User talk:C.Fred

Welcome to my talk page.

Please sign and date your comment (by adding ~~~~ at the end) to assist the bot that archives this page.
Please add a new thread to the bottom of the page if you wish to leave me a new message. If you're following up on a previous message, keep your comment in that same place:
- If you leave me a message here, I will reply here and {{Mention}} you here or leave a {{Talkback}} template on your talk page, unless you indicate that you are watching my page or no talkback message is necessary.
- If you are responding to a message I left on your talk page, please reply there so the discussion stays in one place. Please {{Mention}} me in the message there or leave a {{Talkback}} template here so I know about the message, unless I indicate that no talkback is necessary in my message. If you are commenting here on a message or warning I left there, don't be surprised if I move the discussion back to your talk page.
This page is set for automatic archiving every 7 days. I will remove talkback messages as acknowledgment that I have read the related reply, and I reserve the right to summarily remove any uncivil comments or frivolous warnings.

Thank you, and happy editing!

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by .

Reversion of Utah Historical State Flag Image[edit]

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)[reply]

April 28, 2024[edit]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – May 2024[edit]

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

Administrator changes

Nyttend

Bureaucrat changes

Nihonjoe

CheckUser changes

Joe Roe

Oversight changes

GeneralNotability

Guideline and policy news

Phase I of the 2024 requests for adminship review has concluded. Several proposals have passed outright and will proceed to implementation, including creating a discussion-only period (3b) and administrator elections (13) on a trial basis. Other successful proposals, such as creating a reminder of civility norms (2), will undergo further refinement in Phase II. Proposals passed on a trial basis will be discussed in Phase II, after their trials conclude. Further details on specific proposals can be found in the full report.

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

The arbitration case Conflict of interest management has been closed.

Miscellaneous

This may be a good time to reach out to potential nominees to ask if they would consider an RfA.
A New Pages Patrol backlog drive is happening in May 2024 to reduce the number of unreviewed articles in the new pages feed. Currently, there is a backlog of over 15,000 articles awaiting review. Sign up here to participate!
Voting for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) election is open until 9 May 2024. Read the voting page on Meta-Wiki and cast your vote here!

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

Removals by User: Kautilya3[edit]

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)[reply]

Imam al-Quduri[edit]

Here is the reference that he was a Maturidi.

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

@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)[reply]

Reverting edits on Snell's law[edit]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

IP editor talk page abuse[edit]

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)[reply]