User talk:Fred Zepelin

October 2021

Hello, I'm FlightTime Phone. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, In Through the Out Door, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. - FlightTime Phone (open channel) 17:47, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I'm using a source that is already in the article - the Dave Lewis book "Led Zeppelin: A Celebration". It's in the list of sources at the bottom. The author is the one who states that the album went to #1 in the countries I added. Interestingly, he does not list Canada as one of those countries but I assume that's from another source maybe? So I didn't remove it.

Fred Zepelin, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Fred Zepelin! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Lectonar (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:01, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Edit Summary

Hey! So about your edit summary on Meidiawest*Con; It's not entirely true. ALthough it may as well be, looking through your edit I only found 2 sources in that entire section you removed, and they both appear to be unreliable primary sources. So I haven't undone your edit since it makes a lot of sense. THe majority of the section was unsourced except for the very end. ― Blaze The Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 15:48, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, and I also noticed that the very end, the part that was sourced? That is also repeated in the History section, and I left it there.

Alright cool. Also, please remember to sign on talk pages with ~~~~. ― Blaze The Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 15:59, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you !!!! Fred Zepelin (talk) 16:24, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

November 2021

Hello, I'm CuriousGolden. I noticed that you recently removed content from Donavon Warren without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. — curiousGolden ^{call me maybe?} 14:36, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes please see your talk page where I addressed this. Fred Zepelin (talk) 16:09, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for nabbing this we at Anti spam are grateful whenever UPE is nabbed. Keep up the good Job. Celestina007 (talk) 19:32, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I stumbled onto that because of another editor, really - Kuru spotted his paid editing on the movie Wheels and I kind of started exploring from that point. Fred Zepelin (talk) 19:43, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Kuru, Celestina007 - I nominated the Wheels (2014 film) article for deletion because I think the evidence is overwhelming that it was created by either a paid editor or the producer himself, it's not notable as zero reliable sources have reported on it, and the latest heavy editing to it was done by the Ugochukwu75 account. So I think the article was there purely as a promotional tool for the producer/writer/director of the movie. Fred Zepelin (talk) 22:34, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Kuru, Celestina007, Fred Zepelin - Hello all. I received an email from Wikipedia after all of these years regarding a deletion, I had a brain injury and Wiki was just too challenging for me. But now I am back and honestly, I am excited about getting back into it. Hopefully, I can handle it. I really got discouraged last time. Thank you Fred Zepelin for your time on cleaning it up. It seems like some of the sources were out of date and deleted. Some I don't understand, but I am learning. I have referenced articles from AFI, IndieWire, Turner Classic Movies and Movie Insider. It also appears like there is a lot going on with this page. Really any help or mentorship would be greatly appriciated. I am going to get to work on some other pages in the meantime. Thank you for all your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Film Fanatical10069 (talk • contribs) 01:58, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't know why you're even bothering. It's so painfully obvious that you're the same editor I burst out laughing when I read this. Appreciate the overdone politeness, though. I suppose that's the smarter tactic to take if you're still trying to collect your money for your paid editing gigs. Fred Zepelin (talk) 03:42, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Behavioural evidence

You provided sufficient behavioural evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ugochukwu75 to justify a checkuser. But the checkuser result was "unrelated". If you still think that the user you reported is a sockpuppet, then try comparing editing styles, ways of wording things, mistakes that they both make in their English, etc. If you can find similarities between the user you suspect and Ugochukwu75/Binaza then provide diffs showing that both the suspected user and Ugochukwu75/Binaza behave the same way. The place to put this evidence is the SPI.-- Toddy1 (talk) 17:58, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

@Toddy1: I did add all that evidence in the SPI. In the comments. Is it in the wrong place? Fred Zepelin (talk) 19:25, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

@Toddy1: Just read this comment from @Celestina007:, they sum it up for me, and it's put better than I could put it. Fred Zepelin (talk) 19:28, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

It is in the right place.

What I was trying to say was:

• more behavioural evidence would be useful (and tried to describe what kinds I think are worth looking for).
• that if you can find more behavioural evidence, it goes in the SPI.

Do you have a diff showing Film Fanatical10069 referring to his/her sister?

-- Toddy1 (talk) 19:31, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

@Toddy1: Here and here. I personally think that's small evidence in the face of the mountain of evidence elsewhere. Keep in mind - there is no sister. When Ugochukwu75 was first caught socking with the Bianaza account, he didn't mention a sister. That came later, when he admitted to socking AND paid editing. And by the way, the paid editing is what embroiled me here in the first place. The newly-awakened sleeper is desperately trying to save the Wheels article, a non-notable film, the same way Ugochukwu75 was. He voted Keep in the original deletion discussion in 2017 (along with another dormant sock account, Кость Лінивець)... and ask yourself why. And why this amazing timing. And why, despite him being able to create articles with tons of publicity/promo references back in 2015 on his first day editing, he's now pretending to be new at everything. Fred Zepelin (talk) 19:57, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

@Toddy1: Check these diffs out:

Film Fanatic: "Thank you for your long and detailed explanation. It seems well thought out and I appreciate your time."

Ugochukwu75: "Thank you so much for taking your time to give a detailed explanation."

Just more behavioral evidence. That only took me 5 minutes. I'm sure I'll find more. Fred Zepelin (talk) 20:32, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Good catch. Well done.-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:03, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Ugochukwu75

Hi Fred. This is what a sockpuppet of Ugochukwu75 looks like. Cheers, --SVTCobra 05:35, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

SVT, that's a nice catch. I think it's worth me taking a deep dive into that account's interests and perusing the histories. I said all along that the Ugochukwu75 master likely had more than just 3 accounts running. Wouldn't surprise me if it was hundreds of them. Fred Zepelin (talk) 14:19, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Nah, Ugochukwu75 is unsophisticated. This one was created the day after the original account was blocked. But sure, if you have the time to check for promotional editing in their history, by all means, go ahead. I removed stuff from Joe Carraro and one other article. --SVTCobra 14:36, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

SVTCobra, Great job there, I know how tough it is to put together a convincing SPI report thanks for the nab SVT. Thank you too Fred. Celestina007 (talk) 19:58, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

The alternate to consider here (and I'm just asking you to look at it as a possibility, because I think it's the truth) is that the same guy is running all of these accounts, and he's latched onto the Film Fanatical one, as one that is the only chance of ever recreating the Wheels and Donavon Warren articles. If he creates a new account and tries to do the same, it would be painfully obvious that it's a sockpuppet. But because at least one established editor has expressed doubt that the FF account is a sock, that's his opening. And just for old-times' sake, take a look at the FF earliest contributions. That was not a new editor in 2017 and it's not a guy who had a brain injury for 4 years either. Fred Zepelin (talk) 18:57, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hi Fred Zepelin! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Images which include an advertisement for the photographer watermarked on them, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please . See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). Muninnbot (talk) 19:00, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hi Fred Zepelin! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Should 2 really long obituaries be included in a biography article, word-for-word?, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please . See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). Muninnbot (talk) 19:00, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Joseph Carraro

Hi Fred. Just wanted to point out that the edits you reverted included an identical Philanthropy section and the removal of birth year as from older versions. In other words, User:Pp7575 was restoring work by User:Ugochukwu75 and sock User:Binaza. This could mean one of two things: 1) it is a new sock of Ugochuku or 2) Carraro has hired a new paid editor and is giving them specific instructions for what to put in the article. Cheers, SVTCobra 18:10, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

I thought the same two things. Option #1 seems the far more likely of the two. Fred Zepelin (talk) 19:32, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Vandalism

Please be careful what you label as vandalism. While this certainly violates MOS:ALLEGE, it certainly does not meet the definition of Vandalism. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 16:51, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

I could see how you could argue that it's a gray area - he was found guilty of that charge, so it wasn't "alleged". In this case, it was a single edit by a newly-formed account, so to me, a hit-n-run like that, when it's demonstrably false, and likely a POV violation, is pretty much vandalism. I guess next time I'll just leave the summary as is so as not to cause controversy about edit summary remarks, lord knows what could happen as a result! Fred Zepelin (talk) 18:30, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

I mean if you think that an edit is a POV pushing from an WP:SPA, then just say it's not WP:NPOV. It avoids WP:BITEy behavoir, etc. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 02:12, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

I suppose NPOV would be more accurate. Fred Zepelin (talk) 14:34, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:51, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

You would think so!

...after seeing this: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dictations. Thanks for asking them that question--and don't be bashful raising that point on a board or an admin's page next time you see something like it. If you look at how those accounts operated you'll see a pattern, easily. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 21:50, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Holy crap. That's an army of socks. I do not envy the administrative work cleaning that up. Fred Zepelin (talk) 23:57, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

April 2023

Hello, I'm Leonidlednev. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Harlan Crow seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. That does not belong in the lead: see the article's talk page Leonidlednev ( T | C ) 18:52, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps you should've looked at the talk page before you reverted. Are you related to the IP addresses that posted there? Fred Zepelin (talk) 18:56, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Read my sources before reverting my edits.

Hi Fred. You invited me to leave a message on your talk page if I think you made a mistake so here goes.

If you're going to be petty and follow me around wikipedia looking for stuff to undo, please take a look at the sources first at least. There was an error on the 'crime in SF' page that I fixed - it was reporting on crime in January through June only but describing it as yearly rates, thereby undercounting by half. This is obvious if you open the source that was linked previously and the one I changed it to. Hi! (talk) 07:56, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

You have described yourself doing WP:OR. Fred Zepelin (talk) 21:57, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Sound of Freedom (film)

Some biased guy is removing the "accuracy" section from Sound of Freedom (film) 2603:6081:5C00:F109:B8D2:D353:93E5:1AFB (talk) 16:31, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Discussion invitation

Hi Fred Zepelin, you are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Sound of Freedom (film) § Reaching a consensus on the "Accuracy" section. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:31, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Sound of Freedom (film)

Hey Fred, Thank you for contributing to the Wikipedia community. However I noted you added information not focused on the film but rather the actors and based on characters. This is not the correct place for this information but should rather be in the corresponding actors/persons pages. Otherwise information on actor/director/based on characters would be on EVERY films page they are every in.

For example in films which OJ Simpson acted there is not a section on that films page talking about how OJ Simpson was convicted in civil court as a murder. Please discuss on Sound of Freedoms talk page if you would like to talk further. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpeterson101 (talk • contribs) 03:20, 11 July 2023 (UTC) I advise you to report {u|Jpeterson101} for inappropriate behavior. There is already a RFC on the page and the consensus is clear that the section was valid and applicable, but he ignored that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.206.167.225 (talk) 16:02, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

CS1 error on Jim Caviezel

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Jim Caviezel, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 02:30, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Talk:Sound of Freedom (film)

I have requested unprotection of the page at [1]. I understand you were well meaning but there are good sources that should be examined, especially to respond to the fingers-in-ears people in the discussion who keep insisting that RS do not say what they clearly say about Caviezel's connecting the movie directly to QAnon conspiracy theories and using the conspiracy theories to promote the movie.

Example: "On Thursday, Caviezel told conservative podcast host Steve Bannon he had a message for Trump about the screening of "Sound of Freedom," a QAnon-linked movie scheduled to be screened at the former president's Bedminster golf club on July 19. The film suggests global elites are involved in a massive sex-traffic conspiracy... "I believe Donald Trump was selected by God Almighty, and I'm talking about the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit God," he said. Caviezel also talked about a QAnon theory that claims liberal elites — often in Hollywood – drink the blood of infants to obtain their adrenochrome. "That's why the devil wants to kill him, wants to hurt them," he insisted. "It's always been this way since Pharaoh and then to Herod and now but more than ever and enslaving them and doing many, many things including organ harvesting and adrenochroming. And I will say that until I'm, you know, I'm dead." " https://www.rawstory.com/actor-pushes-qanon-theory-of-infant-blood-drinking-while-promoting-film-screening-for-donald-trump/ 73.115.150.77 (talk) 18:24, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

WP:HOUNDing

Don't follow me around and WP:HOUND me, as you did on Operation Underground Railroad. Final warning. Red Slapper (talk) 01:20, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

oooo, "final warning"!!! Scary threat, making me so scared. But seriously, if you think someone editing Sound of Freedom wouldn't naturally have a look at Operation Underground Railroad, go ahead and boomerang yourself with an admin. Please. I'm asking you to. Fred Zepelin (talk) 23:42, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Man, you've grown way, way too obsessed with this movie. Seriously take a break, you're not doing yourself any favors with these weird meltdowns. It's just a movie. 162.222.63.62 (talk) 15:12, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Sorry you got blocked, Slapper. But editing my talk page from IPs isn't going to help you. Fred Zepelin (talk) 15:12, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Sound of Freedom film

I see you reverted the removal of the word "however". MOS:EDITORIAL tells us to avoid the word normally, and in this instance I agree it was editorial/argumentative. I also removed some more - which were also clumsy writing. Doug Weller talk 07:57, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: I'm fine with the removal of "however". On a related topic, Operation Underground Railroad, where the film gets its "based on a true story cred", I added some information that ran across and a very pro-Tim-Ballard editor is insisting on removing it. Wouldn't mind if you took a look and gave your opinion on that, thanks. Fred Zepelin (talk) 23:45, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Not doing that, sorry. I've spent too much time on this. Nor have I spent enough time to really understand the issues and don't want to. I'm trying hard to get back to editing articles involving pseudoarchaeology in the time I have left, see my talk page on that. BUT - you really have to dial it back. Calling editors liars is unacceptable, as is "mistruths". Saying they are wrong and explaining why is what you need to do. Good faith, remember? And I don't think RedSlapper was trying to smear you but defend me as I'd been advising him earlier. Doug Weller talk 08:08, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: no worries, thanks anyway. I get ticked off a little when I see an army of QAnon-defending accounts rush to defend a QAnon movie by deleting all the reliable sources that point out the connections to QAnon. But that's my problem, I get it. Fred Zepelin (talk) 20:28, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

I can understand that. It's off my watchlist now. Doug Weller talk 13:19, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Edit warring

How many fucking times have you restored this https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sound_of_Freedom_(film)&diff=prev&oldid=1167704020 now in the Sound of Freedom (film) article now and how many times have you been reverted for it based on talk page consensus?? Please stop it. Every source says there are now mentions of this conspiracy theory in the film --FMSky (talk) 10:44, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Civility Fred Zepelin (talk) 20:00, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

User:FMSky

This user has turned the O.U.R. article, and some other related ones, into a battlefield. He has been fighting for weeks against every edit that included the Rolling Stones and Vice as sources, and now that his own RfC discussion is going against his opinion that they are unreliable he is flooding the discussion with redundant replies trying to disqualify anyone who disagrees with him. And that's not to mention the angry messages on people's talk pages and relatively uncivil edit descriptions he has made against you and others. It also looks like he edit warred in What Is a Woman? according to this notice, where he also wrote this angry edit summary after getting repeatedly reverted there and being called a POV-pusher. The more I look into his history the worse it gets.

It looks like this has been going on for months now. I have much less background into the history of this article and FMSky's activity in it than you do, I'm only looking at this now that the RfC has been opened, but I think this incident needs to be reported. Looking at his edit history whose political contributions consist mostly of edits that make Right-Wing figures look better or otherwise promote his own political points (look at this), it really looks like this user is trying to get Wikipedia to reflect his personal opinions. SparklyNights 16:53, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

@SparklyNights: Well, I already made my opinion known at the O.U.R. RfC. The only thing I can suggest to you is to put the article on your watchlist, and any others that you think have POV pushing. Be careful not to edit war, but asking for others to weigh in, especially if other editors have run across FMSky's reverts, I think is okay. Feel free to tag me anywhere you think is appropriate. I probably don't have time to look at every single edit they make, but I don't mind giving sharing my experience dealing with FMSky with an admin, so if you feel like admin attention is needed, ask one of them. Fred Zepelin (talk) 22:21, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

@SparklyNights: Looks like he's been topic banned from transgender topics and also from anything related to Tim Ballard, so that should take care of it. Fred Zepelin (talk) 16:49, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:56, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I wanna contribute properly

Hello, My name is Anoghena Okoyomoh from Nigeria, I wanted to contribute on Wikipedia about emerging artists in Africa and so far I've been able to effect corrections on Wikipedia articles whose subject that boarders on Nigerian history and facts; I took an interest in Yinka Ash an emerging fashion designer because he began an incubation programme for young artist, so when I saw his Wikipedia page as bare I decided to expand on information. However, it seems I did it wrong, cause the article was flagged as likely a publicity hoax or I was paid to do the edits. I know I messed up, so I'm kindly asking how I can avoid the mistakes I made. I would really really really appreciate it, I know you're probably busy, but I would appreciate it. Thank you. Anoghena Okoyomoh (talk) 09:12, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Fred Zepelin!

Happy New Year!

Fred Zepelin,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Abishe (talk) 14:47, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

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

Abishe (talk) 14:47, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

"Golden State Party" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Golden State Party has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 26 § Golden State Party until a consensus is reached. Crendrik (talk) 14:57, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Luceafărul (poem)

I now note you have removed sourced info from this article, on a whim. The claim that the sources do not exist is frankly moronic -- you can find the articles in pdf at Arcanum library, which is on-and-off paywalled, and they also may have html versions, though such links tend to rot. (The links could be refreshed to the archived version, but the fact that they were printed is enough of a verification. Removing them without even checking for archived versions is inane and destructive.) I am an editor in good standing, and I will ask you once not to engage in this sort of borderline vandalism. Dahn (talk) 12:03, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Romanian

Hi Fred. Since it has been repeatedly asserted that you "probably don't even" speak/know Romanian, I just wanted to ask you directly if you are fluent in that language. As for the ANI discussion, it should stay open until an admin has a chance to see the more recent developments--the two involved admins (El_C and Waggers) haven't edited WP at all since they last commented, so patience is key. Thanks. Grandpallama (talk) 20:16, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

I do speak Romanian, although the Google Translate function is better at translating Romanian to English than I am, especially for higher-level encyclopedic text. I would put my ability somewhere near the ability of an average 14-year-old living in Romania. I have to say, I don't think that's relevant when we're talking about the English wikipedia. Original research is original research, even if it's relying on dubious translations from sources. Fred Zepelin (talk) 20:19, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

5/1/2024

Hey, Fred. Thanks for re-editing the article on producer Cardiak. All of my entries seemed unreliable and unrealistic. I wasn't able to find sources by references to confirm mostly anything neither. I just want you to know I have a mental illness, but people remind me that makes no excuse for my ridiculous edits on that page. If any response, reach out to me. Thanks. Darrion "Beans" Brown 🙂 (my talk page / my sandbox) 23:44, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

September 2024

Your "RfC" is problematic on multiple procedural fronts, and so is, frankly, your strangely persistent desire to label this small-time organization as far right. I think you should seriously reconsider your stance at this point. Biohistorian15 (talk) 20:46, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

That's a very nice way for you to say "I don't like it when a far-right thing is called 'far-right' but I don't have any concrete reasons for having that opinion." Fred Zepelin (talk) 15:01, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

You are right. I have a very general concern with the formula "far X". I could find a dozen otherwise reliable sources calling Noam Chomsky far left, and would still find it undue for the lede. Biohistorian15 (talk) 15:15, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

I would agree that Noam Chomsky is far-left. If anyone took the time to find reliable sources that describe him that way, I would support putting that in the lead. I don't think Wikipedia should be concerned with tip-toeing around calling it like it is. Fred Zepelin (talk) 15:16, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Ok, but calling a spade a space is precisely not what this label amounts to, AFAIK. Focusing on the right again: (a) Someone may be conservative/right-wing in a mainstream sense; (b) they may be proponents of some particular, more niche ideology (*its label ideally corresponding as close as possible to their self-description); or they may (c) be actively involved with political violence/terrorism. The label "far X" usefully scrambles these meanings if you ask me. Biohistorian15 (talk) 15:27, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Go ahead and show me the reliable sources where you found those 3 definitions. Fred Zepelin (talk) 15:29, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

I am making general appeals here and am no longer talking about this strange Canadian org. Are you here to make the wiki more or less ambiguous? Biohistorian15 (talk) 15:35, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Since you've come here to talk about how much True North is described as "far-right" in various sources, and "far-right" is a more specific descriptor, and subset of, "the right" in general, I would think the answer to your question is self-evident. Fred Zepelin (talk) 15:36, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Semantically "far X" may be less ambiguous than "X" or "X-leaning" etc., but pragmatically it's very much not. False positives for such labels, putting mainstream or intellectual figures (scientists, journalists...) into the same camp as terrorists and dictators should be avoided at all costs. Biohistorian15 (talk) 15:48, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

The concern of a false positive can and should always be kept in mind, but in my view calling someone "far X" is not inherently putting them in the same camp as terrorists and dictators. It just describes what their views are, and from that point their actions (or lack thereof) speak for themselves. Harryhenry1 (talk) 16:33, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

October 2024

I am not going to leave any unwelcome templates on this page, but this edit [2] was slow burn edit warring. You know it has been reverted by two editors already and that there is a discussion on the talk page. You are welcome to contribute to the discussion, but simply putting back your version without consensus is a WP:BLPRESTORE issue. Please use the talk page.

And on a more general note, I wonder if you have considered whether your approach is right here. POV editing is still POV editing even when there may be a fairly general agreement that the subject deserves it. But what does it gain? We are trying to meet the information need of readers here, not to colour the subjects per our own views. If we have content free labelling up front we tell one set of readers that Wikipedia is biased against them, and they stop reading, and we tell another set of readers that the subject is not worthy of further consideration, and they stop too. Neither side comes away educated and partisanship is merely strengthened. That page has a lot wrong with it. I had a look at it with a view to rewriting the main, but it is somewhat daunting. perhaps we could discuss how the whole page could be made more encyclopaedic, and leave the partisan labelling behind. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:08, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

There was a long-standing accepted version of the lead, and it was discussed on talk, and every once in a while the whitewashing semi-white-nationalists come back to soften Hyde's image. The sources are what the sources are. Fred Zepelin (talk) 18:19, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Edit warring notice for Hin Bredendieck

Your recent editing history at Hin Bredendieck shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Please also be sure to WP:AGF when engaging with others on Wikipedia 108.48.53.155 (talk) 22:53, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Edit warring notice for South Side Community Art Center

Your recent editing history at South Side Community Art Center shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Please refrain from removing WP:RS and WP:AGF when communicating with others on Wikipedia 108.48.53.155 (talk) 22:55, 1 November 2024 (UTC)