User talk:Fraudy

Welcome to my talk page. Please sign and date your entries by inserting ~~~~ at the end.
Start a new talk topic.

Nick Lancaster is the greatest man in the WORLD!!!!

I would like you to know that I am NICK LANCASTER, therefore the page "Nick Lancaster" was not a personal attack, because I am ok with what it says. So there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sitting Ovation (talk • contribs) 22:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I unfortunately have no proof that you are Nick Lancaster, and in the best interests of the encyclopedia, I have nominated the article for speedy deletion as I believe it flagrantly violates WP:BLP as it is slanderous. I would also like to let you know that the article does not likely meet the notability requirements for posting on wikipedia. I encourage you to visit the welcome links I have left on your talk page before contributing more to wikipedia.

In reference to the "Southpaw song" page

Yes, it needs to be deleted. I only added what I did about the article because it was temporary until I found the information I wanted about it. However, after creating it I discovered that I could not edit the title so it could simply say "Southpaw" instead of "Southpaw song". —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheColdDick (talk • contribs) 17:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Lacy article

Hi Fraudy, I just started on the article about Steve Lacy, the CEO of Meredith, and I am still working on it. I don't know him and have never met him or talked to him, but I do work for a Meredith-owned company. I have read through Wikipedia policies before starting this page, so I think this is OK as long as I am improving Wikipedia. I'd like to remove the tags when I finish, probably later tonight. I hope this is OK. --Butter Cow (talk) 23:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Butter Cow, I to believe that Steve Lacy is notable, however I have concerns that your article may not have a neutral point of view. From reading the article, I garnered the impression that you either knew Steve Lacy or worked for him. I encourage you to work on the article, but please try and ensure that it has a neutral point of view, so that it meets current wikipedia standards. Thanks for your comment, and happy editing! Fraud ^{talk to me} 23:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, saw your note. Thanks for the pointers. I try to make sure my wording is neutral but I do have a positive impression of him, so if you would like to review my wording, that is fine. I understand just because I'm starting the page doesn't mean I get to say what's on it. I did some web and newspaper research before starting, so I have another paragraph or two to add. If I don't finish adding what I have tonight I will sometime tomorrow. Thanks again. --Butter Cow (talk) 00:06, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again, I think I've finished the page from what I can do. I've studied BLP conventions closely, so I think the page is fairly robust as a biography, with the categories and adding the existing footer box for Meredith too. Thanks for your input. --Butter Cow (talk) 05:10, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Afd

Hi Fraudy, We're sorry if the entry for Carbon Literacy doesn't meet Wiki's policies. The phrase has been in use for about three years now and is becoming more and more commonly used in discussions of the issue of climate change and in carbon trading circles. We had thought it would fit in nicely with Wiki's large environmental portal, climate change articles, and other resources. Perhaps in the future we can be included. Thanks, Manonfire Carbon Literacy Admin

Hi Manonfire, I understand that you're trying to better the encyclopedia, and I encourage you to do so! I would encourage you to read up on what is considered a neologism, and how you can provide reliable sources so that in the future, your articles do not get deleted. Fraud ^{talk to me} 00:34, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As many others have created bio's on here, I would like to create one as well.

It is only fair that if you allow others, you should allow me as well.

Jonathan Yaniv - Biography

As many others have created bio's on here, I would like to create one as well.

It is only fair that if you allow others, you should allow me as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jyaniv (talk • contribs) 02:30, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to wikipedia. I would encourage you to read up on the wikipedia criteria regarding notability and determine if you meet such a criteria. Wikipedia is an encylopedia, not myspace. Feel free to work on a bio in your personal user space, but I would suggest you only write an article if it meets the notability criteria listed above. Let me know if you have any questions, and welcome again! Fraud ^{talk to me} 02:35, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question

How is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Ulevitch any different from what I did?

Thats what I dont get...

Please advise.

Thanks

Jyaniv (talk) 02:38, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For a page about a person to be listed on wikipedia, it needs to meet WP:Notability (persons) requirements. (i.e. received coverage in reliable secondary sources. Your article did not indicate that you met such criteria. I would recommend reading WP:Your first article, as a good starting point. Fraud ^{talk to me} 02:44, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

HMS Ontario article

Dear Fraudy, I was in the process of building the article, while somebody else put up a stub with a similar title about the same ship. How about i just go ahead and finish up my article, and then convert the other one into a redirect? Xenonice (talk) 01:21, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your free to work on it (in fact, I definately encourage you to do so!), and I do believe you should express your opinion on the AFD page. I merely noted that there were two pages on the subject, and we probably didn't need the one with the 1870 disambig. I suggested that the content be merged with the content over at the other page. You should express your concerns at the article's AFD page. Fraud ^{talk to me} 01:25, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fenasi Kerim isnt footballer, it is the curse

Fenasi Kerim isnt footballer name, it is curse in turkish :@ i deleted it because it is not footballer it is curse :@ Look the Galatasaray F.C offical page http://www.galatasaray.org/futboltakimi/ look at 11 number :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cuneo (talk • contribs) 22:57, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is the best way not to get deleted

Hello Fraudy!

Ok, being new to Wiki, I just learned how to make my page look like a wiki page. I want to be able to contribute meaningful content to the site. In your opinion, how can I go about writing articles that meet the encyclopedia standard and don't come across as advertisement?

Thank you for you help. Also where do I go to dispute or discuss my case for non-deletion? Thanks... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Almuleck (talk • contribs) 05:40, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You asked for feedback...

Your nomination for deletion of HMS Ontario (1780) was over-hasty, in my opinion.

Deletion is supposed to be based on the merits of having an article on the topic -- not on the current state of the article. Consequently, in my opinion, the nominator has a responsibility to exercise a certain amount of due diligence. Were there multiple vessels named HMS Ontario? I think you had a responsibility to check, first.

Deletion of cruft is important. But, in my opinion, the current implementation is a mess. Participants in deletion fora have a responsibility to make informed comments. Frequently however, participants don't do even a cursory read of the articles in question, and rely on the summary provided by the nominator. Shame on them. It makes it doubly important that nominators act responsibly, and do that due diligence.

Candidly Geo Swan (talk) 21:02, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback, I did a google search, but I couldn't find any information on any other vessel (Presumably due to the apparent finding of the one the article was named on; however, perhaps I could have performed a bit more of due diligence). On one side, the article was a huge copyright violation, but that's not really the matter at hand. I checked the AFD the next day and after I saw that there were other ships, I realized I might have been a bit hasty.

I will take this as a valuable learning lesson, and look to avoid situations like this in the future. I appreciate the time and effort you have taken to give me the feedback, and I appreciate it immensely. Editors like you are what make wikipedia so great.

Thank you once again for your feedback Fraud ^{talk to me} 00:13, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sonic Boom Six articals flagged for deletion.

Please see various comments by myself regarding the legitimacy of the information provided within these articals.

I have posted it in various places, as I don't know where is correct to be honest.

The information I have provided in the two articals has been sourced from the band in question, via their official website. The information and quotes were taken from a posting on a message board by the bands bass player, Paul 'Barney Boom' Barnes.

They are on their own label, and release and produce things themselves. The reason I made the wikipedia pages about the upcoming releases was to let other fans know of the notices released by the band themselves. If they have personally stated the same information on their website, why is it not allowed to be written on wikipedia? Calummckenna (talk) 22:28, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT - I have just read your reply on a different page. Again, what I've said above are the reasons that nothing has been heard in the press etc. They're not a big band, therefore do not have great media coverage. The only information released about this at the moment is what has been said last night and this morning on their website, and all I'm doing is relaying the information via wikipedia. I suggest contacting Barney personally via email, of which can be found on their website, and bring the issue up with him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Calummckenna (talk • contribs) 22:31, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) Hi Callummckenna, I responded to your comment on the AfD discussion, so you might want to check that out, but generally, wikipedia policy leans towards not including items on future events, unless we have some reliable sources backing it. And something self-published on the bands website, is sort-of weak in my view. There's nothing wrong with including a description of the future album release on the band's wiki article, and when we get closer to release (say within a few weeks) then popping up the article. After all, wikipedia will still be here then. Hope this helps!! Fraud ^{talk to me} 22:36, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh...I'm replying to posts all over the place now lol. Yea thats fair enough, but as the end of the day, this is informaion released by the band, about their new album. I can understand the City of Theives/3rd studio album being deleted, as their isn't much information about that one, but the Play On/rare+remix album shouldn't be, as there is album artwork, a tracklisting, and advertising for that album on the bands website. Calummckenna (talk) 22:43, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RfA

Hi Fraudy! Thank you very much for your support and comments in my RfA, which passed yesterday. I hope not to let you and the others down and use the tools for the benefit of the project. Cheers, Ynhockey ^(Talk) 19:35, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting vandalism

Hi there Fraudy! Just a tip from a guy who done the same thing not so long ago and got told off by an admin for it. I just noticed the Sammie Sparks article, and the revert to that. If you check the actual diff, you'll see that it wasn't the user that put the flagged word there, and only changed the age. I didn't revert, you can do that (it looks better if you revert your own edits). Just passing on a bit of advice - Remember to press the [show] button to see the difference. Thanks Olly¹⁵⁰ 02:17, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

FYI, there's a discussion about your edits at WP:AN/I. Cheers. Fraud ^{talk to me} 00:17, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a monolithic editor, but I am however interested in various controversies and news-related events, and this sometimes gets me into the lion's den. Take no offense pal, cheers. ADM (talk) 00:34, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to participate in SecurePoll feedback and workshop

As you participated in the recent Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two requests for comment that relate to the use of SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Risker (talk) 08:08, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Patrol survey

New page patrol – Survey Invitation

Hello Fraudy! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.

If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only.
If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it.

Please click HERE to take part.
Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback.

You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey

New deal for page patrollers

Hi Fraudy,

In order to better control the quality of new pages, keep out the spam, and welcome the genuine newbies, the current system we introduced in 2011 is being updated and improved. The documentation and tutorials have also been revised and given a facelift. Most importantly a new user group New Page Reviewer has been created.

Under the new rule, you may find that you are temporarily unable to mark new pages as reviewed. However, this is nothing to worry about - most current experienced patrollers are being accorded the the new right without the need to apply, and if you have significant previous experience of patrolling new pages, we strongly encourage you to apply for the new right as soon as possible - we need all the help we can get, and we are now providing a dynamic, supportive environment for your work.

Find out more about this exiting new user right now at New Page Reviewers and be sure to read the new tutorial before applying. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:29, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]