55, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Saba Moeel

Hi C. Fred. I would like to contest my name being used without my consent on Kool A.D's page. I do not wish to be associated with that person, and would like mention of me and my child removed. Will it be possible to mention whatever details of his personal life in vague terms, without attaching my name to his. Thank you for your message. 2601:644:500:A380:2917:E31E:B00F:B58D (talk) 04:53, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

There are two issues here. First, there's no way I can determine that you are that person, so I have to assume your request is from a random user on the internet. You would have to contact the Volunteer Response Team by email to credential yourself. Even then, they might not take action on the content.
The other option would be to start a discussion at the biographies of living people noticeboard about inclusion of the name. The problem there is that the discussion would draw more attention to the name and a possible Streisand effect about its omission. —C.Fred (talk) 11:56, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Reverting edits on Snell's law

I saw you reverted my edits in the article on Snell's law. After I've made my edits (a week or so) I noticed to my surprise that an edit war broke out by people of whom I had previously no knowledge of. Although it's not entirely clear to my as to why my edits have been reverted, I'm perfectly willing to engage in a discussion about it on the talk page. However, for some reason I have been accused by two people now of being one of the people who engaged in this edit war, even though I had nothing to do with this. Moreover, the users who are accusing me of "evading my block" (even though I never had one), are now completely unwilling to engage in a discussion on the talk page. In short: what the hell is going on here? GoneWithThePuffery (talk) 17:03, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

@GoneWithThePuffery Your edits were far enough back in history that I hadn't looked at them. As for the sockpuppetry, I don't see your prior comments about Snell's law, particularly the four sources comment that you alluded to. —C.Fred (talk) 19:32, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
@C.Fred, my prior comments about Snell's law? What are you talking about? I only made an edit, nothing controversial, substantiated by proper sources and suddenly I'm treated as if I did something wrong. The comments about those four sources alluded to: "not reflecting the sources". As many of those sources are redundant. Why is this related to "sockpuppetry"?
So again my question: I made an edit in good faith, with proper sources and I have two people who are unwilling to engage in a discussion and even accusing me of "evading a block". Once more: what the hell is going on here? GoneWithThePuffery (talk) 19:40, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
@GoneWithThePuffery I misread your comment. I thought you had previously mentioned the four-citation issue; instead, I see you're adding it to your previous comments. —C.Fred (talk) 20:34, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
@C.Fred I'm asking something completely different, but you keep talking about some comment that is not relevant for this matter. I made a perfectly legitimate substantiated edit a while ago and you reverted it back. Why? On top of that, I'm now being accused by two muppets of something I didn't do. Why are you participating in this nonsense? GoneWithThePuffery (talk) 20:46, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
@GoneWithThePuffery I am participating because of the edit war; I took the administrative action of rolling back to the pre–edit war, status quo ante version. As to your edits, I did not revert them; they must have been reverted some time between March 26 (when you made the edit) and May 11 (the version I rolled back to). As for the conduct of the other editors, mind your own comments to make sure you don't stray into personal attacks, but if they're persistently making such accusations, please provide me a diff of their comments to help me find and evaluate it. —C.Fred (talk) 01:55, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
After checking the logs, I don't see where your edit has been reverted at all. It's still intact. —C.Fred (talk) 02:01, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
@C.Fred: Please note that this editor has edited the article while being logged out, which they confessed themselves. I have no problem with discussing the matter at Talk:Snell' law if they bring another rationale than "to put four (!) sources behind one claim looks quite ridiculous" ... Best.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 12:34, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
I already raised my point, but you had the audacity to start crying on my talk page over uncivil behavior, even when you're the one who started the uncivil behavior. GoneWithThePuffery (talk) 17:09, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
No it's not. You have reverted everything. I can see it because if I revert your last edit on that page I have the exact page after my changes.
A personal attack? What are you talking about? These people are objectively muppets. They are accusing me with no evidence at all of something I didn't do. There's no assumption of good faith and no use of civil behavior BY THEM in the first place. GoneWithThePuffery (talk) 17:08, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
@GoneWithThePuffery The bulk of my revert is to revert changes made by Casteiswrong. I'm afraid I don't understand your statement about having the exact page after your changes; are you implying that you made the changes attributed to Casteiswrong? If not, please specify exactly which edits you're claiming as yours. —C.Fred (talk) 19:34, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
"The law was eventually named after the Dutch mathematician and astronomer Willebrord Snellius (1580–1626), who discovered the law of refraction and wrote down its mathematical form.[1] Even though the Persian scientist Ibn Sahl never explicitly stated the sine law, it has been argued by Roshdi Rashed that Ibn Sahl was the first to discover the law at Baghdad court in 984.[2][3][4][5] In the manuscript On Burning Mirrors and Lenses, Sahl used the law to derive lens shapes that focus light with no geometric aberration.[6]"
And:
"Thomas Harriot claimed to know the law in 1602,[7] but did not publish his results as he claimed ill health prevented him from putting it explicitly into a form suitable for publication (although he had corresponded with Kepler on the subject)."
....are the edits I made at that page. They are not made by Casteiswrong, since he is (as far as I know) completely against including anything from Rashed (he simply denies Ibn Sahl having knowledge of the law of refraction). I'm not against that at all. I'm merely of the opinion that the only person who analyzed these works by Ibn Sahl in their original form is Rashed. So all the other secondary and tertiary sources are referring to Rashed. In that light, it's necessary in my view to explicitly refer to him. (Not in the least considering the fact that I know Rashed's views are somewhat controversial.)
Apart from these edits I merely deleted 3 of the 4 sources (per WP:OVERCITE), because they were referring to the same point (they are completely redundant...). GoneWithThePuffery (talk) 22:38, 14 May 2024 (UTC) GoneWithThePuffery (talk) 22:38, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
To add one more thing: I did initially removed "Ibn Sahl law", because I couldn't find sources that are explicitly referring to the law of refraction as such (usually it's either the law of refraction, Snell's law or the Descartes-Snell law). However, it turns out that there were indeed some sources that referred to that, and ever since I'm fine with it (I just think that four of the same kind of sources is an overcitation...). GoneWithThePuffery (talk) 22:54, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
@GoneWithThePuffery Found it, and the sequence around it is telling. The edit was made by an IP on 7 May and reverted by Hu on 11 May. Thony C restored it, and Hu removed it again. The reasonable conclusion, based on behaviour, is that the IP and Thony C are the same individual. At that point, a new account, Casteiswrong, picks up the edit warring. It's not unreasonable to assume that the IP and Caste are the same person. Jump ahead to 14 May, and right after Caste is blocked, you jump into the fray. My point is this: there are enough dots that it's not unreasonable to connect you to the other two accounts. It may have been an incorrect accusation, but that doesn't mean it was a bad faith accusation.
Now, I'm going to be blunt. You're probably aware that your actions are under discussion at WP:AN. Anything short of your best behaviour toward other editors is likely to get you shown the door for some period of time. But it sounds like you know the material and can contribute to the article (and probably others). Limit your discussions at Talk:Snell's law to only the content of the article—what sources say, what the article says, whether the sources cited repeat the same information and might be redundant. Stay calm and stay focused on just the content. Even if you feel like you get insulted, stay calm. That's a professional technique I've learned as a sports official: the more unhinged a coach gets in an argument, the calmer we stay. That way, it's obvious by their actions which of the two parties is the rational one. —C.Fred (talk) 00:56, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
Further, while "sockpuppet" has a specific meaning on Wikipedia—and Wikaviani has been advised to make sure there is evidence before throwing that accusation around—"muppet" has no such meaning. Thus, we're left with the dictionary meaning of an "incompetent, foolish, or stupid person"—which is a clear personal attack. —C.Fred (talk) 19:37, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
I disagree with this. Accusing people of "evading a block" is an attack on the sincerity of my edits. Also Wikaviani comments with regard to me not being here "to build an encyclopedia", even though I took the time to add and reread sources to complement the sentences, is personal. The same can be said about Hu741f4, who also accused me of being someone else, and who arrogantly said I didn't improve the article. It's unbelievable since this guy probably didn't even read what I had written (he keeps referring to a previous discussion where I had no part in...).
The situation is now quite absurd. You have two people who are dictating really everything that's going on in that article, and at the moment they are completely unwilling to engage in a discussion. This Hu741f4 guy is merely calling my edits "disruptive", which is probably his way of saying that he doesn't agree with it. GoneWithThePuffery (talk) 22:46, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Hey, since you were involved in this issue, I think it's fair to let you know that I reported GWTP to ANI for continued edit-warring and personal attacks. I don't think that my initial mistake allows this editor to behave like they do. For the records, I would perfectly understand if you decided to stay out of this mess and I am not expecting you to intervene if you don't want to. Best.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 15:17, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
You really have some nerve. Started attacking me and now complaining after you receive a reaction. I'm sorry, but "this mess" has been started by your rude and shortsighted behavior. GoneWithThePuffery (talk) 15:22, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
You should really try to avoid attacking people and edit-warring if you you want to contribute in a constructive manner. Yes, I made a mistake, not the first one and very likely not the last one. But this is not a reason to behave like you do, ignoring WP:CONSENSUS, WP:CIVIL, WP:BRD and so on.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 15:32, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
I have never in my life seen a person acting so hypocritical as you. Seriously, who are you to lecture me on WP:CIVIL? Who are you to lecture me on "avoid attacking people"? If you don't want these kind of reactions, then in the future you should do something about your own aggressive attitude. I made a comment on the talk page to discuss matters concerning the content, you ignored everything (as you're still doing) and started to harass me on my talk page. And now you're complaining when there comes a reaction? GoneWithThePuffery (talk) 17:06, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Martin, Martin (2013). Elements of Classical Physics. Elsevier. p. 39. ISBN 1483148602.
  2. ^ Smith, A. Mark (2015). From Sight to Light: The Passage from Ancient to Modern Optics. University of Chicago Press. p. 393. ISBN 978-0-226-17476-1.
  3. ^ Papadopoulos, Athanase (2017). "Roshdi Rashed, Historian of Greek and Arabic Mathematics". HAL Open Science. p. 12. hal-01653436.
  4. ^ Mourad Zghal; Hamid-Eddine Bouali; Zohra Ben Lakhdar; Habib Hamam. "The first steps for learning optics: Ibn Sahl's, Al-Haytham's and Young's works on refraction as typical examples" (PDF). R. Rashed credited Ibn Sahl with discovering the law of refraction [23], usually called Snell's law and also Snell and Descartes' law.
  5. ^ Smith, A. Mark (2015). From Sight to Light: The Passage from Ancient to Modern Optics. University of Chicago Press. p. 178. ISBN 978-0-226-17476-1.
  6. ^ Rashed, Roshdi (1990). "A pioneer in anaclastics: Ibn Sahl on burning mirrors and lenses". Isis. 81 (3): 464–491. doi:10.1086/355456. S2CID 144361526.[disputed – discuss][clarification needed]
  7. ^ Kwan, A.; Dudley, J.; Lantz, E. (2002). "Who really discovered Snell's law?". Physics World. 15 (4): 64. doi:10.1088/2058-7058/15/4/44.

equest clarification on "director"

Hi @C.Fred, Benjamin Freidenberg is a film director, as it says everywhere. He's involved in many other things but as for director, it's in film. Can you delete the clarification or should I do anything else? Li-reg (talk) 21:10, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

@Li-reg The problem is that one of the sources says Mirren will appear at the Jerusalem Cinematheque on June 22 to discuss her life and career with the director, Benjamin Freidenberg. The way this reads, it indicates that Freidenberg is director of the museum, not a film director. —C.Fred (talk) 21:12, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
well he is only a film director and I cant ask her to change is.. maybe she wrote it like that since he is very well known in Israel film industry so it sounded right for her... what should I do know, remove this? to be honest it reads ok for me but it's just me.. Li-reg (talk) 21:17, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

CIR for copyvio and caption

I think KnowledgeHunter6788 has demonstrated a lack of competency in their blowing way past 3RR to restore a copyright violation and non-English caption. Is a block warranted? ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:27, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

@Pbritti I'm taking a look at the St. Aloysius University situation right now. That plus the image is...I'm not sure if I want to call it CIR or disruptive, but it's a net negative to the project. —C.Fred (talk) 18:45, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
@Pbritti This edit says more than I can say. —C.Fred (talk) 19:06, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
Frustrating. Thanks for offering your help. I can file a report if you'd like. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:20, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
@Pbritti Eh, even without Google Translate rendering it, they crossed a line. —C.Fred (talk) 20:59, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Irfan Ajvazi

Hello, C.Fred,

Guess what article got moved back to main space? Liz Read! Talk! 07:17, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

@Liz Guess what just got a G4 tag back. As I told the creator, if he declines my offer of help, then it's on with deletion. —C.Fred (talk) 13:13, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Re: Palm Springs Air Museum

{{Talkback|user1|section|ts = 5/28/24}} I posted a reply to you on the Talk page for Palm Springs Air Museum on May 24 and have received no response. It appears no one is weighing in from your request for other opinions. I also have seen no response from @Drmies. Please advise what steps I need to take. Thank you. @BellamyBell BellamyBell (talk) 01:59, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

C.Fred - Vandalism help

I would ask for you to please objectively look at "Toa Noadhiki05's" "reliably sourced content" which he refuses to defend other than saying it applies. I have provided numerous direct reliable sources from the Blue Dog Platform. This person has an opinion as many people do and is sitting on this article insisting it is fact using the opinions of others. It should be changed to "Center". I can provide all my sources and evidence in detail as to why "Center-Left" does not apply to this grouping. Thank you. Minnesotawaterballer (talk) 23:54, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

@Minnesotawaterballer What do you mean by "direct" reliable sources? As a general rule, we go by what third parties say about groups, not what groups say about themselves. —C.Fred (talk) 23:56, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
I provided evidence of what other third party groups say about them as well. How can I further get consensus? Minnesotawaterballer (talk) 23:58, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
@Minnesotawaterballer Let's see how the discussion proceeds. —C.Fred (talk) 02:20, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Edit request

hello, @C.Fred sir. Please add my edit request to Yadav and Ahir article. In the 1881 census records of the British Empire it is stated that the Yadavs, who in their turn are identified with the Gaulis (Gwalas) and Ahirs, were the dominant race at that time.[3] Hcsrctu (talk) 02:45, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

@Hcsrctu I don't see a request at Talk:Ahir, nor is it clear exactly what you're suggesting should be inserted. I don't see you active at Talk:Yadav in the last few weeks at all. —C.Fred (talk) 02:55, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
You can add this[4] edit request to Ahir article. Thanks. Hcsrctu (talk) 03:00, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
@Hcsrctu Do you need assistance in making a request? I don't see a clear request of what you think should be changed. Further, I'm not inclined to change the article based on the source mentioned in that discussion without discussion by editors with more subject familiarity and a consensus among them to proceed. —C.Fred (talk) 03:04, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
You can see the [5]discussion, as per the discussion, it was proposed to merge the content of the Ahirs as Yadavs into the Ahir article but Ahirs as Yadavs was merged by an editor without adding content to the Ahir article. I request you to please add the content of Ahirs as Yadavs article to Ahir article. Thanks. Hcsrctu (talk) 03:20, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
@Hcsrctu That's a completely different request from what you indicated before. Please sort out what you're trying to accomplish before making a request; I don't want to keep guessing what it is you're trying to do. —C.Fred (talk) 03:38, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
@C.Fred, Actually Ahir and Yadav are two names of the same community, but both these words have been misinterpreted in these articles. The article has misrepresented the relationship between Ahir and Yadav and that Ahirs adopted the name Yadav in the 19th century, This is completely wrong because in the British census of 1881, Yadavs were clearly identified with Ahirs. So how can Ahirs adopted the Yadav name in the 19th century? Therefore, I want that section ==Ahirs as Yadavas== should be added in this Ahir article. Thanks. Hcsrctu (talk) 09:56, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
@C.Fred You can pick up Ahirs as Yadavs contents from here [6]. Thanks. Hcsrctu (talk) 10:01, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2024).

Administrator changes

readded Graham Beards
removed

Bureaucrat changes

removed

Oversight changes

removed Dreamy Jazz

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • The Nuke feature, which enables administrators to mass delete pages, will now correctly delete pages which were moved to another title. T43351

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:43, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Edit request

Can you please take Mugumbate's paragraph claiming Abrahamic religions to be colonial out of the Traditional African religion page? Ethiopian Christianity and North African Islam are not colonial. 2600:1700:B270:75C0:2C37:5BBF:2FAE:25C8 (talk) 06:34, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Why have you not made this request at the article's talk page? —C.Fred (talk) 13:58, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Marlon West Page

Thank you, C.Fred. I see that edits to that page written about me, have been removed. The original and current page was full of inaccuracies, including my various job titles and awards. I Have NOT received an Oscar. That is a huge misstatement. And as an Academy member that can not stand. I wrote that actual Annie ward that I did receive and that was removed. There is no such job title as an “effects coordinator”, and if there is any where, I have NEVER received it. The changes I made to that page are quite verifiable. I changed the name of my branch in the Academy to ‘The Animation Branch to reflect the reorganization that happened early this year.

The current post has wrong personal info and dates. So I removed information that is not pertinent instead of correcting the inaccuracies.

I have never edited on Wikipedia before. So I will submit my changes for approval before posting. But I ass you everything I changed is actually correct and verifiable within minutes. MarlonWest063 (talk) 23:55, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Marlon West Pages edits.

Thank you for removing some wrong and non pertinent information about me on my page. I truly appreciate it. Though another zealous editor Orangemike blocked me.

My account has been restored and there are still factual errors to the page that I’d love to have corrected. My attempts to correct them were removed and replaced with the same wrong information.

This opening paragraph for example:

"Marlon West (born March 11, 1963) is an animator and special effects coordinator for Walt Disney Animation Studios. He has been nominated for and won Annie Awards."

I have tried to correct this to:

"Marlon West (born 1963) is an effects animator, Head of Effects Animation, and Visual Effects Supervisor for Walt Disney Animation Studios. He won an Annie Award for Outstanding Achievement in an Animated Production in 2017 for Moana."

Those are my actual job titles that have appeared in the credits of projects I've worked on. As well as how they appear on IMDB:

https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0998326/?ref_=nv_sr_srsg_0_tt_4_nm_4_q_marlon%2520west

And the single Annie award that I won.

This seems utterly factual and easily verifiable. Not changes that I'd expect to be rejected, and be blocked for.

The following passage is also inaccurate, as it does not reflect changes at the Academy:

"West is a member of the Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences and is on the Board of Governors, specifically the shorts and feature animation branch."

My factual correction:

West is a member of the Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences and is one of two Governors, of the Animation Branch.

This happened in February of this year:

https://variety.com/2024/film/awards/academy-separates-short-films-animation-feature-branch-1235923053/

It was again rejected and wrong information restored. I am flattered that someone would create a page for me, as I am not a public figure. I can't even get a "blue badge" on X or Instagram. So I am very much a private citizen. I'd like simply for this page to reflect true and non-private information about me. It is more than galling to come up against such push back on the site I use daily, when it comes to correcting errors about my own life.

Thanks for any help you can provide.

Sincerely,

Marlon West MarlonWest063 (talk) 15:04, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

@MarlonWest063 Bear in mind that Orangemike blocked you in the interest of protecting you! You mentioned a blue badge on Instagram; the equivalent thing on Wikipedia, when a user holds themselves out as a notable individual, is to have their information verified by the Volunteer Response Team. Blocking the user while that is pending is a standard precautionary measure.
Under Wikipedia policies, IMDB is of limited usefulness as a source. It can be used to verify credits on a film or similar work, but it can't be used for biographical information, which would extend to a job title. A Disney Animation Studios (public-facing) directory would be useful as a source, since if you're in two singular positions like that, it's reasonable for that to be verifiable from the studio's site.
Regarding the AMPAS Board of Governors, it would help to have more sources (more Variety articles?) about your term and the branch split. The current source, a Variety article, refers to "Academy Short Films and Feature Animation Branch governors Bonnie Arnold, Jinko Gotoh and Marlon West".[7] That leaves some ambiguity: presumably two governors are staying on through FY 25, but it's a little bit of a leap of logic to conclude you're one of them. —C.Fred (talk) 16:11, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
One other note, regarding your comment I am not a public figure. I'm inclined to agree that you aren't "famous enough" to have hit that level, and that means erring on the side of caution in terms of what information is included in Wikipedia about you. In light of that, and especially when I looked at the sourcing, I removed both your middle initial and date of birth from the article. —C.Fred (talk) 16:20, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
Regarding the blocking for "my benefit" by Orangemike, it came after our intital conatct. A very resaonable exchange that would suggest you had no concern as to who you were in contact with. It was by any measure an overreach. As a longtime user of Wikipedia, I wish the stewards of the site where as interested in facts as they are in process and flexes of authority.
While it's taking a surprising amount of doing, I appreciate your help in making the information on this page factual and pertinent. MarlonWest063 (talk) 17:50, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
Thnaks so much. My point is that I am not a public enough figure that I warrant a "blue badge" on other platforms.
So we are in agreement that erring on the side of caution for peronal info is the best way forward. So thanks.
Again. Annies and Oscars are not awarded the year of release in most cases. While Moana was released in 2016, my Annie was awarded in 2017, as I stated. So please restore that. It is a quite veriviable fact.
My branch is now the "Animation Branch" in the Academy, not The "Short Films and Animated Feature" branch. Either way, the branch name should be captitalized. My term as a governor has another year. So it is not a lead of logic, but again, simple fact that I am one of two governors of that newlt formed branch.
Again this is old news: https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/oscars-animation-and-short-films-branch-splits-1235836376/
https://www.indiewire.com/awards/awards/academy-awards-announce-new-short-films-feature-animation-branches-1234957589/
https://www.thewrap.com/oscars-creates-animation-live-action-shorts-separate-branches/
Feel free to wait, if you like. Though in any case, lower case is not the way it should appear.
One more thing, could you remove my child's first name from the last paragraph. Tim is a minor.
Thanks again for your help. MarlonWest063 (talk) 17:00, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
Here is the set of AMPAS governors for the 2024-2025 term. My co-governor Bonnie Arnold has termed out. There are two governors of the Animation Branch for this term. You can see I am one of them. You might also note, as I have now pointed out nmulitple times, the newly elected Short Films Branch governor: Chris Tashima. Yet another source that the Branch is now two branches.
https://www.oscars.org/news/academy-elects-2024-2025-board-governors
This is not a "leap of faith", it is a presentday fact. Please change that entry to reflect that.
Thanks so much. MarlonWest063 (talk) 18:42, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
Lastly, I see you have used my proper job titles in the opening paragraph. Thanks!
Strange you'd pushback on IMDB for the proper credits and job titles, as whoever fashioned this page to begin with obvisousy used that to create the wholly acturate filmography included on this page.
Anyway, thanks for you help. One edit at a time. MarlonWest063 (talk) 18:54, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Assistance

Hi. Just wanted to get your thoughts on this user. Last year, you were involved with this IP. The combativeness and topics of interest passes the duck test. I don't wish to make the situation worse, so I don't want to revert these contributions for example that are blatant additions of unsourced content to a BLP. Their talk page behaviour here shows disregard for talk page rules despite being reverted before for going against WP:OTHERSCOMMENTS. Does WP:NOTHERE come into question? I don't want to go to ANI due to the history between me and this user, but am I able to request an admin to have a look? Should I seek an independent admin? Thanks. DaHuzyBru (talk) 05:19, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

ANI Notice

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 06:28, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Revoke Talk Page

User 128.253.26.81, theirs have been revoked before, maybe it still should be. Myrealnamm (💬pros · ✏️cons) 19:46, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

req for unlock of Dubmood article

Initially locked by you, ten years ago -in 2015- when articles for musicians were not as favored on Wikipedia. There is a fledged out French article these days but the English version of this article remains locked. it'd sure be appreciated if you could take another look, @C.Fred!

~~~~ Teddy error (talk) 22:00, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

@Teddy error Create a draft of the article, and I'll take a look at that. —C.Fred (talk) 22:01, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
Happy to. I've translated and cleaned up the existing article and published a community draft. Teddy error (talk) 23:11, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Harrasment from a user

Hi there, I have noted you have fixed some pages I have been alinged with, thanks in advance. I'm currently seeking assistance for the stoppage of a certain user from a term toward me that is unwelcomed. My stance is that its a slur, perhaps not the correct term, could be defered to as something else, but none the less its not welcomed. I don't feel the need another user needs to label me as such. Assistance to stop this would be greatly appreciated. PukeHoopster81 (talk) 00:47, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

@PukeHoopster81 It may have been suboptimal word choice, but I don't think it rises to the level of a slur, particularly since there are some more innocuous meanings that were equally likely, if not more likely. —C.Fred (talk) 00:52, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Requesting protection reduction

Hello, I'd like to request protection reduction for the Marvel Animated Universe redirect. It has been nearly four years since this protection was enacted in August 2020. The primary editor involved in prolonging the edit war over this article, NoobMaster05, has not been involved in any editing since the protection and has not edited anywhere outside of articles related to this, nor have they shown any signs of returning and has not edited the alternate redirect, Marvel animated universe. This protection no longer seems necessary, though some semi- or extended protection may still be necessary to prevent further disruptions from occurring. I would like a reduced protection so I can more adequately monitor this redirect and ensure it is updated accordingly. Trailblazer101 (talk) 00:22, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

@Trailblazer101 If the redirect had been changed (properly) in the last four years, I'd think there's a need to reduce protection. However, if there hasn't been, I'm not seeing the net gain. —C.Fred (talk) 00:56, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
Well, I would like to update it in accordance with Marvel animated universe, although I was not able to because it was swiftly protected. I fail to see the need for admin-only protection when a sightly lesser option could suffice as there has been no repeat offenders to this redirect. Trailblazer101 (talk) 01:10, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
@Trailblazer101 I've bumped it down to indef semi. Holler if I need to change it back. —C.Fred (talk) 01:14, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Metallic Mean

Geometric construction of Metallic Ratios with Right Triangles is someone else's contribution: Page No. 33 of following paper : https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Chetansing-Rajput/publication/348555204_Golden_Ratio/links/600fdd18299bf14088c0cea8/Golden-Ratio.pdf?_tp=eyJjb250ZXh0Ijp7ImZpcnN0UGFnZSI6InB1YmxpY2F0aW9uIiwicGFnZSI6InB1YmxpY2F0aW9uIn19

Golden Ratio - CORE

(PDF) Golden Ratio (researchgate.net)

Previously there was whole section of Geometric construction on the Wiki page of Metallic Means along with proper reference, which has been mischievously removed and now the Geometric Construction with Right Triangles' is been exploited without proper citation, which is nothing but the plagiarism. Wikipedia can not exploit anybody's contribution without proper citation. Do the needful. 152.58.33.17 (talk) 22:07, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm not seeing that the text of the paper has been copied. If the idea originated in Rajput's paper, then they should be attributed. —C.Fred (talk) 22:14, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
I've blocked the IP for block evasion, as are all the other IPs in that range, but there was too much collateral damage to block the /18 range.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:16, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2024).

Administrator changes

added
removed

Technical news

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:58, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Ethiopia INSA Logo.jpg

⚠
⚠

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:18, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Talk page access for 125.160.96.144

Blocked IP 125.160.96.144 (talk · contribs) is continuing to make the same weird, combative reverts to their talk page - do you think revoking access might be warranted? Thanks. AntiDionysius (talk) 13:21, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Never mind - @ScottishFinnishRadish got it (pinging for thanks). AntiDionysius (talk) 13:36, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Portimonense / Relegation(s)

Hello there Fred, from Portugal,

i think club pages should be updated the minute relegation/promotion is confirmed, but i see Portimonense is not the case in that department (but lo and behold, 2023/24 season is already in the box but they forgot to change the league! They also left the previous manager, he was dismissed two months ago as i - through IP - sourced in the subject's storyline).

Back in the day i updated everything (and not just football, but in the sport i also updated club pages), big mistake that i since have toned down, spend too much here in here already (18 years and counting)!

Enjoy the rest of your weekend, sorry for any inconvenience (and i'll help around in this topic, will update Portimonense page duly/fully). RevampedEditor (talk) 18:15, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – August 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2024).

Administrator changes

readded Isabelle Belato
removed

Interface administrator changes

readded Izno

CheckUser changes

removed Barkeep49

Technical news

  • Global blocks may now target accounts as well as IP's. Administrators may locally unblock when appropriate.
  • Users wishing to permanently leave may now request "vanishing" via Special:GlobalVanishRequest. Processed requests will result in the user being renamed, their recovery email being removed, and their account being globally locked.

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:59, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

2024 Kolkata rape and murder incident

I was just looking for someone to request a rev/del. Thanks for being so quick! Knitsey (talk) 20:16, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

WP:3O Reversion

I'm curious as to why you reverted my declining of the WP:3O request? There has been no discussion on the talk page about the subject to speak of, and the editor in question requested the WP:3O less than 48 hours after they started the discussion topic on the talk page. The guidelines on WP:3O say before making a request here, be sure that the issue has been thoroughly discussed on the article talk page. There hasn't been any discussion at all on the talk page between the two disagreeing editors. I was just wondering what was incorrect about my declining the request? Brocade River Poems 05:15, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/102.67.76.0/22

Hi @C.Fred. After the IP range block has been expired, returns as 102.67.77.171 and added the message "Please protect the Liv Morgan due to edit warring." to Talk:Liv_Morgan. The IP has a user Aromat567 whose similar edits, which has been blocked indefinitely. AmritR012 (talk) 16:37, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Note (bosco)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Daniel_Case

One of indian sports vandals/socks this editor, and few more, battle well but never enough help. Thanks a lot, kind regards. 93.140.190.14 (talk) 12:57, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/49.157.61.87
Techtro Lucknow FC protection please, and range block 93.140.190.14 (talk) 12:59, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
(Maybe genuine ip from philippines) 93.140.190.14 (talk) 13:03, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Remove talk page access

Of Sadie Bosco (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), please. 49.157.47.183 (talk) 13:04, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

He's shut up. Probably logging in to a sleeper. 172.59.210.195 (talk) 13:15, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2024).

Administrator changes

removed Pppery

Interface administrator changes

removed Pppery

Oversighter changes

removed Wugapodes

CheckUser changes

removed

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:43, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

The editor you warned

Howdy. I saw you gave a final warning to this user and looking at their contribs, I'm near certain this is the exact MO (mass reversions of IP edits by brand new account with a real person's name) used by a sockmaster I saw blocked at ANI a while back. I can't think of the username for the life of me but I said I'd mention to you in case it comes in handy somehow. — ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 11:06, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

@Ser! And an IP has suspected the user is a sockpuppet. It all feels off; I've got a bad feeling that an indef block on the user is going to be when-not-if, whether it's LTA or garden-variety disruption. —C.Fred (talk) 11:08, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
Aaand boom, LTA global locked. Looks like we were both correct. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 11:14, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Melissa O'Neil's Chinese Name

Hello,

You made an edit on the Melissa O'Neil page and removed the Chinese characters of her name. While her middle name is not cited, her Chinese name is cited on references 12 and 31 and should be re-added to her page. Fermentedgrapes (talk) 21:14, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

That is a content issue that would need to be discussed on the article's talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 03:55, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Kansas City Chiefs Article

You're misinterpreting the rule about which championships count and which don't. It doesn't matter that the Chiefs lost the Super Bowl at the end of the 1966 season. Any AFL or NFL Championship won the same year that there was also a Super Bowl doesn't count.The Raiders, Colts, and Vikings, who were the other teams that lost Super Bowls during that period, do not have their league championships in those seasons recognized. Only the winner of the Super Bowl is recognized as the champion. 2601:645:4301:C100:DD7A:BBA2:9E6B:F92C (talk) 04:09, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

That is not how those teams are listed at all. —C.Fred (talk) 04:13, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
How are they not? 2601:645:4301:C100:DD7A:BBA2:9E6B:F92C (talk) 05:36, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
That was not when I looked before, but I saw something different early this morning. —C.Fred (talk) 11:52, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Talkback

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

Gazingo (talk) 19:12, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

2A02:3038:203:65E1:F03A:38F2:2B25:9849

Hi C.Fred, Need your help to block many recent Germany political election meat sock who is mass vandalizing the articles. Thank you. Cassiopeia talk 04:23, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Just let you know that, I managed to find Oshwah online and he help to block the IP editor. Cheers. Cassiopeia talk 05:22, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/102.67.76.0/22

Hi @C.Fred. The IP keeps removing discussions on Talk:Liv Morgan, as well as changing other wrestler's height. It seems the IP is a Special:Contributions/Aromat567 sock. @Czello would also testify this matter. AmritR012 (talk) 12:15, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, I must confess I'm not sure what's going on because the IP is being disruptive. — Czello (music) 15:16, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Help needed

Please check out the personal attacks, slander and other nonsense on Talk:Serbia page commited by IP 192.71.144.210. Locking the page might help for start. Thanks. — Sadko (words are wind) 08:21, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

@Sadko Before I start taking administrative action on the page, I need some information from you. I see an outcome at WP:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement that resulted in you being topic-banned from Eastern Europe. I need a diff or the like showing where that topic ban was lifted. —C.Fred (talk) 10:58, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
Ofc. See topic no. 3 here. Ty. — Sadko (words are wind) 18:04, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Enrique Iglesias change

The change that Tamara is Enrique's half sister is justified as shown by the mother wiki page.

Side note: talk page sections of articles are useless as issues needed to be resolved can be stuck in limbo as there is no priority mechanic to the talk section like a business would put a customer in a waiting queue 2600:1014:B035:DEDA:C844:3EC3:9A4D:601E (talk) 20:34, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

What's article-worthy for the mother isn't necessarily so for the son. And while direct conversations do at least mean some discussion is had on the topic, it's no substitute for article talk page discussion, even with the talk page's unresolved flaws. —C.Fred (talk) 21:01, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Hmm

I'm not quite sure about this edit, C.Fred--the joint looks clean, and I'm sure we could both use that treatment. Drmies (talk) 00:20, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Illbliss Page

Hi! C.Fred,


I am actually working on making this page better, I see that you are reversing my edits. Can you allow me finish work on it? Ajatontiriajabale (talk) 11:32, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

I understand now. Thank you. I have adjusted it. Ajatontiriajabale (talk) 12:16, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Reactions to the September 11 attacks

Thank you for your reversion to the deletion of text by User:Mcdafold. Could I just point-out that this was the 4th time that this person has deleted this portion of text recently and is thus "edit warring". They seem to take no notice of editors advice and warnings. Regards, David J Johnson (talk) 20:45, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

@David J Johnson The other two reverts were on the 12th, so it's not a 3RR brightline violation, but it is edit warring. —C.Fred (talk) 21:14, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!

Administrators' newsletter – October 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2024).

Administrator changes

added
removed

CheckUser changes

readded
removed

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:59, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Ivan Gundulić

Hello Fred, could you please review the recent edits on the page? A newbie has added a category based on a list from a notable book. Despite this, two editors are actively removing the category, seemingly in full WP:IDONTLIKEIT mode. Additionally, one of them is referencing an old sanction from several months ago in their diff, hoping that this will justify their actions. In my book, that's personal attack. Could you protect the page and intervene as you see appropriate? I have no desire to get into an edit war with these individuals.Thank you. — Sadko (words are wind) 20:05, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Sadko, who was blocked three years ago for POV pushing https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&oldid=1013108504#Request_concerning_Sadko he was accidentally released because the administrator forgot about him https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Guerillero/Archives/2024/July. I reviewed his edits so you know.154.205.128.71 (talk) 21:00, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

And the IP stalker is here, nice. Another diff which requires your attention, alongside the mentioned IP. Thanks in advance. — Sadko (words are wind) 21:51, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

I am sorry, but did not know the sanction was lifted (as did not recently admin Joy), and as saw you were actively editing/participating in discussions on talk pages, I wrote in the edit summary to take it to the talk page (because of the fact the edits were controversial and better to be discussed rather than having edit war). There was no "IDONTLIKEIT" nor "hoping... justify their actions" or personal attacks on my behalf (and most probably User:Silverije as well). So easily making up direct aspersions on others with lack of WP:FAITH based on a short and neutral edit summary (at least mine), while doing controversial edits (or reverts, for example and way of discussion at Serbia/Talk:Serbia#Recent changes with User:TylerBurden and User:Iaof2017), going here to an administrator seeking some help instead of simply adressing the content dispute at the article's talk page, calling (Serbian Wikipedia) user Hadjnix a "newbie" (although his fourth account in three years)..., soon after the ban was lifted (without any proper discussion, but seemingly later negative reception), does not seem you understand very well why you were topic banned in the first place, and if anything requires attention - is your behavior, if is like this, are on a way making editing environment of Balkan topics uncomfortable again. Looking on a positive side, Sadko made a lot and good edits, and everyone makes mistakes, if is really willing to do things "differently" and "thoroughly reviewed Wikipedia's policies and guidelines" as claimed, then that would be great. A comment and advice about/to Sadko by admins who were active in his request for topic ban years ago would be welcomed by the editor's community as well, @Joy, Peacemaker67, Bishonen, Vanamonde93, Ymblanter, Drmies, and Guerillero: regards.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 01:25, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

  • Miki Filigranski about halfway through that dense paragraph I lost track of the sentences, and I don't know why you are pinging me and a bunch of others. Drmies (talk) 01:58, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
    • Drmies, as stated, you and other pinged admins were active during final result concerning Sadko's indefinite topic ban from ARBEE in 2021, and few months ago it was lifted without any discussion (see admin Joy's commentary), and seemingly passed unnoticed by many. The ban was one among many which had significant importance to the editor's community related to the Balkans. Some commentary about it, and attention/advice on current Sadko's behavior, is required and would be welcomed by the editors. --Miki Filigranski (talk) 02:14, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
@Miki Filigranski: I lifted the topic ban in July. If you would like for sanctions to be re-imposed, please file a request at AE. -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 07:41, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
I don't think those category edits at Gundulić and Bošković and the short description edit at Bošković are a huge problem per se, but they do confirm the pattern of interest in nationalist talking points. There was another bit of that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mašićka Šagovina killings, and I told Sadko that in no uncertain terms. Does all this rise to the level of disruption necessitating a renewal of the ban? Depends on how we value volunteer effort on having to keep tracking it. --Joy (talk) 07:59, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello Miki, thanks for saying that you're sorry, it's appreciated. The only goal here is to contribute to Wikipedia by adding new content and collaborating to improve the platform. I have followed WP:NPOV and adhered to the key rules and guidelines, and will continue to do so. Please, as a general rule, avoid making assumptions about what other editors understand or don’t understand — it’s not courteous. It’s a fact that Boskovic was a Ragusan citizen; if I’ve missed some other point you’re trying to communicate, please let me know. If the category in question (which I did not create) is to be deleted, we will remove it completely, and not just on the Gundulic article. If that’s not the case, it’s clear we have different perspectives, and that’s perfectly fine. I won’t be participating in the debate about deleting it, as a courtesy. More importantly, differing opinions are not grounds for mass pinging other editors or using the edit description to post links about those editors (which warrants attention). Nor should the edit description be used to make claims of "irredentist intentions" based on a category, or to pressure or attept to descredit anyone during AFD (even if they are completely mistaken) or other discussions on the talk page. Having different views within the boundaries of Wikipedia’s rules and guidelines is healthy for the project's growth.The question is, how do we express those views and present them to our readers, and that's something which requires extra attention and care. Happy editing, and I wish everyone a good day. — Sadko (words are wind) 10:57, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting vandalism on Herndon High School

Thank you! There is still some vandalism but I'll fix the rest. نوحفث   Let's Chat! 02:47, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

AMM18882

Hey, thanks for blocking AMM18882. Would you mind revoking their TPA? Thanks. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 15:43, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

 Done —C.Fred (talk) 15:48, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

WP:NOTHERE case

With personal attacks like this and edits to a BLP like this I'm not sure we have a constructive new editor here. AusLondonder (talk) 13:29, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in a research

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:22, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:C.Fred/Archive_32&oldid=1258410218"