User talk:C.Fred/Archive 8

Manyclinicmanager

This user vandalized your user page, and made personal attacks on his/her own user page (which I deleted), in addition to trying to disparage others' credibility and edit warring. Unless you are personally involved in a content dispute with the user, you should feel free to block him/her.Jasper Deng (talk) 02:54, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Or I will if you want, and happily. That kind of garbage should not be tolerated. This user is clearly not interested in improving Wikipedia. Their kind is not welcome here. -- œ^™ 03:01, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to do so.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:05, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

No objections if you want to. I probably have a slightly slower "trigger finger" when it comes to blocks; I also don't like to make it look like I'm blocking a user because they vandalized my user page. (Now, if it's part of a long pattern, that's another story, but I don't think this user hit that length threshold. For me. Your mileage may vary. Objects may look larger in mirror. Some settling may have occurred during shipment. Do not taunt Happy Fun Administrator. :)). —C.Fred (talk) 03:08, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Semi-protection of article talk pages

Hi, is it possible to semi-protect an article talk page? Just a hypothetical at the moment as I've just put a warning up on the relevant page asking the contributors to take their battles off Wikipedia. I doubt that the warning will work but I have to try. They're IP contributors on the TP. The article is already semi-protected. - Sitush (talk) 18:25, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

It's possible, but it's usually to be avoided. If a page is semi-protected, the talk page is the only avenue for unregistered or new editors to request changes. What's the page in question? Depending on the nature of what's going on, blocks may be more in order than protection. —C.Fred (talk) 18:30, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I appreciate that it is an extremely drastic measure. I'd rather not go down the route if it can be avoided but was not even sure if it was technically possible. Article is Paravar.- Sitush (talk) 18:34, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

As a technical matter, any page can be either semi- or fully protected. Even user talk pages—in some cases, blocks have been enforced against people by taking away the ability of anybody to edit their user talk pages. I think I've found the page and jumped into the discussion on the talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 18:37, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you found it. Thanks for that. I've done a phenomenal amount of work getting the article up to scratch (or, rather, a lot better than it was) but the undercurrent on the talk page explains to me why the thing was semi-protected in the first place. I guess it is something those of us outside the caste system simply cannot understand, but that doesn't make it right. - Sitush (talk) 18:41, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

What do you think of this edit by the 59.xx IP editor who has been reverted on Paravar this afternoon? Is he trying to stir something up or what? Thought about reverting it but am not 100% sure what is going on. - Sitush (talk) 17:12, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

If they're confining it to their user talk pages, I'm not getting that concerned about it, as long as it stays civil.

Tangent: Is my user talk page on your watch list? If so, I'll stop sending talkbacks with each installment of a conversation here. —C.Fred (talk) 18:04, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

OK, and yes it is - save yourself some time. I'm afraid that you're having rather more dealings with me than perhaps is desirable. - Sitush (talk) 18:10, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

TCEA - Texas Computer Education Association

I had a few questions on how to move forward with approval of this article. You stated (G11/G12 - intro a clear copy; remainder, if it isn't copied from assn's website, looks like it is). The article does include text that is very similar if not the same from the association's website. I'm the creator of all this content in both places and have the rights to use it. I understand the possible conflict of interest but I feel this content is just straight information about TCEA.

Since I'm new to the whole wikipedia world, could you point in the right direction? Tcea (talk) 16:17, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Please see my reply at your talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 17:02, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of AfD discussion pages

• I'm not sure how this has happened, or how to undo the damage. Doublechecking now on my history to see if this has happened on other articles today. Thanks for letting me know about this, and if you have any guidance on how I can fix it, please let me know. Thank you. Mandsford 18:53, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I think I got it fixed on the Hacienda page, going to try it now on the other one. Mandsford

Deleting the log entry was a case of me trying to fix the first problem and compounding my own error. It wasn't intended as a coverup, but it certainly looks that way. I'll see if I can roll back that particular change, now that I know that I've restored the discussions and deleted the articles. Mandsford 19:08, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I hope you can help. I am Vanessa Angel and I have noticed new edits to my page that are incorrect. I have tried to change them but not being a wikipedia user, I find it very confusing and complicated. My birthdate is nov 10th 1966, which was previously posted and now has been changed using an incorrect web site source. The correct date is on the imdb.com and every other site on the web, as well as knowing when I was born! It is frustrating, as a lot of people use this site. My parents names were also wrong and I do not want that info on there and I was wrongly name a vegan. Please can you help me edit the corrections, I am lost as to how to go about it properly! Best, Vanessa Angel — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vanrind (talk • contribs) 06:27, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I will reply on your talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 06:36, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback. I am Vanessa Angel, otherwise why would I really care. I will send an email to the admin to see if they can help and show personal proof of my birthdate if necessary. It's absolutely crazy how complicated this site is but thanks for responding. It is weird having people write about you, who don't know you and there are a lot of unreliable sources on the web and it's frustrating when the actual person can't do much about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vanrind (talk • contribs) 06:54, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for making those changes! I appreciate your understanding my frustration. I will happily send you a signed pic if you want. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vanrind (talk • contribs) 06:57, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Re: Requesting to replace photo

Hello and thanks for reading my inquiry on the "Billie Joe Armstrong" discussion page. Yes I have uploaded a photo of Billie Joe armstrong to commons. As far as I know, It is can be used on wikipedia.

You can find it here. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Billie_joe.jpg

If you think a better one could be used, I'll come up with a photo that can be used on Wikipedia.

Thanks again! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesmac96 (talk • contribs) 20:31, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Rastamouse

what is the point of your comment? you don't know what the issue is so why tell us? Look at Rubiscous & see he is only here to make others have to correct his errors & tell him off. Look at the Rastamouse page as it stands & it is fine as it is written by those who know the program. End of. Madjewelvisor (talk) 21:03, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

End of this discussion, yes. If you want to discuss changes that should be made to the Rastamouse article, that's one thing—and I've invited you to do that at your talk page and the article's talk page. Otherwise, you're headed down a slippery slope, where your comments may be seen as attempts to harass Rubiscous. —C.Fred (talk) 21:05, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

User:The moors in scotland

You would mind slapping a block on, would you? Seems to be Zsfgseg (talk · contribs) again. --Dylan620 ^{(t • c)} 00:04, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Moot issue: the account is already blocked. —C.Fred (talk) 00:06, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

You Missed Everything article

Thanks for deleting it. I believe the person was using two different names considering I flagged it for quick deletion and another name with no previous edits removed it without explanation.Aquabanianskakid (talk) 01:46, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Possible error in Trent Reznor's article

There is a section in Trent Reznor's page entitled "Drug Abuse and Depression" that I believe is placed in a confusing and unnecessary position. You explained to me that the section was placed correctly because it dealt with Reznor's personal life; however, there are several problems with this explanation. First, it disrupts the general reading flow of the article; The section before it mentions his entering Allegheny College while the section following describes his tenure at the college. The "Drug Abuse And Depression" section not only discusses events that do not happen until years later in Reznor's life, but they require knowledge of his discography and life, such as his grandmother's death, which the reader could not possible know without having already read many of the sections below. The section may deal with his personal life, but it is placed in a confusing and uninformative location and for the sake of future readers should either have references to future material removed or be relocated to follow the release of NIN's debut album, the aftermath of which this section actually describes. I do not mean to vandalize or engage in a "edit war", I simply wish to improve an article and contribute to a more reliable Wiki. I'm hope that there are others who will agree with me in this matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snuqwerty (talk • contribs) 04:48, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

If you think the change is necessary, then as was mentioned on your talk page, discuss the issue at Talk:Trent Reznor. —C.Fred (talk) 04:56, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Nick Stone (author)

I've been having a bit of a tussle, on and off, with an editor at Nick Stone (author). He keeps removing cited content, most recently here. I think that I understand why he does so, which is related to the sometimes controversial status of the article subject's father. I suppose that we could just remove all statements regarding his parentage but I do not feel that this is a breach of BLP. In fact his parentage goes some way to explaining the guy's authorial influences: his mother was a niece of one of Papa Doc's people and the author lived in Haiti as a child, the experiences of which he has used in his writings. I didn't add the parentage stuff in the first instance - my original involvement came out of the page being listed in the broken refs category.

I have attempted discussion once but got no reply; I've also used edit summaries etc to explain. My problem is, although I have warned him about vandalism, I don't think this really is vandalism. I'm just not sure what category of warning I should be using. It is not a content dispute in the sense that I understand that phrase because the statement is double cited to perfectly ok sources and, for that matter, the article on his father links to this article. The editor is simply removing valid, cited content. - Sitush (talk) 13:49, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

A couple of things. First, you might want to take a look at WP:TUSER. That's a gallery of templates for warning users for various actions. In a situation like this, I'd have started with {{uw-delete1}}; I'd have probably also added a comment like "Information in articles should be backed up with citations of reliable sources. Your edit removed one of these references. If you have concerns about the source, please explain them at the talk page." Templates are boilerplate text, meant to be consistent across multiple users. However, they're neither required nor are they prescribed. A simple message on the user's talk page like "Hey, you removed the reference for his parents. Could you explain why at Talk:Nick Stone (author) so we understand why you did?" can accomplish the purpose just as well.

That said, if the user should keep on removing the citation without explaining why, he's drifted into the territory of edit warring. Any user who reverts text in an article more than three times in 24 hours is subject to blocking for violating the "three revert rule." There is a warning template, {{uw-3rr}}, specifically for that situation. If a situation like that happens, make sure you don't accidentally make a fourth revert yourself; if another user makes a fourth revert, and at least one of the reverts is after receiving a warning about the 3RR, you may report them at WP:ANEW, the administrators' noticeboard for edit warring.

One other note: when, as you did here, you include an edit summary like "cite to come shortly," make sure it comes up very soon (as it did in your case). Best practice is to have the citation ready at the same time you add the text, so it can go in at the same time. If that edit had hung out there longer than 15 minutes or so, I would have reverted it with an edit summary of "re-add once you have the cite available." —C.Fred (talk) 14:12, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Cheers. I'd copied the cite, which had been used elsewhere, & then stupidly copied something else, overwriting my buffer. It was just the easiest solution, although obviously there are plenty of others (new window; restart; copy the edited section, go into full edit, paste & re-cite etc). I'd never leave it for more than 2 minutes, as you saw.

From what you describe, it looks as if the issue of editing to remove parentage may continue as a long term issue, even if the editor does hit 3RR at some point (which I think unlikely as it looks like an SPA who just turns up now and again). I'll just have to keep reverting as and when. Sigh <g> - Sitush (talk) 14:20, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

(ec) …And I just jumped into practice what I preach at User talk:Blackheartmon.[1] Not a templated warning, just a message: a request to use edit summaries, a link to Help:Edit summary, an explanation of the benefits of using them, and what the consequences of not using edit summaries could be. —C.Fred (talk) 14:31, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring can be long-term. If this editor is focused only on editing one article, then it does call into question what his motives are for reverting the article. Again, that's what discussion is for. I'd prefer to assume good faith that there's a valid reason for the edit and ask why he's making it. If he keeps making bad edits, though, then the edits present a pattern of not being in good faith, and it's easy for administrators to act based on the pattern. That's part of the reason I jumped in: there were the edits back in February that removed the reflist, then he went quiet, and now he's back—and only editing a single article. My administrator's "Spidey sense" is tingling. :) —C.Fred (talk) 14:31, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

When I was involved with this in February I was pretty green in terms of editing knowledge, 90% or more of which was probably based on one article. I should know better by now and this is why I raised it. As always, your guidance and example has been appreciated. Now I'm debating whether to go read one of Mr Stone's thrillers ... - Sitush (talk) 14:38, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Please respond on my talk

Hello, please respond to me on my talk regarding the photo replacement on Billie Joe Armstrong's page. I had a section earlier titled "Re: Requesting to replace photo" here with a photo already uploaded to commons.

I appreciate your time.

Sincerely,

James  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesmac96 (talk • contribs) 21:09, 5 April 2011 (UTC) 

Re: Requesting to replace photo

Hello and thanks for replying back to me. If you wish for me to do so, I can find another one.

Thanks alot! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesmac96 (talk • contribs) 12:11, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Tetsudo Article

I had added an article about Tetsudo, which has been removed.

There is no copyright issue here as I am an official of the Tetsudo Association, and the author of the website www.tetsudo.co.uk, identified as carrying the material, and so, I am simply contributing my own material here, as well as there.

There was also a comment about a consensus not to carry information about Tetsudo. This is difficult to understand as it is entirely within the function of an encyclopaedia, to give information about martial arts in general, the different branches of martial arts, and different styles within those branches. Tetsudo is a distinctive style of Karate. It has a history, a present, and a future, and people looking for information about it are entitled to make an enquiry on Wikipedia and find an article there giving brief but sufficient information. This is all I was intending to do, and hope that we can agree on a suitable article to provide to people.

Just to prove my credentials, you can contact me through [redacted] in addition to any normal reply channels.

Regards, Milesco (talk) 21:46, 6 April 2011 (UTC) Andy Miles Web Manager Tetsudo Association

I have replied at your talk page. Please reply there; I have added your talk page to my watchlist and will see that you have replied. —C.Fred (talk) 22:08, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Wawawaer

[2] it seems that this user needs to be indefinitely blocked.Jasper Deng (talk) 01:24, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I did not see a block log entry of you extending the block.Jasper Deng (talk) 01:50, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Everything should be in place on all the pages, including revdel of the offending edits with a summary that the information was introduced with intent to disrupt the system. Wikipedia is not a game; game over for this editor. (Though I bet he never mentions that the article has been cleaned up.) —C.Fred (talk) 01:53, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

You should be a bit more careful in the future, but I think you know. :) Easy mistake to make. Prodego ^talk 03:17, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Except I don't view it as a mistake. An account is created and immediately removes information from an article without explanation. Ninety-nine times out of a hundred, removing text like that is disruptive. This was the exception. It won't stop me from warning editors who remove sourced text from articles, though it may make me give a little more scrutiny if the text was under a vague source to begin with. (We don't require sources to be online, so it's not like I can just go "Oh, no link," and automatically assume removal is correct.) It comes down to judgment calls, and last I checked, all of us editing Wikipedia are human. —C.Fred (talk) 03:34, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Those sources ARE online though, and have search boxes. Neither of you give any appearance of having searched. Did you? I did and the material claimed just isn't there. Further, it's far more likely that vandals add crap than remove good stuff. But yes, 99 times out of 100 is about right. Nevertheless, the way WP works, you have to engage in discussion before you block, because of that one time in 100. You guys didn't discuss enough, you went off half cocked, and RMHED played you nicely. Given how badly Jasper reacted, I think you'd be wise not to immediately block on his say so going forward. (that may not be what you did here but it appears that way to me.) ++Lar: t/c 03:43, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

That is understandable. The only part that, IMO, makes this a mistake is that Wawawaer was reverted and blocked after making the edit summary "remove lies" when removing content from a BLP. As soon as you see something like that you need to stop and talk to the user before restoring the material. Prodego ^talk 04:03, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Bear in mind that there were two blocks. The first was for 3RR violation. Now, had Wawawaer been acting in good faith, that would probably have elicited some kind of response from him. Remember, other than the fourth edit summary, he'd given no explanation at all and had not discussed his edits; he'd blanked the warnings left on his talk page—and one of those warnings said removing warnings was tacit acknowledgment. The action of continuing to remove the text without providing sufficient explanation justified a block to prevent further disruption—or at least to create a situation where he could only discuss the situation on his talk page rather than continue to edit war.

Before Wawawaer made any attempt to discuss or request unblocking, Jasper Deng posted the link Lar provided to the Wikipedia Review thread about the article. Now I had new evidence: RMHED had admitted to what he was doing. At that point, I went to the article history and checked when the offending text was added. Two IPs, two and four days ago—hrm, yep, the story adds up. Let's check out the sources—they don't.

At that point, I now have a different situation on my hands. I have an editor who's admitted to disrupting the encyclopedia and introducing disruptive facts. I check his edit history and the history for the IPs he used to see if I can readily locate any of it. I make sure the article is in a state where none of the information is present in the article. I probably should have let the edits stay in history, but I revdeled under the justification of intentional disruption (although grossly defamatory statements could also have applied). Then I indefinitely blocked Wawawaer for perpetrating it all.

Speaking of Wawawaer's edit history…I turned up an article where he removed a non-free image. Knowing that he'd played me, I wasn't sure what, if anything, to do with the image. I decided the only thing to do was get more eyes on the situation, so I opened discussion on whether the image complies with the non-free image rules. It came down to losing faith in his motives: he'd gamed on one article, so which way was he gaming on the second one? Better to get more eyes on the situation to consider it. —C.Fred (talk) 04:06, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Every action you took after being shown the thread (especially rev deleting the libel) looks good to me. But really that 'remove lies' summary should have triggered a stop of the reversion and blocking. You may have not even seen it before blocking since you weren't doing the reverts. If so I can't say much but to check those things. If you blocked him knowing he made that edit summary, than I'd consider that a bad thing. Prodego ^talk 04:12, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

A good point. Maybe I've seen too many cases where an editor said "remove lies" but meant "remove information that is unflattering to somebody I like." In retrospect, this probably would've been the time to use {{uw-3rr4}} and follow it up with a note like "Please make it clear why you consider the information to be untrue. The information is backed up by reliable sources; please provide alternate sources that disprove the claims or otherwise state your concerns with the sources." —C.Fred (talk) 04:24, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I think you've acted way more reasonably than your associate Jasper Deng has. You might try to influence him/her since it seems the advice he/she got from Prodego and I didn't really sink in. ++Lar: t/c 10:46, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Emergency

I have accused User:Lar as being the sockmaster behind User:Wawawaer and an IP at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wawawaer, and being an admin, this user probably may be desysopped.Jasper Deng (talk) 02:39, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Lady Gaga sales

Hey I think you should convince other editors to re-edit the lady gaga page, I'm pretty sure the number of her albums and singles sold have surpassed 15 and 51 million. she must have sold at least 18 million copies worldwide. according to Wikipedia itself her album The Fame sold 12 million copies worldwide and her EP The Fame Monster sold 5.8 million copies worldwide in 2010 and by now it must have sold over 6 million. Just google it if you don't believe me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Strollback98 (talk • contribs) 07:34, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

"I'm pretty sure" will not get the article changed. "I have a reliable source that says" will; Google it yourself, find a newspaper or magazine story that backs it up, and put the link at Talk:Lady Gaga. —C.Fred (talk) 15:59, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I think someone should change lady gaga's album sales to at least 17.8 million, according to wikipedia itself her album The Fame sold 12 million copies worldwide and according to this article here http://gagadaily.com/2010/12/the-fame-monster-named-best-selling-album-of-2010/ The Fame Monster sold 5.8 million albums worldwide as of 2010 and was named the best selling album of 2010. I don't know how to post reference links onto pages so would you mind doing it for me? thanx! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Strollback98 (talk • contribs) 16:19, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

or simply change the album sales report as 20 million copies worldwide because according to this site http://gagadaily.com/2010/12/the-fame-monster-named-best-selling-album-of-2010/ they said she sold 13 million with the fame and 5.8 million with the fame monster as of 2010. now it's been a few months so I believe the sales has reached 20 million

hit me back — Preceding unsigned comment added by Strollback98 (talk • contribs) 16:25, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

No, it's better to wait until an independent reliable source verifies that it's sold 20 million before changing the article. —C.Fred (talk) 16:28, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Colors in the Total Drama template

I've removed all of the styling and colors I added to the Total Drama articles. I think I went a little too much with the styling. All the tables and charts were reverted to their last revision without styling Giggett (talk) 06:34, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Library Assignment

Fred--the information I provided was for an assignment that should have remained on Wikipedia. My instructor would be able to pull up the site and find my page with basic information about me. Plus, I'm experimenting with the uses of this site. If deleted, I'll need to enter another page so that my instructor can check the exercise...and who are you...wiki patrol? :-)))

Claudiamoore (talk) 00:24, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Replying on your talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 01:00, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

List of 500 most influential Muslims in the world

If a list of "the 500 most influential Muslims in the world" is published jointly by two bodies, neither of which themselves have a Wikipedia article, would it be considered a notable list? I've been going round deleting references to it on a WP:BOLD basis but would appreciate your view. I couldn't care less if it was Muslims, Christians, fast food entrepreneurs, child actors or whatever: it is the principle that I'm trying to ascertain. Am watching. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 02:36, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I think the "neither of which themselves have a Wikipedia article" is one point to consider; the other key point is who references or comments on the list. For comparison, take the Fortune 500. Not only is Fortune a notable magazine, but the list is also cited and commented on in multiple other publications. That level of coverage makes the list notable. For the list of influential Muslims to be notable, it would need to be covered similarly. If stories on list members in, e.g., the Times of London mention that they're on the list, then that would be evidence of the list's notability. —C.Fred (talk) 02:57, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

That is a very good point which you make. I'll do some digging across the big newspapers/news stations. I'm happy to prove myself wrong. - Sitush (talk) 03:16, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Update: a quick sample shows

• Huffington Post - one entry, basically a one-liner in the journalist's own bio
• The Guardian - "this ambitious exercise seems more than a little inconsistent and ill-judged" (written by a Muslim journalist)
• New York Times, The Times (London), Sydney Herald, Chicago Tribune, WSJ - cannot spot anything in any of them
• BBC - nothing, even though one of their most prominent journos is in the list
• Al-Jazeera - one story, possibly citing Reuters newswire but odd if it is and no-one else picked up on it & therefore I suspect it is Reuters with some content aded by Al-Jazeera
• CNN - nothing

Plenty in blogs, minor web "news" sites etc - I doubt that many would pass WP:RS but I'm not trawling through them all. Google News only shows the Al-J entry + something from onislam.net. This award has been running for 3 years or thereabouts, so I guess it should have had something in the major news outlets. I'm afraid that I think my gut feeling was probably correct, but that then leaves me with the problem of dealing with the editor who has been spamming the item across all the various named people. Ho-hum. - Sitush (talk) 03:46, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Has he been spamming the item? If so, the question becomes whether he's posting in an attempt to make the list more well-known. In that case, it is spam, and adding the link warrants warning and a potential block if it persists. —C.Fred (talk) 03:48, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I use the word spam in the widest sense rather than a technical sense. He may or may not have a COI with regard to his actions. Taking the AGF approach to it, he is dumping the same content (merely changing the recipient's name) on a shed-load of articles. I caught him on 6 April, reverted & asked him to desist, only to find an IP re-add the following day (possibly forgot to log in), and then a lot more appear on 11 April, which I have now also reverted. I think I've caught them all but, well, who knows? - Sitush (talk) 03:58, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I've invited him to explain the edits on his talk page. If he refuses to discuss the edits, then I'll go down the path that it's an attempt to spam. —C.Fred (talk) 04:06, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

OK. I'm watching his page also. - Sitush (talk) 04:12, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Another problem

It is clearly gonig to be one of those days. User_talk:Landalva - numerous warnings, for various things & by various people. I've tried to open discussions and have fixed on far more occasions than are noted on the user's talk page. It is disruptive etc. Should this go to AN/I ? I don't think it is really vandalism and it isn't a content dispute as such. I may have exceeded 3RR here, although I've only just realised that only anti-vandal measures keep me inside the rule. - Sitush (talk) 06:04, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Seth Stone

Can you explain why you deleted Seth Stone under A7 because you couldn't verify a single award? Ironholds (talk) 17:40, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Because the awards and roles couldn't be verified, they would have needed to be removed from the article. After that was done, there was no assertion of significance or importance left. Without such an assertion, the article was subject to speedy deletion under A7. —C.Fred (talk) 19:16, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

To expand: the additional summary I used in the deletion was

roles so minor as to be uncredited don't justify the alleged awards

Seth Stone does not have a listing at IMDB. In one or two cases, the roles he was listed as playing were in the credits under other actors' names! In one case, the award he was alleged to have won I found mentioned on the web—but awarded to another actor. Frankly, I could've deleted the article under G3, hoax, as a result of those findings. I went the A7 route instead. —C.Fred (talk) 19:20, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Dancing With The Stars Updates

So it's my fault for reading Wikipedia?

EoGuy (talk) 01:34, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Yep. Says the person who's stopped himself at least once from hovering over a diff link on The Biggest Loser: Couples 4 tonight. (It's on my DVR; we won't watch it until tomorrow. So I stay away from the article for a day.) —C.Fred (talk) 01:46, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Bob's Overcooked Burgers

You better mind the grill, brother. He's rabid about this edit, and now he's going by JTwoFourSix (talk). KnownAlias contact 00:17, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

And I have no qualms about wielding the mop's special tools, like blocking and protection. Thanks for the heads-up. —C.Fred (talk) 00:22, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

48 hours is great; I love slow roast. KnownAlias contact 00:31, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

He also used 131.156.118.75 (in the mood for Chinese yet?) KnownAlias contact 17:58, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Because he IP-hops so much, I'm worried about collateral damage. Even though the IP hasn't been used by unregistered editors, there could be a registered account at that site, so I'd prefer not to block it until he makes it necessary. —C.Fred (talk) 18:02, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I know, but until we can think of what to do until such a time when (not if) he builds us up to indefinited semi protection, I can only keep swatting at the flies, but you're right; with the page protection, he's currently harmless. KnownAlias contact 18:07, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Okay, now the little tool figured out auto-confirmed; BBall4Life2k edited a couple of articles just to revert his own edit, revert the revert, and revert it again, and build his was up to 10 in less than four minutes. The garbage is now on both Bob's Burgers and List of Bob's Burgers episodes, which are both currently semi-protected just because of this guy. The talk pages are littered with article length content explaining the rules of verification and notoriety to this one guy, and the same crap with the same useless sources keeps popping up. I'm at my wits end with this. God forbid you have any advice here? KnownAlias contact 10:38, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Fortunately, that tactic screams "I'm trying to get auto-confirmed!" when it shows up in the history, which makes it very easy to block accounts like that very quickly. Yeah, the problem is that he'll have to be manually blocked each time he creates a new account. On the flip side, the amount of problems he causes will leave him in a situation where he'll get de facto banned from Wikipedia because of the repeated blocks and because no admin will want to unblock him. —C.Fred (talk) 15:16, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I see. He's not the only one learning new techniques...it might just be close to time for me to hold a town meeting, close off a couple of side streets. KnownAlias contact 17:07, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

If the problems keep coming, I agree that's a good next step. It may be necessary to block a (range of) IP address(es) to keep him from continuing to play this game. —C.Fred (talk) 17:11, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Now it's 23mafesto90 (talk), and he thinks his "fixed a typo" edit summaries are fooling people. I'm prepping my notes, and reserving the town hall. KnownAlias contact 19:06, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

If it's not a big imposition, or inappropriate, would you care to proof a rough draft of my An/I entry in my sandbox, just to see if it's up to snuff? I'm not looking for "suck up to the admins" advice, just proper content stuff; links, evidence, ect. I wouldn't ask, but I only know the page from searching it out yesterday after you mentioned "de facto banned" (I mean, I've seen the acronym before, but...), and I'm not sure what's proper for it. No great rush, as I want to hold onto it so I can drop a proper notification on him before I revert him again, and his next account is blocked. Otherwise, I'm trusting him to read the Bob's Burgers talk pages, or the talk of an already blocked account, and I don't need him having that excuse. Plus, I want to start sorting through who the editors on the talk pages were so I can notify them directly and bring them into the conversation, too. If I'm out of line, I'll just roll with it when the time comes. (PS: No need for talkback w/ me, I watch my contributions page for updates). KnownAlias contact 22:40, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

You probably already saw it in your contributions page, but I looked at the rough draft of your entry. I made a couple of suggestions, including how to link to the user's contribution history and a few links. I also brought up the prospect of a rangeblock, which would be the next step in escalating preventative measures. That's a big step: it would prevent editing (or account creation) from a larger subnet. That might get shot down, which is why I phrased it that it's time to consider whether we need to do it.

Remember, all banning a user does is give administrators the prerogative to block his sockpuppets on sight, revert all changes the new account has made, and delete any pages he's created (CSD G5). However, it's a formal step to say that the community considers his actions to be problematic—and it opens the doors to taking further actions, like a rangeblock. I think you're right that it's time to go that route, though—or start having the discussion that this AN/I report will trigger. —C.Fred (talk) 03:19, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

"Avoid rather than check. Check rather than hurt. Hurt rather than maim. Maim rather than kill." I can wait. Whichever measure makes him wake up and either act like a member of a community or quit is as far as we need to go, as far as I'm concerned. A lot of people unfortunately forget that, to hurt rather than maim, you gotta hurt somebody, and think that statement is one of passivity. My determination is just as dogged as his, at least. That I have to go through a bureaucracy to do it is irrelevant; change that is slow is still change. I'm ready to hurt him, and hope he learns from there. I've implemented your changes from the notes, and am ready to go. So now, we just wait, and counter his punch. Appreciate all the help. KnownAlias contact 06:16, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

An/I active here; Wikipedia:ANI#Consensus ban of Sockmaster BlueMondo131 from Bob's Burgers and List of Bob's Burgers episodes. Get this; after my last post, with the edit summary "ready to go", he reposted in 12 minutes on both pages with two different edit summaries saying l e t s GO! May not have to wait as long as we thought for that rangeblock. KnownAlias contact 07:20, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Suicide of Megan Meier

I responded to your reply regarding the suggestion to semi-protect the article on Talk:Suicide of Megan Meier. I think it is an excellent idea. And yes, the article was vandelised, previously.

Irshgrl500 (talk · contribs)  14:08, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Lady Gaga

Dear C. Fred, what do you think of this IP from 186.45.*.* range continuously coming back and making attacks? Do we need a rangeblock for this? — Legolas ^(talk2me) 16:27, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

If they keep coming back, then yes, I'd advocate a rangeblock. —C.Fred (talk) 18:17, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Sun-Rype

We would appreciate if you would stop reverting our edits to our Sun-Rype page. We do not want to keep this information up to date and the old information has caused us some issues. Thank you for your understanding. SunRype (talk) 19:05, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

As was explained on your talk page, you have a conflict of interest and are likely to be blocked because of your editing and your username. —C.Fred (talk) 19:05, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Can you suggest the best way to manage this content, then? SunRype (talk) 19:07, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Use the talk page to discuss issues. You'll see that I've just started a discussion about the new logo and how (or whether) to present it in the article.

You'll also want to review a couple of guidelines:

• Ownership of articles, which prevents the kind of unilateral changes you're trying to make
• Conflicts of interest
• Reliable sources

Then you can propose edits like "Hey, the net income figure is out of date. It's from 2007, but the 2010 figures are published at (website) and it's now (amount)."

Frankly, other than the stale financial figures, the article is very strongly sourced and in really good shape. —C.Fred (talk) 19:11, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Why did you remove the softerblock template notice? --Orange Mike | Talk 19:22, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Because it wasn't there. I got caught in the same edit conflict/unupdated cache situation that has caused HotCat to malfunction. As soon as I realized that there was an intervening edit, I undid my change, which should have restored the notice. FWIW, it's not a softerblock notice; it's a hard block for a spam username. —C.Fred (talk) 19:25, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Paige-Brace Cinema images

Hi C. Fred,

Thank you for your comment regarding my two photo uploads located at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Poster_for_America-A_Call_to_Greatness.jpg and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Warren_Chaney_directing_Gene_Autry_in_his_Final_Performance.jpg

In response, neither image was copyrighted by the production company, Paige-Brace Cinema. Both were freely distributed for publicity purposes in 1995. Have I mis-tagged the images? I have just phoned the company's president (Joseph Hilyard) to be certain of what I've said. He said that it was correct and if needed, he will provide permission in any manner that you wish.

I do appreciate your help. There are other articles that I would like to do as soon as I can get this down.

Many thanks, Robert J. Sinclair Sinclairindex (talk) 19:43, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Hilyard will need to contact Wikipedia directly—assuming that Paige-Brace Cinema owns the photographs. The page on WP:Donating copyrighted materials provides more information on what he'll need to do to complete the donation. Make sure he knows that the donation is irrevocable, and commercial re-use of the images is a possibility. —C.Fred (talk) 19:48, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you C.Fred for your fast response,

Mr. Hilyard with Paige-Brace Cinema is granting permission to use the poster and photograph (which he sent me and I have already uploaded). He also sent me photos that I wish to use in related articles. Do I need to return all the files to him - to send to Wikipedia - or may he send Wikipedia direct permission to use what I have uploaded. He will do this by email or direct mail whichever you think best. If by email - can you provide me with the site or if by direct mail, the address it should go to.

Hilyard has read the Wikipedia Donation language; understands it and will grant permission using the language Wikipedia has provided. My interest is in producing an informative article; his is in promotion hence any commercial re-use is welcome to him.

I am looking for the simplest solution but will do what is required.

Sorry to take so much of your time - I do greatly appreciate your help.

Best regards, Robert J. Sinclair Sinclairindex (talk) 21:00, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I mention the commercial re-use because, once images are donated, the donation is irrevocable. The images could wind up on t-shirts produced by others, for instance, and he wouldn't get anything but attribution.

The page on donations should have the email address for the volunteer response team; if it's not there, it's at the link in this paragraph. —C.Fred (talk) 21:02, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

The New

Thanks for looking more carefully than I (apparently) did. Drmies (talk) 20:26, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

No problem, and I wouldn't sweat it. Like I said at Talk:The New, that's why we edit collaboratively. Each person can build on the work of the person before. —C.Fred (talk) 20:32, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Paige-Brace Cinema images

Thanks again C.Fred. You have been very helpful. You make an excellent point about the reuse. Though Hilyard is emailing permission, I will upload a file that is reduced in size but still good for the article.

Again – I appreciate your help. North Carolina huh? I went to the University of Kentucky. We’re neighbors.

Best regards,

    Robert Sinclairindex (talk) 21:37, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Paige-Brace Cinema images

Hi C.Fred,

I took your suggestion and have uploaded a reduced file located at:

Please delete the larger one (the first).

Hilyard is in Texas and had already left for the day but his secretary has the correct language and said that he will send the email to permissions-commonswikimedia.org tomorrow.

Thanks again! Very helpful!

Best regards, Warren Sinclairindex (talk) 22:50, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

J-Pimp

Do you think User:Prince-au-Léogâne is ready for a longer block? Drmies (talk) 04:07, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Let's see what he does next. I just salted J-Pimp. —C.Fred (talk) 04:08, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm sure he can come up with a few more names though. Hey C-Pimp, that's not a bad name either. Peace, Dr-Pimp (talk) 04:10, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, he's back to using his user talk page for his content, so it could be worse.

C-Pimp? Hrm, it's better than C.Fed. Every time somebody makes that typo in my direction, I worry that my cover has been blown. :) —C.Fred (talk) 04:13, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi C.Fred,

I got the approval for the poster and picture sent and it was okayed. Many thanks.

The photo with Gene Autry shows in the article but not the poster (located at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Poster_for_America-A_Call_to_Greatness.jpg ). What do I need to do? Or do I need to do anything?

I hope that I am close to finishing this up pretty soon.

Thank you for your help,

Robert Sinclairindex (talk) 21:09, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Carlos Slim

Here we go again on Carlos Slim - uncited addition of "Syriac" to "Maronite". I've reverted twice + notified the user both of content of the article talk page & also (on his own talk page) about the need for citations etc. I'm pretty sure that the IP who has just reinserted it is the same user, logged out. - Sitush (talk) 00:47, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Darts - weird talk page activity

Any idea what is going on here, here and here ?

I can't make my mind up whether it is perhaps a college project or "sort of" disruptive. The three editors have made few other contributions and the vast majority of what they have made have been to each other's talk pages. It is very odd, although I'm willing to bet that you have seen this sort of thing before. - Sitush (talk) 01:12, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

It's a college class assignment. See Wikipedia:School and university projects#University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina (Spring 2011). —C.Fred (talk) 01:27, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Ah. Would it not be helpful if they said so? Tbh, I'm not even sure why they need to post the comments where they have - they could just as easily post to a project page, their own website or whatever. Anyway, I guess it happens elsewhere so there's no point in me getting het up about it <g> Thanks for your help. - Sitush (talk) 01:31, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

And they are constructive comments aimed at improving the article. I did collect them all together, simply so the rest of us could keep track of what's going on. —C.Fred (talk) 01:32, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, they're certainly within the guidelines for article talk pages, even if a little wayward in their assessment. Now you've grouped them, I've struck out my comments. Don't want to be a student again, much as though I enjoyed it back in the day! - Sitush (talk) 01:36, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Govind Kumar Singh

You say that Govind Kumar Singh is no longer an orphan. Is it not a walled garden? OR does the linking with the list of people from Bihar negate that? - Sitush (talk) 18:36, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

If you think it's a walled garden situation, then feel free to replace the tag the article. —C.Fred (talk) 20:34, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not 100% sure because it does have links to placenames (India, Switzerland, Amsterdam etc). I think that the people from Bihar list link is debatable if only because his place of birth isn't cited. I'll look into whether or not it is worth merging this lot as I have the feeling that the TV show Let's Design is rather skeletal and is unlikely to see further expansion in the absence of Vermapriya and her socks. - Sitush (talk) 20:53, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Lady Gag/Ga

In continuation of the continuous personal attacks fro the 186.*.*.* IP, I believe it is time for a rangeblock C. Fred. Thisis absolutely unacceptable. Will you take the necessary actions? — Legolas ^(talk2me) 03:54, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure that a rangeblock is warranted yet. I'd prefer other steps at this time (remove offending remarks or strike them with {{rpa}}, block the IP(s) used). If it starts to be multiple IPs, especially within a tight range, then it can escalate to a rangeblock. —C.Fred (talk) 04:05, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Well i believe he is indeed using a tight range as evident from the IPs posted in that section. I will leave level 4 warnings from now on, if it doesnt stop, I will let you know. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:10, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Sprotect request

Could you have the List of Victorious episodes page semi-protected. I'm asking you because you are the only admin I see that is actually involved with the page. So tired of reverting unsourced info. QuasyBoy 06:00, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Ararat Heritage

Ararat heritage is a European non-profit making NGO based in London, England. Its constitution, as established in November 2010, provides the following human-rights objectives: monitoring abuse; obtaining redress for the victims; relieving need among victims; research into human rights issues; educating the public; providing technical advice to government and others; commenting on proposed human rights legislation; eliminating infringements; engage in political activity within a specific framework. Additionally, the organisation can provide relief and assistance, financial or otherwise, to the victims of natural or other kinds of disasters. Hovhannes montenegro (talk) 17:47, 22 April 2011 (UTC) Tony Kahve, 22 April 2011

As I've explained at Talk:Ararat Heritage, it's not a significant or important organization per Wikipedia standards. Please see further discussion there. —C.Fred (talk) 17:48, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Dear Fred, Ararat Heritage is a significant organisation and is very active in this field. It deals with the issues that are dealt with the organisations that are in the Direct Links section of Ararat Heritages website — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hovhannes montenegro (talk • contribs) 14:06, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Then I trust you can provide independent reliable sources that have covered the organization? Stories about it in newspapers, for instance? —C.Fred (talk) 14:08, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Beer sommelier

That user made some changes in what seems to be valid but unsuccessful attempts to improve the article, and they were twice (at least) reverted and called vandalism. I have left the editor a note and removed one of the rather bitey warning templates placed there by User:The Master of Mayhem. Drmies (talk) 21:38, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Your advice would be appreciated

I've had a short policy/guideline discussion regarding notability as it relates to alumni of a baseball club/team at User_talk:Sitush#Blue_Sox_page. Could you advise please? I've been applying the criteria I refer to there (no WP article for the person usually means not notable enough for inclusion in a list of notables/alumni) on umpteen articles which you have had some involvement with, eg: the University of Patna merges etc. There's no row going on here, it is merely a clarification issue. - Sitush (talk) 20:14, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Sony rumour

Who are you? If you're a moderator, it's RIDICULOUS to allow unsubstantiated rumors to be on a front page of a wiki article. RIDICULOUS and without merit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AranhaHunter (talk • contribs) 04:12, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Then perhaps you should discuss the situation at the article's talk page. If we know what the problematic rumour is and why it's problematic, it's easier to address. Also, discussing it at the article talk page makes it easy to determine whether consensus has put it in the article for some reason or otherwise objects to removal. —C.Fred (talk) 04:15, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

User:K22UFC re-adding flag icons

I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but the user continues to re-add flag icons[3] after your warning.[4] At what point should they be blocked again? —LOL ^T/_C 03:05, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Tyler ballard

I am here to ask why you deleted the page about me by jkmik i am real i have been in monk,camp rock etc i was born in la and my mum died in 2003 so please put the page back on — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tylerballard11 (talk • contribs) 21:13, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that Ballard is not notable. Just appearing in Camp Rock and the like is not enough to meet the notability criteria. WP:BIO provides more information, but the simple answer is that without reliable sources that have covered him at length, Tyler Ballard is not a notable enough actor to have an article. —C.Fred (talk) 21:16, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the edit help. I am new and need some time to get this all right! — Preceding unsigned comment added by KarenCorbin (talk • contribs) 17:04, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Main page appearance

Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of this article know that it will be appearing as the main page featured article on May 6, 2011. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/May 6, 2011. If you think it is necessary to change the main date, you can request it with the featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions of the suggested formatting. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :D Thanks! Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 20:24, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Aaliyah (1979-2001) was an American recording artist, actress and model. At age 12, Aaliyah signed with Jive Records and Blackground Records by her uncle, Barry Hankerson. He introduced her to R. Kelly, who became her mentor, as well as lead songwriter and producer of her debut album, Age Ain't Nothing but a Number. The album sold three million copies in the United States and was certified double platinum by the Recording Industry Association of America. After facing allegations of an illegal marriage with Kelly, Aaliyah ended her contract with Jive and signed to Atlantic Records. Aaliyah worked with record producers Timbaland and Missy Elliott for her second album, One in a Million; it sold 3.7 million copies in the United States and over eight million copies worldwide. In 2000, Aaliyah appeared in her first major film, Romeo Must Die. After completing Romeo Must Die, Aaliyah filmed her part in Queen of the Damned. She released her third and final album, Aaliyah, in July 2001. On August 25, 2001, Aaliyah and eight others were killed in an airplane crash in The Bahamas after filming the music video for the single "Rock the Boat". Since then, Aaliyah's music has achieved commercial success with several posthumous releases. She has been credited for helping redefine R&B and hip hop, earning her the nickname "Princess of R&B". (more...)

Slow edit war at Stanford University

With this edit on 26 April at Stanford University a user named DeusExa continued his campaign of removal of a statement about the founding of companies by Stanford graduates. I notice you've edited the article and reverted the same change by an IP. A report about this is still open at WP:AN3. Though 3RR has not been violated, do you think it may be time for a block? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 02:47, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I've effectively left a final warning on their page for edit warring. I've invited them to discuss the edit—but I've also cautioned them that continuing to delete the text without edit warring is a disruptive practice and will be dealt with as such—with a block. —C.Fred (talk) 03:07, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Why do you accuse me of making personal attacks on my own IP# talk page?

If you take a look at the bottom of the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Samuel you will see that IAN THOMSON makes a personal attack on an editor by calling him "crazy" and promoting an external defamitory site that was removed but placed back by someone else. Wikipedia should be called Wickedpedia 99.148.192.105 (talk) 05:23, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Two wrongs do not make a right. The slew of personal attacks directed at Ian.thomson were utterly inappropriate, and as a result, users from your IP have been blocked for 31 hours. —C.Fred (talk) 05:41, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

3RR problems

I'm having problems with User:P.Ganakan at Kaniyar Panicker. Umpteen warnings have been issued, umpteen reverts have taken place - it appears to be him against the world. I deliberately stopped reverting his actual content when I hit 2 in 24 hours, and because he was actually starting to cite some of his additions even though at the cost of deleting my earlier copyedits, but others have also reverted him within the same time span.

Worse, I've now had to revert him at least twice for removal of maintenance templates, even though I've tried to tone them down in an attempt not to cause him to feel attacked. So, in a way I have also breached 3RR but I have been trying to talk with him about it along the way and have had no response. I feel that reverting maintenance tag removals is acceptable but do not want to prolong a silly war. I'm probably wrong about this but have never actually hit that particular problem before. Can you advise please? I have warned him that he may be blocked for disruptive editing. Block me also, if you must. - Sitush (talk) 16:17, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I've left a message for the user suggesting that he start discussing at the talk page rather than edit warring—or at the least explaining his edits in edit summaries. I've also made it very clear that further removal of the maintenance tags will result in a block. That's a very bright line situation: if he's been warned not to do it and does it again, it's disruptive, and a block is warranted whether or not it's a technical violation of 3RR. —C.Fred (talk) 16:36, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm learning: I noticed before writing the above that 3RR applies even to different edits by the same editor (not merely the same or similar content) in a 24 hour period, which is why I got worried about reverting the maintenance templates. Mind, I had tried to converse beforehand, as you have advised me to do in the past. One day, I'll be half-decent at this. - Sitush (talk) 16:42, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but I am afraid that we're at 3RR again here. This time plagiarism/copyright issues are thrown into the mix, and he's still not summarising or communicating in any way at all. I've merely been tidying things so as not to upset the contributor. - Sitush (talk) 14:51, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, he's done far worse than 3RR. After your messages plus the Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents report filed on him, he still kept adding copyright-infringing text to the article. I blocked him for 72 hours for that, and if he does it again, I wouldn't hesitate to block him indefinitely.

Also, I'm aware of the use of 117.254.135.60 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) to edit the article. I haven't formally flagged it as a sock, but I'm keeping an eye on how that account is used, especially at Kaniyar Panicker. —C.Fred (talk) 15:58, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the IP had reverted the copyright back in during my stint. I assumed the guy had logged out but ignored that. That was a quick pick-up by the copyright holder, though, and I find it slightly mysterious that the complaint got to OTRS so quickly. Must be a Wikipedian! I'll try to tidy up the article during the block - get the cites inline, check them for accuracy vis-a-vis the statements etc.

What does "RD1" mean? Blade has used it in the AN/I thread. - Sitush (talk) 16:51, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

RD1 is shorthand for criterion 1 for redaction in the revision deletion policy: blatant copyright infringement. —C.Fred (talk) 16:55, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

User:HellYeahPartyTime

Can you please indef block this user as a clear sock of User:BlueMondo131? Thanks, CTJF83 21:11, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Handled. KnownAlias contact 15:42, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

User:GoNC Network unblocked

I wanted to let you know that I unblocked User:GoNC Network as OrangeMike said he was Ok with it on his talk page some time ago. Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 17:03, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! I guess I missed the reply. —C.Fred (talk) 17:05, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

User making personal attacks

At the bottom of the Samuel talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Samuel&action=edit&section=15 the user below makes personal attacks on another user. Below is the personal attack. he is also promoting an external site to further his personal attack on another user. Please help. Dr CareBear (talk) 18:46, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

If you look over the rest of that editor's contributions, as well as this site about his activities elsewhere, you'll see that that user is indeed crazy.

The above Statement is a personal attack on a user named Samuel and is still on the Samuel Talk page. I ask you to do something about it because I have no administrator rights. Dr CareBear (talk) 19:15, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I've already had a discussion with the editor in question about the comment, which was made three weeks ago. No further administrative action is necessary at this time. —C.Fred (talk) 21:15, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

You just talked to him without removing the offending comment? I assume it is safe for me to remove the comment since you failed to remove it from the Talk Page at Samuel Please watch to make sure it is not restored because I am removing it now. Dr CareBear (talk) 23:53, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Talk: FINNOV

Hi, could you please explain the reason why you cancelled the information that I uploaded previously? As mentioned before I work for the FINNOV research group and I am authorised to upload the content, what do we need to overcome this problem? User Talk:AlexTaffetani —Preceding undated comment added 15:17, 21 April 2011 (UTC).

Well, there's this message I left at your talk page:

Please let me know what next steps you plan to take. If you plan on having someone from FINNOV send an email to Wikipedia, make sure that is noted at Talk:Finnov.

When you didn't reply, I deleted the article again, with this note in the deletion:

No follow-through on donation of text

While it is normal Wikipedia process to assume good faith with editors, we're a little more careful when it comes to copyrights. That's why we ask for somebody from the donating organization to send email to Wikipedia to attest that yes, they have donated the text in question and are willingly placing it under a free license—and are aware that the donation is irrevocable. That's why there are specific processes to follow, such as mailing the volunteer response team.

Of course, if you were to write an article about Finnov using your own words, instead of those from the Finnov website, this process wouldn't be necessary. So long as the text wasn't found to be copied from another website, placing it on Wikipedia would be the act of free licensing. —C.Fred (talk) 15:29, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Two more thoughts: I checked the Finnov website again, and there is no statement on the site regarding the licensing status of the website's content. In the absence of an explicit statement, Wikipedia assumes that the content is copyrighted and under an all-rights-reserved license—i.e., not free.

Second, checking the contact page at the Finnov website, it is very clear that you have a conflict of interest with Finnov. Again, this doesn't preclude you from editing, but it means you must be very careful that all text you submit is written from neutral point of view, and it means you should back up statements with independent reliable sources wherever possible. Because of the conflict of interest, there are some editors who will be very wary that you are using Wikipedia not to inform about the organization but to blatantly promote it—and they may be likely to flag it for deletion as spam if they feel it is promotional. —C.Fred (talk) 15:35, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I understand your point, but you have to appreciate that this is not a lucrative promotion, it's an academic research website which have been finance by the FP7 Programme (which is present on Wikipedia) and it's supposed to be informative. So if I have someone else to upload the information and I grant the person the right to use the website material we can get around this? User Talk:AlexTaffetani —Preceding undated comment added 14:18, 26 April 2011 (UTC).

No. Trying to make an end run around this by giving somebody else permission to use the website material may only make matters worse. I really think the best course of action is to write original text that does not appear on any website and use that as the basis for the article. Text that is purpose written for Wikipedia and does not appear on any other website is free: when you submit an edit, "you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL," so the new text is under a proper license.

(That license clause is a major part of the issue with copying text—along with the preceding notice that "Content that violates any copyrights will be deleted." The user copying the text, in almost every case, does not have the authority to relicense the text. That's part of why copyright infringements are removed so aggressively: to keep the unfree, invalidly-licensed text from improperly intermingling with text under a valid free license.)

There is a secondary issue of your conflict of interest. As long as you are up front about the conflict, write the article from neutral point of view, and cite independent sources wherever possible, the conflict of interest can be overcome. It sounds like you have a grasp on the second point: the article is supposed to be informative. That also means presenting all sides of an issue, if Finnov has been involved in any controversies. The difference is that other editors can help polish the text to make sure it's neutral—we can edit and improve the article that you start. When the article begins with copyright infringing text, we don't have that option: we must delete the text and start fresh on the topic. —C.Fred (talk) 15:33, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi there, I followed your advice and used some new text made by me, also I had to change my username due to privacy reasons (I now am Mustang80), but the history now registered my initial contribution with my old nickname, how can this be fixed? User Talk:AlexTaffetani —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mustang80 (talk • contribs) 15:24, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

The history registered the account that was used to make the contribution. If you used your old account, then that's the one that will show up in the history.

That said, check your preferences: the code for your signature still shows your old username (see the signature above). —C.Fred (talk) 15:28, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I missed in the log that your account was renamed from AlexTaffetani to Mustang80. The person who made the move should've changed all references to your name in signatures, and the logs should've been corrected. I'd check with MBisanz (talk · contribs) about that. —C.Fred (talk) 15:31, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I think I found a sockpuppet for Sam Moser

It's interesting that Dr CareBear took notice of the Samuel discussion out of nowhere, happens to have a Dayton phone number (considering the IP addresses for Sam Moser are in Dayton, Ohio), also happens to have a wife from the Phillipines, also shares Sam's belief that antipsychotic medication is deadly, resumed Sam's discussion at Talk:Jehovah, and also happens to know his exact facebook page. Oh, and he admits to being Sam. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:01, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

List of Total Drama series characters

Please help me. All of the character images are being removed because they don't have the right copyright tags. I know those images aren't the first copyrighted Total Drama images to be uploaded, so I don't know why they are being removed. Do you know the right copyright tags I should add to the character images in this article? I know non-free use is not one Giggett (talk) 18:38, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

What's the source of the images? If it's a screenshot of the show, there's a non-free screenshot template to use. IMO, what's more important is to have the non-free image tag explaining why the image is necessary (illustration of a character, providing information beyond what text can do) than to have the right license tag. Sourcing it to the production company and noting "and under copyright thereof" would be enough in my book. —C.Fred (talk) 18:40, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Here are some examples of the images are are being removed:

• File:TDAlejandro.png
• File:TDHeather.png

And here's the message I got for uploading them:

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. We always appreciate when users upload new images. However, it appears that one or more of the images you have recently uploaded or added to an article may fail our non-free image policy. Most often, this involves editors uploading or using a copyrighted image of a living person. For other possible reasons, please read up on our Non-free image criteria. Please note that we take very seriously our criteria on non-free image uploads and users who repeatedly upload or misuse non-free images may be blocked from editing. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 18:31, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I know we need these images to be displayed on the tables and they can stay if the right copyright tags are added to them, which I don't know Giggett (talk) 18:43, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

See WP:NFLISTS and WP:FUEXPLAIN 44 non-free images will never be acceptable under policy. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 18:44, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Delta has a point there. It might be better to just go with the ensemble pictures in the season articles than the separate images for each cast member. —C.Fred (talk) 18:46, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

So I can't add all the images of all the characters? Cuz the Total Drama Wiki was doing that Giggett (talk) 18:51, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

You cannot do that, it goes against our non-free content policy, and our m:Mission ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 18:52, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No, you can't add all the images of all the characters, because it's not allowable on (English) Wikipedia. Total Drama Wiki has their rules; we have ours. And we're pretty strict on non-free images. —C.Fred (talk) 18:53, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Okay then, guess I gotta reformat the table again so it can take the image cells away, by the way are all the images gonna get deleted? Giggett (talk) 18:54, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Any image unused in an article that's not free will be deleted after seven days. You could request deletion sooner with the {{db-author}} tag if you uploaded the images. —C.Fred (talk) 19:01, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

So for sure I have to delete them right? Since they can't be used in any article, because it would be nice to keep some, like the Chris and Chef photos Giggett (talk) 19:13, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I can't police what files do or don't make it onto your hard drive. :) As for storing them on Wikipedia, it's not an option, unless you can make a rationale to support keeping the images in an article. Two images is better than 42, but in principle, images don't get included in list articles. —C.Fred (talk) 19:22, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi Fred, yes please help me userfy my article.

zoom business simulation is the page. I would appreciate your help to get this approved and up to wiki standards. thanks so much. Lynda —Preceding unsigned comment added by LyndaJones (talk • contribs) 20:18, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Joe Byrne (PEI politician)

Hello, I was thinking of making a page for him, but I see that someone already did it, and you deleted it. The message says that you should be contacted before attempting to create this page. Any chance you can tell me what was there, so I do not make the same mistake as previous editor did. - Sasha —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.222.239.240 (talk) 00:59, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

What was there was blatantly promotional text. It was either copied from Byrne's website or read like it had been. That's one thing that will need to be addressed: a new article will need to be neutral and not written to promote the candidate. Additionally, you'll have to demonstrate that he's a notable person. Unelected candidates for office are rarely notable, and I don't recall any assertion made of notability for Byrne outside of politics. You may also want to review the general notabilty guidelines, which include information on showing that Byrne has been covered in secondary sources. —C.Fred (talk) 01:23, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I will not be doing the page unless he is elected as MP. -- Sasha —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.222.239.240 (talk • contribs) 04:32, 29 April 2011 (UTC) —C.Fred (talk) 04:36, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Don Cherry

Why are acurate, referenced details being deleted regarding Don Cherry's comnents targeting French and European ethnicities??? This is not simply outspoken manner and I am not referring to what Don Cherry says but rather the impact some of his commnets has had on large swaths of the population in canada and abroad. Don Cherry comments has resulted in criticism from Canadian governement officials, and many in the news as well authors of sociological works.

The fact I was making is that Don Cherry's comments that talk about French Canadians, Europeans, Swedes and Russians has been criticized by many is in print, in the news and on the internet. when you ask anyone outside of English Canada who is Don Cherry, this is what they will say - hence it belongs in the introduction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jumblecar2 (talk • contribs) 21:37, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Why did you delete my article before I'd even finished it?

I had only just finished the very first 'stub' as you call it, and it was immediatley deleted. Give me a break, will you, it was my first article. I don't understand why it was deleted. I am sure I have not broken any rules.

User:Lordrogerhaywood (Lordrogerhaywood (talk) 21:41, 30 April 2011 (UTC)) 22:41, 30 April 2011 (BST)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ncompass Records

There already is a concensus there, as you certainly know. I see you've also asked User:Logan why he chose to relist. But I'm sure this shouldn't have been relisted. Dragquennom (talk) 04:46, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

As I've said at User talk:Logan#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ncompass Records relist, I think there is a judgment call involved in relisting. In my judgment, I'd have closed with a delete outcome. In Logan's judgment, relisting was necessary to establish clear consensus. He relisted, and even though relisting is not an administrative action, I'm giving the same courtesy I would an administrator: I'll not override his action without his consent. —C.Fred (talk) 05:02, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Since he does not object, though, I have deleted the article. Frankly, I don't see anything to be gained by letting the AfD linger on for one more week. Perversely, if the article is to be saved, this is the course most likely to help it—people that might not participate in the discussion before deletion might show up with sources after deletion. Realistically, I don't see that happening. (If I thought it were a realistic possibility, I wouldn't have deleted.) —C.Fred (talk) 05:23, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I see. Thanks for taking care of the issue :) Dragquennom (talk) 05:32, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Delta Sigma Theta Chapters

I want the about message there. I didn't put that top line [this is about the Chapters] I prefer it the way I had it, similar to how it's written on the Phi Beta Sigma page. Please allow it to stay. I will remove the top line, as I didn't want it there anyway. Here is a link to the Sigma Page, and how I would like the Delta page to look, and since I worked long and hard to put that page together, I think I should be allowed to have the intro the way I want it!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Phi_Beta_Sigma_chapters

please send me a message on my page as you did before so it'll pop up for me to see. I am very new to wikipedia and if you respond here I will probably never see it, not sure I can get back here! Thanx.

~~immigratty~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Immigratty (talk • contribs) 18:01, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Delta Sigma Theta Chapters/Sorting By Letters vs. State

We sort by [Greek] Letters with Collegiate Chapters because, with few exceptions, that is the order in which the Chapters were Chartered [Oldest/most history to newest]. Separating Alumnae Chapters by state is an option, but since the list I had listed Alumnae Chapters alphabetically, that was the easiest to work with. This was the first page I've ever created, and still have so much to learn, so I just listed it alphabetically, and typically, Alumnae Chapters are listed Alphabetically on all Delta lists, and not necessarily by state. If you would like to revise the Alumnae Chapter part by state, please be my guest, however I do ask that you allow the Undergraduate/Collegiate chapters to remain in the order I've placed them. Thank you for your help!

~~immigratty~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Immigratty (talk • contribs) 18:26, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Delta Sigma Theta Chapters

Ok, I'm responding on your page to a message I received from another user, Naraht, because your page is more user friendly, and I can't figure out to respond on his [or hers, not sure]. So, the best reference points are the websites of each chapter themselves, or can be referenced to our national website [DeltaSigmaTheta.org]. Naraht suggested I cite in search of Sisterhood, however, the book was written in the mid-80's and several chapters have been chartered since then. Also, is it possible if you all can put off editing for maybe a week and just let me get everything, I just made a major edit, and added many chapters info/links however the page would not let me add because someone had edited while I was in there editing, I must admit this is quite frustrating, since you all placed all of those headers on my page that more information is needed, and as I try to add it, my plans are foiled because someone else is editing while I am. It's also frustrating that I am attempting to work with the changes you all are making, and you continue to change the page, there are special wording that that are appropriate based on Sorority protocols that you all may not like the sound of, but when you re-write it to your liking, it is improper protocol for the Sorority. I understand that you all work on many pages, however Black Sororities and Fraternities are a lot different than White fraternities in Sororities, and many changes you make are improper [at least on the Delta page, can't speak for any other BGLO].

One change I really need help with is changing one word on the table, it seems like the wording is pre-loaded. I would prefer to replace the word "Founded" with "Chartered." As only our Organization was "Founded" our Chapters are "Chartered." That would be of great assistance, and something I would really like to have changed sooner vs. later. I really do appreciate your assistance, however please let me do this first, I am making major changes, then when it's all said and done, can we have a dialect on your proposed changes before you just make them? Thank you.

~~immigratty~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Immigratty (talk • contribs) 21:08, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Pointless to edit Delta Sigma Theta Chapters page

Ok seriously, I am asking that you all give me a chance to edit. EVERYTIME I go to edit my page it refuses to take my edits because someone else is in editing at the same time I am. please, please, PLEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEASE STOP EDITING and let me do it. Otherwise it is completely pointless and a waste of my time to try to improve the page!!!

~~immigratty~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Immigratty (talk • contribs) 01:17, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

3RR

Basically, the articles Scream 2, List of Scream characters, Sidney Prescott and Ghostface keep having the same information changed by different IPs, all from England in and around London, re-adding the same lines of text. Not in their own voice, the exact same sentence of dialogue in each article all focusing on the fact that Sidney shoots a corpse through the head at the end of the film because they/he/she believe it kills the corpse. I treated it as vandalism because it is about the 25th time on each article I've reverted this particular injection of text (I have tried discussing it but they never reply) and as far as I'm concerned, while not writing vulgar language, they are deliberately vandalising the content of the article with a singular intention and are refusing to discuss it. I mean it is possible that they are all unrelated people but I doubt it when they keep making the same changes. If you look back at the few IPs on each article, each only makes edits to those 4 articles except one who made 2 edits to something else.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:27, 3 May 2011 (UTC) EDIT These are the ones I found on a quick scan:

• 94.4.202.152
• 212.137.36.231
• 82.39.221.13
• 94.9.98.51

Thanks for the heads-up about what's going on with the article. I've run into similar situations with other articles, so I do just rollback the new variants on the same old unsourced information. —C.Fred (talk) 01:23, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

List of Delta Sigma Theta Chapters

ok, I am finished with my edits for now, those are all of the chapters I have [I know many letters were skipped over]. Thank you both so much for allowing me time to edit, and get the bulk of the info on. anything from now on from my end will be very minor edits. However, in looking at the page, I have encountered/caused a few problems. If you look around the chapters "Eta Xi" and "Mu Kappa" there are errors/weird things going on, and for some reason I can't fix them :-(. and also, there are random brackets "[[]]" all over the place. Sorry I made a mess. Please help. thanx. Also, are you able to fix the wording on the charts and change "Founded" to "Chartered." If you could do that I'd greatly appreciate it, thanks again for everything, the page looks wonderful. ~~immigratty~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Immigratty (talk • contribs) 22:37, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

The Eta Xi and Mu Kappa issues are fixed. The [[]] come from not having anything in the references. And "Founded" comes from the template being used Template:FratChapterStart Naraht (talk) 00:59, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

List of Delta Sigma Theta Chapters complete

good morning, the corrections look great, thanx so much. can we take the headings off now that say it's in the middle of major restructuring and need to be cleaned. thank you so much. And thanx for all of your help in making this page phenomenal!

~~immigratty~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Immigratty (talk • contribs) 12:55, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Just so you know, the major changes have been done by User:Naraht, not User:C.Fred. (You can look at the history) I'll remove the major restructuring, but it still needs cleanup, the mislinked schools as least. Also there are some schools which are still in question, like "Maryland State University" and the fact there are two different "New Mexico State University" entries. *Please* respond to issues on the Talk page (click Talk:List of Delta Sigma Theta chapters) Naraht (talk) 13:35, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. The preferred venue for discussing changes to the article is Talk:List of Delta Sigma Theta chapters; it's central to any and all editors interested in the article. —C.Fred (talk) 14:25, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Noe-Metch and Non-Metch

I've been seeing several attempts to add a Metch column to all of my tables throughout the Total Drama articles, but I have no idea what it means. It does look like vandalism, but several users have done this so maybe it has a meaning. Do you have an idea what it may mean? Giggett (talk) 22:49, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

In the spirit of AGF, it refers to whether the contestant made it through the merge or not. There were some hatchet jobs on the English in one of the articles that I reverted earlier today. I've been under the assumption that it's a single user with a dynamic IP who keeps making similar changes.

When I see names change on the table in all caps, I treat that as a known vandal returning, though. —C.Fred (talk) 02:55, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Okay, so I guess it's just a duplicate column of the current "Stage of Elimination" column that we already got, only in a different language. Guess it's just vandalism Giggett (talk) 15:46, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

In the spirit of AGF, it's not quite vandalism. However, since it keeps getting added without explanation and since it doesn't add to the article, it's disruptive. —C.Fred (talk) 16:01, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Good Job. — Bryan Anderson (talk) 04:43, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

about trina

what are you saying about trina da baddest bitch album sales?

her record label emi clearly states,the facts of her album sales and certification.

http://www.emimusic.com/news/2008/trina-hits-number-one-on-the-rbhip-hop-charts/

plus you erase everything i had put in her chart,with sources links to it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robinlovemusic (talk • contribs) 04:47, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

First, her label's press release is a primary source, and those tend to be subject to extra scrutiny for things like sales figures. Second, no sales figure is mentioned in the press release.

Finally, while 1.9 million copies (or 1,900,000 copies) might be a reasonable sales figure, 1,900,000 million copies is not—that's 1,900 billion or 1.9 trillion copies.

Given the errors in other articles, I erased the additions to the discography table as well. —C.Fred (talk) 04:53, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

your point?

she still have 1 platinum album & 3 golds.

sips tea

it's a full release from her record label,that you have to go by. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robinlovemusic (talk • contribs) 04:59, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

The info you entered was just not plausible - maybe you should not use "x million" in conjunction with "x,000,000." 1.9 trillion is hundreds of sells per every person in this world.Jasper Deng (talk) 05:14, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

And when RIAA denies that it's given the platinum or two of the golds, I'm more inclined to believe RIAA's data than the label's. The best case would be to find a story in Billboard or another media publication about the award of the platinum (if it's happened); then we'd have a secondary source, separate from the artist or the certifying agency, reporting on the award. —C.Fred (talk) 13:29, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

are you making those changes?

???? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robinlovemusic (talk • contribs) 05:08, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

??Jasper Deng (talk) 05:12, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

don't (??) me!Robinlovemusic (talk) 05:25, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand your question. That's all.Jasper Deng (talk) 05:26, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Each page has a page history, reachable via the "View history" tab at the top of the page (the history for Trina is here). That provides a history of each edit made to the page and the edit summary explaining why the edit was made. As I write this reply, the last edit made to the Trina article was my edit with a summary of "rv - sales figures not supported for any of those albums"—in other words, I'm reverting the changes to add sales figures because, although a source was referenced for the sales figures, the source did not actually state the sales for any of the albums. —C.Fred (talk) 13:32, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

about trina

it seems like you have no idea that " told yall" charted.

http://www.allmusic.com/album/all-about-the-benjamins-r570574/charts-awards/billboard-single

get it together with my girl trina. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robinlovemusic (talk • contribs) 04:54, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

When I looked this morning, it was listed as hitting #65 on the R&B chart. However, the source you've provided says it hit #64, so I updated the Trina discography article. —C.Fred (talk) 13:40, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

hello

are you there?Robinlovemusic (talk) 05:24, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I am now. I went offline a little before 05:00 UTC this morning, so all your messages came in while I was away from the computer. —C.Fred (talk) 13:33, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

about trina!

do you even know how riaa works? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robinlovemusic (talk • contribs) 16:55, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes. What's more relevant is, do you know how Wikipedia works? If you don't have a reliable source to back up the claims you make—and I've yet to see one for individual album sales or any platinum certifications—the material may not go in the article. Period. —C.Fred (talk) 18:25, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Mass creation of new articles

Special:Contributions/Maheshkumaryadav shows mass creation of new articles about various police forces. The articles are almost identical, contain factual errors (eg: listing three departments but saying that there are nine) and are being generated by someone who has previously had issues raised at AN/I regarding mass creation. I've tried to have a word but he is not responding. I note that other have also had concerns of late about similar activity. Thoughts? - Sitush (talk) 17:26, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

If there have been reports at AN/I before, I'd go back there to report that the behaviour is continuing. That would be a sign that sanctions need to be escalated. —C.Fred (talk) 18:25, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Done. I'll probably be laughed out of court, but he also created a batch of poor articles on villages earlier today and someone was urging him to go back and "fix" them. - Sitush (talk) 19:36, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Request for Response on Appeal

You, along with a few other moderators, removed links that I had added under External Links. These links were created without an account, via IP 76.6.2.0.

I have been asking for this to be reconsidered under the Noticeboard, and have cited numerous reasons, but the only moderator to reply has been Ruhrfisch. He suggested that I contact the other moderators involved.

Here is a direct link to the discussion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links/Noticeboard#GoAlleghany.com

Thank you in advance for your consideration.

Jason W. Carlton (talk) 06:47, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Fred, how do I know when a decision has been made? I just looked, and there have been no responses after mine on May 5.

I'm not sure if other moderators are expected to chime in, or if an overseeing board makes a final decision, or if it's a simple matter of the majority of the moderators that reply? Jason W. Carlton (talk) 01:08, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry

Apologies, the wikipedia admin boards are such a mess that I didn't see that, just trying to move my thread to proper place.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 14:02, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Tyler Santangelo Page

How was that inappropriate??

No assertion of significance or importance—having a YouTube channel and being mentioned by a (your) high school's website don't pass WP:BIO. —C.Fred (talk) 04:54, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

That wasn't a high school website? That was the County paper. —Preceding unsigned comment added by IBeBirrell (talk • contribs) 04:56, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Is it? "We are Corona residents writing for Corona residents!"[5] It's unclear from the site who, if anybody, is acting as the editorial staff to vet articles, so I'm not sure that it's a reliable source. —C.Fred (talk) 05:01, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

© 2011 Inner Circle Corona - City of Corona 400 S. Vicentia Ave., Corona, CA 92882 << City Halls address. There is plenty of other stuff we can include about Tyler. Where he works etc. Could you put the page back up and we will edit it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by IBeBirrell (talk • contribs) 05:05, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but who are the employees at City Hall who are actively reviewing, fact-checking, spell-checking, etc. the articles?

Even if ICC were a reliable source, it's only a single paragraph of coverage about Santangelo. That's well short of the general notability guideline, and there's no clear assertion of meeting WP:BIO. Focus on showing that he's notable—and, since you have a conflict of interest, on getting as many secondary sources as possible for the article. —C.Fred (talk) 05:09, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Daniel L. Rittatore He is on the Board of our city. "City Council". The reason we are making this article today, is because their is an article going out about Tyler on Monday. Specifically him and his YouTube Career. Tyler also does filming for Disney, c28, and Crossroads Church. We just didn't have specific references for those. We will just link it to the videos he has done for them. Monday we will also be adding the article that is posted.

Why not just wait until Monday? Then there will be another source available to build the Wikipedia article with. —C.Fred (talk) 05:38, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

We can do that, is there a way we can get the coding back for what we already wrote so we can save it in a document for Monday? —Preceding unsigned comment added by IBeBirrell (talk • contribs) 05:45, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

It can be userfied. Although I have to ask: who is we? —C.Fred (talk) 05:45, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I am one of the interns for his studio. —Preceding unsigned comment added by IBeBirrell (talk • contribs) 05:57, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

That's what I was wondering. Which means, on top of the conflict of interest, your username may run afoul of the username policy: it's either misleading because it suggests you're Santangelo or it's the name of an organization (his studio). —C.Fred (talk) 06:00, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

So I should create my own account then? —Preceding unsigned comment added by IBeBirrell (talk • contribs) 06:07, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes. It won't eliminate your conflict of interest, but it will clear up the username confusion. After you do that, I can move the text of the last version of the article into a user page under the new account. —C.Fred (talk) 06:14, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Now I did read the Conflict of Interests page, but I guess I don't understand it? Can you give me the dumb downed version? —Preceding unsigned comment added by IBeBirrell (talk • contribs) 06:17, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Also, here is my account. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yohenakai (talk • contribs) 06:25, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Dzogchen

Do you mind if I change the indentation to the way it was? I want to make it clear I was replying to the other editor and not you. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:14, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

The problem is, if you indent it that way, it isn't clear that it's separate comments. Since it's back-to-back replies, the clearest indicator might be to address him at the start of your first sentence. —C.Fred (talk) 05:15, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

C.Fred,

Please do not edit the Block O page anymore. I am the Block O baseball coordinator and we are trying to run this page accordingly with all of our other websites.

Thank You,

Andrew Lind —Preceding unsigned comment added by AndrewMichaelLind (talk • contribs) 05:17, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Replying to your talk page re, among other things, WP:OWN. —C.Fred (talk) 05:33, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Double redirects

I've just done a manual redirect/page move, effectively reversing an old redirect. Rangareddy district now redirects to Ranga Reddy District, when previously it was the other way round. This was done to reflect the prevalent nomenclature for the district & had been raised on the talk page by two people recently. The original redirect appears to have been done by a bot, several years ago.

Now, I really cannot get my head round double-redirects. As I understand it, I need to wait a short while because at present everything on the "what links here" for the target page (Ranga Reddy District) is indented except for the first three entries, so perhaps the software has to catch up with me. Is this correct? I found the WP:Double redirects page and instructions to be too arcane for my tiny brain, although I suspect that the entire subject is a little difficult to explain anyway.

If these issues bemuse you as much as me, could you suggest someone who might be able to advise? - Sitush (talk) 13:59, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know about this situation. The first thing I had to do was, oddly enough, undo the move you made. While you moved the content of the article, you did not move the page history; it all stayed behind at Rangareddy district. Accordingly, I had to delete Ranga Reddy District and then move the page to the new title (in the tabs at the top, move is the rightmost one—it's a pulldown list for me, but as an admin, I have protect and delete as options there too). If a similar situation comes up, do not just copy the article text and overwrite the redirect; use the page move function instead. WP:Requested moves has more information about uncontroversial requests and how to use the {{db-move}} template to request deletion of the destination of the move (in this case, the redirect at Ranga Reddy District would have gotten tagged).

As far as the redirects, there are bots that will pick up the double redirects—so, if Ranga reddy were a redirect pointing to Rangareddy district, the bot would change it to point to Ranga Reddy District. The bots would not make changes to links inside of articles; however, since that would be a single layer of redirect (in the case of links pointing to the old title), everything should still work fine. In the course of the next copyedit to that article, an editor could fix it so it pointed straight to the article instead of the redirect, but it's not critical. —C.Fred (talk) 15:35, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I made a mess of that, then! I did try using page move but because the Ranga Reddy District article existed it was not going to work. I wondered about deleting it but thought I'd have a go since otherwise I would need to get an admin involved. As it turned out, I had to in any case. In other words, I had the right idea but insufficient privileges. Sorry to have created work for you. - Sitush (talk) 15:42, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Hey, no problem. At least I found out about it quickly, so there wasn't a lot of work involved. (Had there been some edits made to the text at the new title, then it would have gotten tricky. I would have had to delete the new title, move the page from the old title, then undelete the changes made at the new title.) —C.Fred (talk) 16:16, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Please restore the original material that you deleted so I can correct the deficiencies and put Devine Advertising back up. I wrote it on the go, so I do not have another copy of the draft that was posted. If you want you can email a copy of what you deleted to devine@usa.net and I will make the corrections and start a new page later.

You deleted this entry within minutes of it having been started.

Devine25 (talk) 17:06, 13 May 2011 (UTC) James Devine

STOP Making Changes to Alpharetta High School's debate team accomplishments

Individual accomplishments OF NOTE are identified on the Alpharetta High School debate team section. These are noteworthy accomplishments in the schools academic history. Tournaments wins are only listed where teams from around the country participated. Individual accomplishments at such tournaments or seriously impressive placement at a national championship are noted. As the high school's principle objective is academic, the high school's debate team is the embodiment of their success or failure in that endeavor. While school ranking at a state tournament is also noteworthy, it is actually the least noteworthy accomplishment from the list you continually try to remove without any real knowledge about the topic and importance of the endeavor to be making such edits. If you prefer to challenge language used, I could respect that. However, you are making editorial decisions without any real knowledge of that which you are editing. Alpharetta High School is one of the top debating high schools in the nation and when there is an accomplishment of note, it will be added. Lesser accomplishment do not get added to the page. This is no different than if the football team made it to the playoffs... except, the debate team competes on a national level, not a local or state level. So the accomplishments are noteworthy to the school and its history. Please cease and desist making further changes to the Alpharetta High School page unless you are affiliated with the school and have direct knowledge of the events for which you are editing and knowledge of the relevance of such events as it relates to the school and the community it serves! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.192.72.29 (talk) 02:49, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

First, I point out that another editor has disagreed with your additions and removed them. Accordingly, I suggest presenting a case for including the material at the article's talk page (Talk:Alpharetta High School) before attempting to add it again. Second, I am not unfamiliar with Alpharetta High School—but I also do not have any direct connection to the school or conflict of interest with it. Editors with conflicts of interest should edit carefully on subjects they are related to, and your level of interest in and knowledge of the school's debate program suggests you are a participant or alumnus of the program. —C.Fred (talk) 03:08, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I have reported the IP for edit warring, even though the reverts were not within 24 hours. The IP didn't seem to get it when I gave him/her a warning about edit warring.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:10, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

That's part of why I made the comment I did. He's not in technical violation, so he's still welcome to participate in talk page discussion. Hopefully he gets it and comes to the table for discussion. If he keeps edit warring, though, he stands to lose that ability for some period of time. —C.Fred (talk) 03:13, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

He just made a post on the talk page of the article. I'll remove the edit warring accusation though.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:14, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Replied on that talk page.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:20, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm in the loop there too. —C.Fred (talk) 03:21, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Govind Kumar Singh

Previously blocked ip User_talk:60.243.239.25 is back and busy reinstating all the dodgy stuff at Govind Kumar Singh. I've reverted twice. - Sitush (talk) 04:57, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'm out of reverts etc, my attempts at discussion have been effectively trumped by edits, and the IP cannot see that s/he has done anything wrong. Aaaargh! - Sitush (talk) 17:27, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

It is not ideal, as you point out on the article talk page, but 'twill suffice. That particular set of SPAs seem to wind me up in ways that don't usually happen nowadays. Give it a few minutes and the very peculiar (IMO) Wills citation will be back, then the other uncited stuff that Fut.Perf. removed completely a couple of days ago. We know the pattern. - Sitush (talk) 17:43, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

It's sufficient for the person's origin.

I've got a feeling that the "set of SPAs" is actually a single user, possibly account or IP hopping. If the pattern starts bearing itself out, there are ways to deal with a person who uses multiple accounts to do things they've already been blocked for. —C.Fred (talk) 17:47, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

It is Vermapriya1986. - Sitush (talk) 17:51, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

And there we go - Vermapriya's talk page has just been edited by him/her. - Sitush (talk) 17:59, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Color Vision Definition

Hello C.Fred,

I think we have a misunderstanding on the Color Vision topic. It would be better to add the references for the definitions. The first part of the Color Vision definition is wrong, and it would be very useful to correct it.

Could we please have a page of discussion in order to agree in the definition?

Claudia Feitosa-Santana —Preceding unsigned comment added by Feitosa-santana (talk • contribs) 22:36, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome to open discussion at Talk:Color vision. Of course, be prepared to provide reliable sources to back up your claims. Given that color vision is defined as existing in non-humans, you'll need to provide a source that explains how it's illusory in those animals as well. —C.Fred (talk) 22:38, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello C.Fred., You didn't accept my references: Steven Shevell and Peter Gouras, 2 reliable color vision scientists. This is okay, there are other reliable scientists. So, I would suggest that you add the references related to the introduction you stated there. You cited Wright (1967) that is very old and not correct anymore (in terms of explanation of the color perception), and the other reference is about dichromats. If you don't agree with my references and definitions, it is okay. But I do suggest that you point your definition with reliable sources too. I am here concerned about the understanding of color vision as a science, and very important for the concept of how humans perceive the world. It is okay to start talking about the color vision in other animals and machines, but references for them are necessary too. I am willing to help. Claudia Feitosa-Santana. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Feitosa-santana (talk • contribs) 23:59, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd say to hold off until other editors have responded at the talk page. It's the weekend, so depending where you are, it might be Tuesday morning your local time before everybody's had a weekday to look at the discussion. —C.Fred (talk) 00:10, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok, but color vision is a science, and its definition must be addressed with references. That is not the case in the Color Vision page. Moreover, a section specific to Human Color Vision / Color Perception must be added. But I am not going to edit if my edition is being deleted in less then a minute - not even enough for a careful reading. I am also asking for colleagues in color vision science to review the whole page, and contribute to point out all misleading concepts. If wikipedia has a high standard for presenting information, it would be necessary to be able to work - all together for the improvement of this page - as well as Evolution of Color Vision.

Feitosa-santana (talk) 04:06, 15 May 2011 (UTC)Feitosa-SantanaFeitosa-santana (talk) 04:06, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Please make sure that you are not canvassing - which is not allowed. Please read our guidelines if you want to know why we removed your edit.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:17, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Specifically, your edit did not have a formal tone and was unsourced.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:22, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

The editing there is not sourced and my editing was sourced. Don't understand the basis of this complain. Yes, I opened a request for disputing editing. It is necessary to improve the page. And I am here to work for that. I will copy the request. Feitosa-santana (talk) 04:28, 15 May 2011 (UTC)Feitosa-SantanaFeitosa-santana (talk) 04:28, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Here is the copy of my open request:

"I am concerned about the this page (Color Vision). It is not reliable. I tried to insert some corrections that were not accepted (even with references). Color Vision is a science, and it needs to be addressed with right definitions and the references. The disputer does not accepted the references and prefers to keep the misleading definition without references. This page should state less than B-class. Where are your sources for this [4]? --NeilN talk to me 23:54, 14 May 2011 (UTC) My sources that were not accepted: 1 - url: http://webvision.med.utah.edu/book/part-vii-color-vision/color-vision/ written by Peter Gouras is a Professor of Ophthalmology at Columbia University, and has many books and papers in color vision. 2 - Shevell, 2003. The Science of Color. Professor of Experimental Psychology at UChicago. url: http://books.google.com/books?id=-fNJZ0xmTFIC&pg=PR7&lpg=PR7&dq=the+science+of+color+shevell&source=bl&ots=rYjEyPf3RL&sig=Au-9lkkmXhlJLjOMfI8iqpUw2LM&hl=en&ei=RxvPTf_SB8bVgQekz5GiDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q&f=false The definition stated in Color Vision page does not present any reference for the first and second paragraphs. Moreover, the third paragraph that presents 2 references (one from 1967 that is obsolete, and another one that was not necessary in an introductory section) - they are not related to the explanation of the color vision stated there - and part of the explanation is wrong. Feitosa-santana (talk) 00:19, 15 May 2011 (UTC)Feitosa-SantanaFeitosa-santana (talk) 00:19, 15 May 2011 (UTC) I see a dialog has been started on the article's talk page. I recommend you copy the above to there so we can continue the conversation where interested parties will see it. --NeilN talk to me 00:24, 15 May 2011 (UTC) Could you please give the exact link for the talk page discussion. I am new editing in wikipedia, and I only started this because I am specialized in Color Vision and I consider more than necessary for teaching purposes to improve the Color Vision page. I am also adding some more books that are essential for Color Vision definition and discussion: 1. Color Vision - Perspectives from Different Disciplines. 1998. Edited by Werner Backhaus, Reinhold Kliegl, and Jack Werner. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter. 2. Kaiser and Boynton. Human Color Vision. 1996. Washington DC: OSA. 3. Color Vision. 1983. Physiology and Psychopysics. 1983. Edited by J. D. Mollon and L. T. Sharpe. New York: Academic Press. There are many correct assumptions with references in the Color Vision page as well as incorrect ones. The content must be improved, and I am having trouble to edit it. Moreover, I don't see any well recognized color vision scientist being part of the construction of that page. For example: John Mollon, Peter Gouras, Steven Shevell, Joel Pokorny, Gerald Jacobs, Jay Neitz, Jack Werner. At least one of them should be a part of the discussion to improve the page. I will try to contact few of them. Feitosa-santana (talk) 04:20, 15 May 2011 (UTC)Feitosa-SantanaFeitosa-santana (talk) 04:20, 15 May 2011 (UTC)"

All my editing was not even considered. I presented reliable sources, and it as not accepted against a definition with no sources. It is necessary to improve the Color Vision page. This is an important category, and it cannot be treated as non-science. Color vision is a science, and it must be defined based in reliable sources. Feitosa-santana (talk) 04:35, 15 May 2011 (UTC)Feitosa-SantanaFeitosa-santana (talk) 04:35, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I still don't approve of the tone of your addition.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:45, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Can we please continue this at Talk:Color_vision? And remember that Claudia is a new editor who has already been bitten by an undeserved uw-vand3. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:55, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello Jasper Deng,and C.Fred and NeilN.

Jasper Deng, you don't agree with the tone? So, you don't agree with the two reliable color vision scientists Steven Shevell and Peter Gouras (the references I used to improve the definition presented there). But it is okay, and maybe we can find better definitions in order to teach the world the right concept of color vision. But never the concept stated there. I don't agree with the tone that is being displayed in wikipedia and, in addition, it is wrong. Here are my comments for only the first section of Color Vision page:

“Color vision is the capacity of an organism or machine to distinguish objects based on the wavelengths (or frequencies) of the light they reflect, emit, or transmit.” This is not a correct color vision definition because a totally color-blind person (monochromat) can also distinguish objects based on this definition. In addition, humans and other animals (for example, bees) have their color vision affected by the context. In other words, color vision is a complex concept and it has to be treated very carefully with reliable references mostly for definitions.

“The nervous system derives color by comparing the responses to light from the several types of cone photoreceptors in the eye.” This is half true, and color vision is made up of many other neuron types in many different levels of the nervous system. It cannot be stated in the first definition of color vision as it is stated there.

The top figure shows a green patch and it seems that the color green is determined by the reflection. This is a wrong concept. The color of an object is determined by the nervous system. There is no color in the light.

There is a second figure is a digital camera. The analogy of vision and the camera is considered completely wrong in order to understand the concept of vision or color vision. It would be helpful to remove this image.

“Rather, it simply absorbs all the frequencies of visible light shining on it except for a group of frequencies that is perceived as red, which are reflected.” Simply absorbs? It is not simply absorbed. And if the surrounding of that physical light is changed, the red could be perceived as orange or pink. Everything depends on the surrounding. Color appearance is affected by the context.

“An apple is perceived to be red only because the human eye can distinguish between different wavelengths.” Only because the human eye? The human eye is only the front door of color vision and many other stages are necessary for the color perception. This is a completely wrong concept.

Feitosa-santana (talk) 16:53, 15 May 2011 (UTC)Feitosa-SantanaFeitosa-santana (talk) 16:53, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

As NeilN stated above, my talk page is not the place to make this request. This needs to be addressed at Talk:Color vision. I am following the discussion there, so messages do not need mirrored on this page. —C.Fred (talk) 18:54, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

User:WebAdministrator2011

21:11 GMT 15 May 2011 Comments on User Name : Dear Sir, Thank you for your comments and notification at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:WebAdministrator2011 Please would you confirm your status. Deleting the account would be neat and accountable. Please delete the account. A new account will be set up. Thank you. Best regards. Yours faithfully. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.242.84.2 (talk) 21:13, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but the account WebAdministrator2011 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) cannot be deleted, although nothing prevents you from creating a new account in its place. —C.Fred (talk) 21:54, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for jumping in on my talk page in helping to reply to the user WebAdministrator2011's concerns about a speedy deletion.ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 22:04, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Major Total Drama article renovation to bring up articles to A-Class

I've just got an update that this user will attempt to bring all the Total Drama articles to high article class. That includes removing content, blanking sections, and lots of reconfiguring of articles and merging. But she also said that she needs help with adding verificale sources to a lot of places so just to let you know that if you see lot's of vandalism, it's probably the renovation process. See this talk page to see what we discussed. Giggett (talk) 19:58, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. As a general rule, it's easy to tell those kinds of constructive edits from the vandalism—I expect she'll use edit summaries, provide sources for changes, and the like. (As opposed to vandals who put in false information or the disruptive users who add rumours and speculation.) —C.Fred (talk) 01:20, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

The first process was to combine all of the episode summaries to their respective season articles. This caused 4 articles to become redirects but now we only got 8 articles to watch instead of 12. She also said that she will begin removing excessivie trivia so I'm guessing if the elimination tables are going to be reformatted to look more like the ones in Survivor, and finally she suggested that we should get rid of all the airdates from all the countries except Canada and the U.S Giggett (talk) 15:42, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Agreed on all fronts. —C.Fred (talk) 16:05, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually no. I said removal of all release dates except per Canada, because it is the original English airdate. If we ad U.S. It would be bias per those who live in the U.S. and not all the other countries that aired the original English one. However, i did adding information of it had been released in other countries would be good. The only ones we mention are the original and the English (if the original is not English).Bread Ninja (talk) 17:01, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Did Canada get all the episodes first in all cases? It seems like with World Tour, the Australian air dates were first in some cases. —C.Fred (talk) 17:20, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree with getting rid of the U.S airdates, they do seem really different from the Canadian airdates as seen by this table:

(Table with colspans to denote months each series aired redacted by Giggett (talk · contribs).)

We do need to keep the U.S airdates and episode lists since they are different and since Canada and the U.S are the most popular locations for Total Drama. Americans like to know when their episodes aired too, not just the Canadians. I agree on the Australian airdates and other countries, but we do have to keep at least those two Giggett (talk) 17:27, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

American Total Drama fans like to know when their episodes aired, like the American Doctor Who fans, whose episode airdates…aren't listed: only the original BBC airdates are listed. There's no reason to give Total Drama any special America-centric treatment that other shows don't get. —C.Fred (talk) 17:30, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Okay, by the way should the table above stay on the Total Drama article? Cuz Bread Ninja just removed it cuz it was too confusing Giggett (talk) 17:34, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

My gut reaction is to not include the table. Instead, it might be useful to have a prose section on international releases. If that section gets too cumbersome to read, then we can consider a table, timeline, or other visual representation to augment the text. (The table can't stand alone: I know it won't convey the information correctly in Links or other text browsers, and it will probably drive screen reader users batty.) —C.Fred (talk) 17:38, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Okay, but what about the elimination tables, cuz Ninja also said that they are too trivial. Do they also need to get removed or do we just reconfigure them and make them more simple with less detail? Giggett (talk) 17:43, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

There really is no need for a table. The section itself is based on information we already have.Bread Ninja (talk) 17:41, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

• Giggett, feel free to edit the articles, but please don't remove the tables—which are part of your comments—from the talk page. Be very careful that in the course of refactoring your comments you aren't removing context on which other editors' comments rely or changing the order of comments (which also affects context). —C.Fred (talk) 17:56, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I got edit conflicted, I thought she said it was okay to remove the tables but saw that the comments were backwards and she meant something else Giggett (talk) 17:58, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

U.S. Roads WikiProject Newsletter, Spring 2011

Volume 4, Issue 2 • Spring 2011 • About the Newsletter
Departments Assessment roundup Portal selected articles and pictures	Features Stub drive continues on User Vaoverland passes away Get your kicks with the US 66 task force	State and national updates Project reports for CA DE MD MI PA
Archives • Newsroom • Full Issue • Shortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS

—Rschen7754bot (talk) 02:00, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Robinlovemusic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

If this user continues the addition of unsourced content and it's disruptive, take it to ANI. But, we both must assume good faith with this user and not bite him/her like that.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:42, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

It would be easier to AGF if this hadn't been going on for weeks. —C.Fred (talk) 04:45, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Please take this to ANI.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:46, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I was just about to file the report, when they made an edit that properly sourced the assertion about album sales.[6] I've put a thank you message on their talk page accordingly and put the report on the back burner. —C.Fred (talk) 04:56, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello, C.Fred. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

That pesky Sonny with a Chance/So Random! thing

I can't touch things because of WP:INVOLVED, but it looks like there is a consensus at Talk:Sonny with a Chance#So Random! - Spin-off? to move User:68DANNY2/So Random! to So Random!. That would also involve changing List of So Random! episodes to point at So Random!.—Kww(talk) 03:02, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Moved the article and changed the list redirect. —C.Fred (talk) 03:28, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

So Random!

why are you falling for 117Avenue and Kww tricks. They WANT to make a new page for So Random, but I have information that states it should all stay on the Sonny with a Chance page. The promo also stated "A BRAND NEW SEASON" as well as a show with-in a how is now it's own show. And the first episode is called "Episode 301" with Production code of 301 which takes place after the season 2 finale of 225. - Alec2011 (talk) 05:03, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

My action was based on there being a week of discussions with no objections evident. If it's truly a continuation (in the manner of The Hogan Family), we can merge everything back later—after more evidence emerges back to that option. —C.Fred (talk) 18:06, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Canvassing Question

Hi C. Fred, hope you don't mind me asking you this question. Located here[7], I gave some advice, which I believe to be the permitted way of getting input without violating either the letter or spirit of WP:CANVAS. I'd appreciate your input as to whether my understanding is correct or not. If it is not, please let me know and I will feel free to re-advise correctly, or of course, also please feel free to point out on 117's talk page that my understanding is in error (or both). Thanks, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 21:08, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I think you've got the spirit of the guideline down pat. If it's limited (not mass) posting, with a neutral message, without bias in who the message goes to (nonpartisan), and the message is open, I would call that proper notification and request for comment rather than an attempt to canvass. —C.Fred (talk) 21:12, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Much thanks. ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 21:19, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

HaitiTravelGuide.com

Hi C.Fred, HaitiTravelGuide.com is notable because its the only online travel agency in Haiti, as is its parent company, SOGEDEC SA, which is one of few conglomerates (willing to be public) in Haiti. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MarcanThelan (talk • contribs) 22:05, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Semi-Protect

I need help with Semi-Protecting both the So Random! main page and the List of Episodes page as they are being vandelized majorly. See the View_History button. Request made here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alec2011 (talk • contribs) 03:50, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not seeing a clear pattern of vandalism. I have added both articles to my watchlist, so I'll be able to see ongoing trends. —C.Fred (talk) 15:33, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

It's not so much vandalism as addition of uncited, speculative OR in the lead up to the first episode of So Random! Nobody is really sure of what's happening but the fans have come up with some ideas and decided their ideas are fact. It's the same old stuff we keep seeing at Disney articles. --AussieLegend (talk) 15:43, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

It's not just the Disney shows: if you doubt it, look at most of the edits I've made to pages whose titles start with "Total Drama". —C.Fred (talk) 15:45, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion tagging

Hello C.Fred. Thanks for the speedy deletion work you are doing; it's a very important activity! I did want to let you know, though, regarding Panayiotis Teklos, that current consensus holds that it is bad practice to tag articles for speedy deletion as lacking context (CSD A1) or content (CSD A3) moments after creation, as users may be actively working on the article content. Ten to fifteen minutes is considered a good time to wait before tagging such articles under either of these criteria. Please note that before an appropriate waiting period is over, the articles should not be marked as patrolled, so that the wait does not result in the article escaping review at a later time. Nothing here is meant to apply to any other criterion; attack pages and copyright violations especially should be tagged and deleted immediately. Thanks.

--Slon02 (talk) 21:20, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

If there were any valid content on the page, I would've waited. However, it's a coming soon page and effectively empty: by tagging the article, my intent was to alert the creator that he needs to put something there or it will be deleted. —C.Fred (talk) 21:22, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

how to get this page (J. L. Edwards(No 1 Best-selling author)) back???

sir what i have to do , what changes to make to get the page back? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnedwards1225 (talk • contribs) 16:59, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

To have an article on Edwards, you'll need to make a number of changes:

1. Make sure the article is written in neutral point of view and not in overtly promotional tone.
2. Demonstrate that Edwards is a notable person.
3. Cite reliable sources that are independent of Edwards to back up the claims of notability.

The third point is especially important since, based on your username and your access to Edwards to take photos of him (that are on Commons), you have a conflict of interest with the subject. (Comments mirrored to your talk page.) —C.Fred (talk) 18:26, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

And the highly dubious "No 1 Best-selling author" imbedded within the name of the first-draft version is not a good start. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:34, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

So how can i get the article back to edit it , wel the article is written in neutral point of view , i think all i have to do is add references

, will article be ok if add references?Johnedwards1225 (talk) 14:14, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

How is language like "As an author, one of his masterpieces is a Fictional novel" and "His other adorable publications include" neutral point of view? This was a very blatant advertisement; and again, "No 1 Best-selling author" appears to be a flat-out lie. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:26, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

OK , sir actually i am new here , so please tell me , what esle changes i have to made to get my page back???

i need your help

please point out all the mistakes

waiting for your replyJohnedwards1225 (talk) 14:52, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I find it odd that a professional author would not write using proper sentence structure and grammar. Regardless, if you can point to some reliable sources showing you meet our notability criteria for authors, I will help you. You can reply on my talk page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:18, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Brian Kingman page edit

Regarding my edit to the Brian Kingman page, the source is myself. I am Brian Kingman's brother and I know when he was born (July 27, 1953, the day the Korean War ended).

It appears that somehow a copy of his birth certificate would need to be published in order to provide a "reliable reference."

I'm not inclined to pursue the matter further, since it would appear that this has been wrong for a long time and may have been caused Brian in the first place.

Pragmaticist (talk) 15:04, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia prefers published secondary sources in cases like this. Baseball-reference.com is one; if a copy of the American League Red Book from when he played were available, that would be another. The verifiability requirement says that material should be able to be cross-checked; it's not policy to take the word of a related party (or take it doubly in this case, as there's no verification that you are Kingman's brother).

If you can provide references that attest to the 1953 date, we can change it. However, I would be very wary of trying to publish his birth certificate. —C.Fred (talk) 15:42, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm doing some searching, and I'm not finding anything that supports a 1953 birthdate. There's a news story from July 7, 1994, that says Kingman was 41 at the time of the story, but if the July 27 birthday is correct, that story would support a birth year of 1952. And how shall I put this obliquely…the chapter of Kingman's life covered in said news story is absent from Kingman's Wikipedia article. As a family member, I would think you would prefer that it not even get hinted at in the article. —C.Fred (talk) 16:02, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I did find him on Ancestry.com with the correct info, by the way. But let's let sleeping dogs lie. ;-) Pragmaticist (talk) 03:11, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Consistency is Irrelevant

There was no voting at the semi-final, therefore we don't need that column in the voting history. If anything, we need to change that in all past seasons, not make future tables match up to it. CycloneGU (talk) 16:46, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

On a further review of several of the season articles, I am finding some other things that need fixing. I've removed the 0 vote indications from the teams table (the first one in the article) for Couples 4 and "Pay It Forward" and made more fixes on the latter. I think both articles are now fully factually correct. While I'm not a big viewer of the series, I have seen bits of the last two seasons and am thus comfortable with these changes. I intend to make changes back as far as necessary for each type of chart; I already looked at Season 1 and found some charts not dating back that far, so am also debating whether adding some types of chart would be beneficial to the earlier articles. What are your thoughts on this? CycloneGU (talk) 19:15, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

To expand on that, editing or removing other editors' comments on a talk page, noticeboard, or deletion discussion is considered bad practice. The one exception is your own talk page: you may blank comments left on your own user talk page, and the act of deleting the message is treated as acknowledgment of the message. —C.Fred (talk) 04:20, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, it was faulty. I intended to use a template and add. btw, how can I reply to your message more easily? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattyjacky (talk • contribs) 04:23, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Will reply on your talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 04:25, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Scottyabi-deleting needed pages

Why would you delete a student project that included the complete history of the Hughesville Spartan Marching Band???????? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottyabi (talk • contribs) 15:47, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Let's see. First, "Not much is known about the early years of the band" is hardly the sign of a complete history. The first attempt by VIncent Michael (talk · contribs) to create an article was deleted because high school bands aren't generally notable organizations, and there was nothing to show anything different about the Hughesville High School Spartan Marching Band. The second attempt to create it was basically a smear against one of its directors, so it was deleted as an attack page.

Finally, all the deletions in question took place over three years ago. The article hasn't existed since then. —C.Fred (talk) 16:00, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Drkevins

Don't know if you saw my comment on Drkevins (talk · contribs) here. Mtking (talk) 00:08, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I think you are right that it is unlikely to get a response, as if the name is real, he by now would realise it might damage his election chances and if it is another person they would be scared off by the prospect of being found out. Out of interest how would he prove he is that person, is there a template message for that ? Mtking (talk) 00:24, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure there's a template for that. Usually it involves an email to WP:OTRS from a verifiable host. That may be the other issue, if he's not known to be at a company or in government. I mean, professors can usually be checked against an email from their .edu domain, and employees of companies against their company's domain. —C.Fred (talk) 00:34, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that, to me his edits look remarkably silly for someone running for office, to silly in fact he would have know he was going to get blocked and why no comment since the block. Mtking (talk) 00:42, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I have left him a message, don't think he will reply. Mtking (talk) 00:47, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

bsklgn666 Johnsburg high school edit

"Articles must be based on reliable sources and not students' opinions about staff members, good or bad."

technically speaking, Mr. Dostal is no longer a staff member of the high school since he became fired. further more i recieved permission from him, the school, and all peoples quoted to put up that page. so if there is permission from the school for me to post this information and the students opinion about the former teacher why can i not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bsklgn666 (talk • contribs) 22:58, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, unless he's dead, the biographies of living people guidelines apply—and if he were recently deceased, they would pretty much still apply. There's also the verifiability requirement: there's no way to either verify the material you put in the article or the permission you allege that you have received. —C.Fred (talk) 02:23, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

thank you for the information :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bsklgn666 (talk • contribs) 15:23, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Emilie Autumn

On behalf of WP:CHICAGO, I thank you for your contribution to one of wikipedia's latest WP:GA's

This user helped promote Emilie Autumn to good article status.

--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:30, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

All the edits to her article, and it never clicked that she's got ties to Chicago. (I don't have it marked on my user page, but I'm in northwest Indiana currently.) Glad to hear the article got recognized. Thank you! —C.Fred (talk) 17:34, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

3RR at Indian article

Do you have time to look at User_talk:Kumaripriya#A. Nesamony 2 ? This contributor has been asked time and again to provide citations to various articles over several months. In the last 24 hours s/he has added similar uncited content to an already poorly cited article four times, despite my attempts to advise. I am on three reverts myself, although I instigated the dialogue after my second. - Sitush (talk) 14:49, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Forget the above. Someone else has stepped in to sort it out, although I suspect that the culprit will be back before too long. - Sitush (talk) 15:50, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

::Pretty much the entire talk page has now disappeared at Talk:A._Nesamony. Am I seeing things? The history has gone right back also. - Sitush (talk) 18:13, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Forget it. God, I'm having a bad time of it. The discussion was on his/her page for some reason. - Sitush (talk) 18:15, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Total Drama

I might be a little late on this, but should we add a sidebar, cuz on the Disney parks article they got one and it looks like Total Drama might need one too. A sidebar will be much easier to nagivate throughout the articles since there are only a few articles, unlike other series when they have 20+ articles, then a navigational box would be preffered. But in this case since there are only 8, I think we should go with the sidebar. The navigational box can stay, the side bar will just be an addition. Here is an example of what I pulled out, its really simple and easy to navigate, but I can make it look better like the Disney one Giggett (talk) 18:29, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

And I can't find anything as far as a standard for sidebars. The more I think about it, the more I think that for a large portion of the audience, who aren't familiar with Wikipedia and navboxes at the end of articles, the sidebar will be more useful. I'd say bring the issue up at Talk:Total Drama to get a wider consensus, but it sounds like a good idea to me. —C.Fred (talk) 18:33, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

there is no need for such thing if we have a navbox already. Idk...you guys really need to know when templates are important. However there is a different box that can help chronology. But theres not much space to put it in.Bread Ninja (talk) 18:39, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Sidebars are custom and can be applied to whatever size you want. By the way I am not saying it will replace the current navbox, that can stay. The sidebar will just be an addition. Giggett (talk) 18:55, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Sidebars would need to be necessary not just additional. If its practically a mirror image of the navbox, why add it in?Bread Ninja (talk) 19:03, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

It's much easier to navigate, barely takes any space, and really simple, there is nothing wrong about it and won't hurt to add Giggett (talk) 19:04, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Here is a quick view of how it may look, obviously it's gonna have different colors and not link to the Disney pages, but you get the idea Giggett (talk) 19:08, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, here's a thought against the sidebar: how many of the articles have tables high in the article, so that adding a sidebar, in addition to the infobox, will do nasty things to the spacing? Given the recent issues with table width, it may be best to have as little as possible at the top of the articles and save the navigation stuff for the bottom. —C.Fred (talk) 19:12, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

The sidebar will be the exact same width as the infobox and go on top of it. I don't see any problem with the space there. And if you really think it looks nasty, I can even merge the sidebar into the infobox. Giggett (talk) 19:15, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Now we're in the realm of the full-blown redundant: each season's infobox has links to the preceding and succeeding seasons and the main show article. —C.Fred (talk) 19:52, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Good point, I have changed those preceding and succeeding seasons sections to a list that show all 4 seasons, rather than just 2 Giggett (talk) 21:56, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Its unnecessary. if we have a navbox, the disney one exist because the navbox for disney is way too big. a smaller one relating to the resorts and hotels sounds reasonable. The boxes you're adding has exact same thing. Stop making more and more templates. the articles are already filled with them.Bread Ninja (talk) 22:09, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Bread Ninja's got a point. Consistency is also an issue, and using the next/previous season fields in the standard infobox conveys the sequencing more clearly. —C.Fred (talk) 22:16, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I decided to update the current "Chronology" section on the infobox to include all 4 seasons (instead of the next and previous). This allows to easily navigate to any of the 4 seasons, not just the next season or last. It doesn't take any space and it's completely merged within the current infobox. Giggett (talk) 22:20, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Again....why bother if its going to do the exact same thing the navbox already does? the only difference now is you abbreviated the titles.Bread Ninja (talk) 22:26, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Let's say if you're in the top of the REALLY LONG TDWT page, and you want to go to the TDI page. You don't have to scroll down all the way to the navbox template at the bottom of the page. You just go to the infobox and click on TDI. It's much easier. Giggett (talk) 22:20, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

(indent reset) Once you figure out what the abbreviations mean. I question whether it's really easier. —C.Fred (talk) 22:31, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Some articles are really long, and to get to the next season or the first one, it requires to scroll down a lot, whether with this infobox, the links are right in the top. The only thing I have done is added the missing fourth season and abbrebiated. Take a look at one of the articles (by clicking on the links), you can barely notice it. It's still in the same "Chronology" section. Just with all 4 seasons Giggett (talk) 22:34, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Again, missing the point. sigh...you guys think making it easier is fixing the article, but it just makes it worst. the articles are "covered" in templates. Even some that aren't necessary. such as in-universe information (thats right, i'm talking about the elimination table" Along with other things like using "abreviations". you guys just really missing the idea. Hypothetical "article too long" excuse isn't working. the articles are fine. and scrolling down isn't that big of a deal for all the articles.Bread Ninja (talk) 22:37, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

If you say so, I guess there is no need for any more templates Giggett (talk) 22:40, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

A sidebar might make it more friendly to newer readers. Non-standard use of the chronology box will not help readers familiar with Wikipedia standards, and I'm not sure the abbreviations in the infobox help anybody. Net result, I think the changes to the infobox have hurt more than they have helped. —C.Fred (talk) 22:41, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay then, so scrap the sidebar. The abbrebiations were just to make things smaller, but without them it will look something like this

It's not about pleasing the new users, they can get help when the time comes. Like everyone else, getting a welcome tag on there talk page.....you're only thinking the benefit of the editor, not the reader, not the quality, not the level of benefit, and how much damage it causes. Its best you just have preceded by succeeded by chronology in the infobox if you guys want it so much, but not all the links in one. But seriously? This kind of thinking is what made the articles what they are now.Bread Ninja (talk) 22:53, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Fine then, I'm reverting all the changes right now, case closed Giggett (talk) 22:56, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

A request from Underdog

Hi, C.Fred. I am puzzled by the inappropriate action of deleting "burnt out diabetes" of a likely biased user and by your support for the said actions, in particular by your locking the deletion and for not allowing further discussion on this topic. FYI, the key word "burnt out diabetes" has over 2,000 positing and websites. It is a likely paradigm shifting concept, which, as the history of science and medicine has shown repeatedly, antagonizes traditionalists and those who have minimal tolerance for the scientific progress and for advances in science and medicine. History repeats itself. As for technicality of DELTERION OBJECTOIN (“use conventional methods to protest deletion”), not all people on the planet are as Wikipedia-savvy as certain biased. Instead of supporting people who have mitigated tolerance for new concepts and mark anything for deletion that is not consistent with “their” traditional and science-conservative expectations, you may wish to also support the underdog of the Wikipedia World in the interest of advancing freedom of science and allowing Wikipedia to grow rather than becoming yet another tool in the hands of the monitors of the monitors of the monitors…. Very few people mean vandalism, and to discredit a balanced effort of reviving an unfairly deleted page as "vandalism" and showing least tolerance for such efforts in not consistent with your impressive track record in your website. Hope we see your true you and your advocacy for freedom of science and against scientific fanatics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burntout1234 (talk • contribs) 06:08, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

The discussion was already closed, and I provided instructions to you on your old account, Burntout123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), of how to appeal the deletion. You chose not to. Instead, you recreated the same article, and per Wikipedia policy, that was deleted under criterion for speedy deletion G4, recreation of a deleted article. You persistently recreated it, which showed intent not to cooperate.

You've now broken another Wikipedia rule by creating a new account to avoid your block. If you have no intent to abide by Wikipedia's rules and guidelines, there's nothing I can do to help you. —C.Fred (talk) 06:23, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm replying on your talk page, since the new account is subject to being blocked as an abusive alternate account. —C.Fred (talk) 06:24, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for restoring my access (also plz remove restrictions on the IP addresses related to burntout123 and burnout1234 so that people in those apartment complexes can maintain their access to avoid collateral damage, a new and interesting concept that I just learned). Would like to suggest to restore "burnt-out diabetes mellitius" in a restricted format with a more balanced and protracted discussion so that more participants can have the opportunity to discuss and contribute.(burntout123(talk))• —Preceding undated comment added 17:01, 5 June 2011 (UTC).

Sorry about the joke on Floyd Mayweathers page. But you must agree with me?! lol.

Won't happen again.

-V

Vendettos (talk) 17:46, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Neovandalism

Hi, C.Fred. I need your help and support. The new page neovandalism is tagged for speedy deletion under G3. It is not a hoax or vandalism, nor should it be categorized as G3. It is a serious and relevant topic. Kindly revise your comments and allow several weeks of civil discussion. ----To_Expand_Tolerance_ 18:47, 5 June 2011 (UTC)To_Expand_Tolerance_ 18:44, 5 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burntout123 (talk • contribs)

Hi, C.Fred. The page neovandalism is now removed after a short period of time of minutes. Maybe in a few days you yourself can help me revive this page without referring to you or anybody else. Ironically I feel you can help me. --To_Expand_Tolerance_ 19:52, 5 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burntout123 (talk • contribs)

My concern is that there's too big a hurdle for it to meet to get back to mainspace. You would need to show that neovandalism—and it would need to be referred to by name—has been given significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Since you indicated this is a newly-coined term, I'm doubting there's coverage in any reliable sources at this point. —C.Fred (talk) 22:09, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

OK. Thanks. I will wait a few weeks. In-between please visit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Burntout123/Neovandalism and help develop the concept without any partisanship. Indeed I feel that the concept of regulated corruption can be developed as well. This move can set precedence into the next step for Wikipedia as the first source of new concepts and new ideologgies. Burntout123 --To_Expand_Tolerance_ 23:46, 5 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burntout123 (talk • contribs)

Not assuming good faith

Hi C Fred User:Burntout123 has left a mildly threatening message that does not assume good faith on my user page. I know he/she has already consumed a significant amount of you time and is already blocked but I am unsure what else can be done. I also wonder what steps can be taken to assess whether there is a COI in the user's edits. Your thoughts are appreciated. Porturology (talk) 06:27, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

He's not currently blocked: the block I placed on his account has expired. I wouldn't pay too much attention to the message on your talk page. See my comments at User talk:Burntout123#Concept of Neovandalism, and see the whole thread at WP:AN/I#User:Burntout123 and Neovandalism article. I think you're almost certainly right about the COI, since "burnt-out" diabetes is his subject of choice. I'm sure the user means well, but the number of policies he's run afoul of is staggering—on top of everything else, I just uncovered a copyvio tonight. —C.Fred (talk) 06:37, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Digital Guitar

about my contribution to the electric guitar article, I wrote a line in the digital guitars and synth, don't know what you are talking about 9 year for the first one to be sold. i was just saying that the kitara is the first completely natural digital guitar thus it doesn't use ADC (analog to digital conversion) so as far as i know about is the first real digital guitar in the market. and i think is something worth putting in this article. --- maco1717 21:43, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit Request on Semi Protected Page

I put in an edit request on the page of ReginaRussell. I see there's a backlog of edit requests so I'm posting here. Can you help out with this?

Please remove all of the following. All are unsourced with no supporting material or verifiable references. "currently creating and developing TV shows"

"works behind the scenes with The Humane Society of The United States on various animal rights issues, producing and directing public service announcements."

"She currently raids celebrity closets and auctions clothing for charity on various TV shows. She also does hosting, and fashion and style segments as a celebrity style expert." (Previous sentence says She owned and operated. That means she does not currently)

208.83.60.218 (talk) 18:17, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

My RfA

I just wanted to take a minute to thank you very much for supporting me in my recent RfA. Even though it was unsuccessful, I appreciate your trust. With much gratitude, jsfouche ☽☾Talk 02:02, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Copyright

1. Understand the issue and will try to start it de novo. 2. In our prior discussion you had alluded to the prospect of putting 'burnt-out dia..." in my user page. Can u kindly do so? 3. Any chance to merge burntout123 and burntout1234? 4. Feel free to delete this message any time after you read it. Thanks burntout123 --_To_Expand_Tolerance_ 03:05, 7 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burntout123 (talk • contribs)

1. Cool. I'd have started it myself, but I kept feeling like I was regurgitating the page contents and not writing new text.
2. Yes. Look for a message on your talk page in about 30 minutes that it's been done.
3. No. There's not really any mechanism to merge accounts. Best thing is to just stop using Burntout1234 entirely and make all future edits from Burntout123.
4. I archive messages on my talk page—well, I let a bot do it. If this thread stays quiet for seven days, the bot will move it off to an archive page. —C.Fred (talk) 03:31, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Will follow. Take your time. -burntout123. --_To_Expand_Tolerance_ 03:58, 7 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burntout123 (talk • contribs)

Rinat Akhmetov "libel war" redux

Just a heads up but a new editor has emerged spouting the "libel against living persons" rhetoric on the Rinat Akhmetov article. If you remember, back in October you had to protect the page because socks were removing sections based on this notion. I reverted to the stable reffed version we edited it down to...call it a hunch but things may erupt again. Letting you know preemptively in case an editwar happens again.--Львівське (talk) 23:49, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

In addition to Orekhova, a new user (sock?) "Komul" has appeared for the sole purpose of deleting content under alleged BLP guidelines. --Львівське (talk) 03:44, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

about trina

are you going to fix trina discography page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robinlovemusic (talk • contribs) 02:26, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

hello

what in the hell going on with trina page?

please fix that shit.

yall got lil kim page looking heaven and shit. (Robinlovemusic (talk) 02:41, 9 June 2011 (UTC))

I don't do anything with Lil Kim's article, so I'm not sure how it looks. Re: Trina's article, I've been offline all evening, so if somebody's altered the page heavily, I haven't seen it. —C.Fred (talk) 04:48, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

And the only edits I saw to Trina were you attempting to add a platinum certification for Da Baddest Bitch. You didn't provide a source, and RIAA shows they only certified it gold, so I've reverted that (again). —C.Fred (talk) 04:52, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Updates

1. Kovesdy's concept article is revised to be compliant with the copyright regulations. Please review and if OK, feel free to transfer it to the main page, so that the discussion can be resumed. 2. The neovandalism userfied page is revised. All direct and indirect references to names or events have been removed. 3. Burnt-out diabetes userfied page has remained the same to allow dust to settle. -Burntout123 (still don't know how to let this signature appear automatically) - --_To_Expand_Tolerance_ 05:45, 9 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burntout123 (talk • contribs)

I'll start with your signature: you probably want to uncheck the "treat this as Wikimarkup" box below your signature on your preferences page. That said, since "_To_Expand_Tolerance_" doesn't clearly relate to your username, I'd caution against treating that as your nickname for Wikipedia purposes—it may create confusion for other editors. —C.Fred (talk) 21:35, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Did you not change the Kovesdy text on the article? It looks like that was fixed. I've cleared the note about the copyright violation; however, my not-a-vote at the deletion discussion is to delete the article, but it's a "weak delete without prejudice," meaning I'm borderline about whether to delete the article, and I would support creating a new article if the subject becomes demonstrably notable in the future (and/or gets significant coverage in secondary reliable sources).

The neovandalism page is still not worthy of an article, as there are no sources provided showing widespread use of the term that the article states was coined in 2011. The two sources listed are from 2003 and 2004; they are about related subjects and don't provide any verifiability for the neovandalism neologism. —C.Fred (talk) 21:46, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I am learning a lot of Wiki stuff in a relatively short period on Wikipedia editiing. Until a few days ago I had no idea what TALK page is or means, etc. This has become a fascinating experience, albeit time-consuming. Will try the signature options. --[[User:Burntout123|Burntout123]] ([[User talk:Burntout123|talk]] (talk) 22:01, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Bluff View Estates, Dallas Texas

File:Https://picasaweb.google.com/Teann.Nash/BluffViewEstatesDallas?authkey=Gv1sRgCPX tLTk59fdKA&feat=directlink The information on the developer of this 1924 Dallas Subdivision is wrong. I have place the link to the Bluff View Estates 1924 plat map from old neighborhood files. Thank you for your help to get the image and information corrected. https://picasaweb.google.com/Teann.Nash/BluffViewEstatesDallas?authkey=Gv1sRgCPX_tLTk59fdKA&feat=directlink Teann Nash ucreateit 04:08, 10 June 2011 (UTC)~ 04:08, 10 June 2011 (UTC)~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ucreateit (talk • contribs)

request to resolve disputed issue

Dear C.Fred,

I kindly ask you to help us to resolve a dispute with user Lvivske whose allegations seem to insinuate reputation of a living public person thus contravening Wikipedia’s policies as for neutral point of view, sources verifiability and biographies of the living persons. The mentioned user is constantly creating negative image of a public person by adding unproved allegations on his crime ties, unbacked by any official reliable verifiable source. Sources provided by this user are either unofficial or seem to belong to original research materials or are impossible to check due to dead links, which is contradicting Wiki’s rules about verifiability; such, the statement re alleged crime activities and frauds, referring to the Ministry of Internal Affairs report, contains the link to some pdf-file, belonging to some foreign investigating journalism program.

Offensive attributions, such as “thug” are used, taken from non-English or/and non-verified sources, which is as well is interfering the policy about dispassionate tone and verifiability. Allegations about belonging of the discussed person to criminal world are presented as facts and mainly referred to a non-English self-investigation of a Donetsk journalist that was officially declared a plagiarism by Region Court of Appeal. So, I just put into practice Jimbo Wales’ advice: I can NOT emphasize this enough.There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative "I heard it somewhere" pseudo information is to be tagged with a "needs a cite" tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons. --Orekhova (talk) 08:23, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Questionable links in Rinat Akhmetov article

Hi, C.Fred!

I deleted the link (http://reportingproject.net/new/REPORTS/Document%20about%20Donetsk%20crime%20group.pdf) with report allegating ties of the discussed living person with criminal world based on the reason that the having mentioned the official report of Ministry of Internal Affairs, author should have provided link to the official source of the Ministry, such as website, which is the only official reliable source in this case. Instead, users Lvivske and Narking has presented the link to a bad photocopy of unknown origin, which relation to the Ministry is impossible to establish, thus turning Wikipedia into a pool of rumors and unsubstantiated allegations. Please remember that Wikipedia it is not arene for political discussion, but free enciclopedia with rules and ethical norms.---Komul (talk) 12:31, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Fred, what's the normal procedure on requesting a sockcheck for Orekhova/Komul? It's been a while since I've had to but this one just seems obvious.--Львівське (talk) 22:28, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Total Drama: Revenge of the Island

Should we consider a semi-protect lock on the article? There seems to be too much vandalism, and barely any constructive edits. I checked an edit that was made 3 days ago (by me), and compared it to the one that was done today (compared like 30 edits), and absolutely nothing changed. Face it, there is too much vandalism on that article, and it takes too much work to be patrolling that article every day since the season may not air for the next 2 months, and since that article is the one with the most vandalism on the entire Total Drama article series. We might spend the next two months trying to partol a bunch of annonymous users who keep messing with the tables and never really get anywhere. Really that article doesn't really need any more edits for now since all of the framework was completed a long time ago. Still we get about 100 edits per week, mostly vandalism and unconstructive edits. The only edits that may be required are the ones after the sesaon begins to air like the eliminations and maybe some more production info, but I prefer that auto-confirmed editors make those changes, rather than a bunch of unexperienced editors that mess up the whole article format. Really, I believe that this article should get protected since it is the hardest to maintain. Giggett (talk) 17:44, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

about trina.

ummmm

what happen to the diamond doll foundation? http://www.urblife.com/the-word/giving-back-trina-visits-holtz-childrens-hospital/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robinlovemusic (talk • contribs) 00:14, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

What part of the explanation on the talk page was unclear? (I'm guessing none of it, since you just came up with another source.) —C.Fred (talk) 00:30, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

And the urblife.com story mentions the foundation but only in passing. It doesn't really describe what the foundation does—and it doesn't even spell the name consistently! —C.Fred (talk) 00:32, 11 June 2011 (UTC)