User talk:C.Fred/Archive 26

Seagate (police) department.
Hello I am writing to inform you that your edit to this agency ranks section is inaccurate and misleading. He are the fact as they are. Seagate is a private community who's residents pay a fee to have there own public safety, This is clearly listed on there website. Seagate employees peace officer's as defined by numerous searches and here are a few. -Their own website states retired police officers and/or peace officers. -new york state criminal procedure law 2.10 section 46 states peace officers .... if they where police officers as you state they would be listed in CPL 120.section 20. -the new york city police is the primary law enforcement and investigatory agency in NYC which includes seagate community, this is also referred to on the wiki page, also if you look at the New York City Police Dept 60th precinct map it clealy states that it covers Seagate community. -If seagate are police officers as you keep stating then why do they need a pistol permitted to carry a firearm on duly, which is issued by the New York City Police Dept. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:1280:8A5E:11CB:929B:8435:7FBA (talk) 01:52, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Carl von Bismarck
I noticed you'd cleaned Carl von Bismarck up and protected it recently. There have been more unsourced additions from two brand new editors and an IP (whose edits to other articles are obviously well-meant, and often completely opposite to the Manual of style). Since you're familiar with it, could you take another look? Thanks, BlackcurrantTea (talk) 04:01, 28 August 2019 (UTC)


 * @BlackcurrantTea: Based on the MOS issues, I rolled back all the changes. —C.Fred (talk) 18:15, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you. With concerns about sock puppetry from the note when you protected it, it wasn't easy to tell if any of them should be kept. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 02:07, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * @BlackcurrantTea: I've re-protected the page. We'll see what they bring up at the talk page now. —C.Fred (talk) 14:20, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Maybe it slowed things down a bit., who named themselves after Otto von Bismarck's home town, has now made their fourth revert. 1, 2, 3, 4. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 16:06, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Boney M.
Why are you adding someone who was not an official member of the band? If you would like to add other contributors they should appear separately but among the 5 original members. Shaq81 (talk) 23:04, 2 September 2019 (UTC)


 * @Shaq81: Personnel were for all members of the band, not just original members. —C.Fred (talk) 23:08, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Sorry I completely disagree. Official members who sang on the records should be highlighted somehow and not appear together with those who only acted as contributors but not as official group members. Boney M. had 5 official members. Other members who joined on stage as replacement like the lady you added are not mentioned or visible on the records anywhere. Shaq81 (talk) 23:26, 2 September 2019 (UTC)


 * @Shaq81: So, to be clear, members who sang on the records, not ones who appeared on stage but did not sing on the records? —C.Fred (talk) 23:28, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

I have all the original albums from the 70s/80s and around 20 compilation albums from the band. On all of the CDs the 4 original members are visible: Liz Mitchell and Marcia Barrett the female 2 voices of Boney M. plus dancers Maizie Williams and Bobby Farrell. They were the original and official members of Boney M. After 1982 Farrell left and was replaced by Reggie Tsiboe (he is the 5th official member mentioned on the CDs) who sang lead vocals on several later hits in the 80s. They disbanded for the first time in 1986 and after that did not record new CDs anymore. From the last 30 years there are a huge number of compilation CDs with 1-2 new songs as bonus track on it (with Liz Mitchell as lead singer from the original band). As Boney M. are considered these 5 people, the other 30-40 people from the last decades are only contributors in the different revival line-ups led by original members. Shaq81 (talk) 00:26, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Atletico Madrid
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atl%C3%A9tico_Madrid

User "MYS77" is continuously vandalizing the above article by adding unsourced content. Could you please lock this section to prevent further vandalism?

In addition, user "MYS77" continues to spam my talk page with more ignorance. Please stop this vandalizer from spamming Wikipedia with unsourced content/accusations.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.130.240.225 (talk) 20:50, 3 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm not convinced that either of you is acting in bad faith. You have a content dispute. You need to sort it out at Talk:Atlético Madrid and reach consensus there.
 * Please remember to assume good faith in your fellow editors. Your comments about MYS77 above could be construed as personal attacks. —C.Fred (talk) 20:53, 3 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Saying that I'm "spamming his talk page with more ignorance" when I'm merely explaining why I did my edits is a personal attack. What action will be taken from here? About the edits, I've discussed with @, no consensus was reached, yet the IP is still to participate on it. To me, it seems like the IP doesn't want to reach an agreement at all, the IP wants his version and that's all. MYS 77 ✉  22:33, 3 September 2019 (UTC)


 * @MYS77: The IP's next steps are up to them. Ideally, they join in discussion on the talk page and we have a healthy, respectful discussion. Maybe they just don't edit again. If they keep reverting, or if the personal attacks continue, then they'll have left us no choice but to block them. —C.Fred (talk) 01:23, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

The article continues to be a victim of vandalization. Could you please revert article to original state as you did yesterday until the matter is thoroughly discussed?

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.130.141.229 (talk) 11:55, 4 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I am not convinced the edit is in bad faith; however, I have strongly suggested that the user comment on the talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 13:45, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

In other words, you're taking a biased stance and refuse to revert the article to its original state in favor of user "MYS77". In that case, there's no purpose of discussing the matter and we can just ignore the "talk" page for future discussions.

Great job on transforming Wikipedia to a prejudice platform against unregistered users. Discrimination at its worst! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.130.193.226 (talk) 15:19, 4 September 2019 (UTC)


 * No need to be rude to Fred and you're perfectly able to post comments at Talk:Atlético Madrid, Govvy (talk) 15:33, 4 September 2019 (UTC)


 * And the latest edit was made by an editor other than MYS77; it was not a direct extension of the existing edit war. As Govvy said, you're welcome to enter the discussion there and raise points about why, per Wikipedia policy, the material should or should not be there. —C.Fred (talk) 17:40, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Buckethead album
Hi C. Fred thx for responding abt the BucketHead album best regards.

Can you tell me the criteria an album needs to meet in order to be considered “significant”? I would definitely say this album is significant for several reasons and as it is part of the Only trilogy Buckethead has ever done with Bryan “Brain” Mantia and Melissa Reese, it is very Important that it has its own dedicated wiki page to provide back information and history about The album and its origins to the fans. It is my understanding they have yet to release the third Installment, but as a huge fan of all three of these artists, I (along with many others who are also huge fans) agree this needs to be out there. Any help whatsoever would be greatly appreciated!!! Thanks!!! MusicManager888 (talk) MM888 sept 4th 2019 —Preceding undated comment added 19:36, 4 September 2019 (UTC)


 * @MusicManager888: As I linked in the message where you requested undeletion, WP:NALBUM has the notability criteria for albums. Given the limited amounted of information and sourcing that was on the page, it is inappropriate for it to have a page. —C.Fred (talk) 19:59, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for your help with supplemental nursing system controversy! I completely agree that the sourcing on that page is abysmal, as is the case for many of our breastfeeding articles. I appreciate you stepping in with a cool head. Clayoquot (talk &#124; contribs) 21:08, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

US Route 64 changes
Hi C.Fred, the change I made to the U.S. Route 64 article referenced the more common saying "from Murphy to Manteo"; this also matches the existing reference in U.S. Route 64 in North Carolina. Leuqarte (talk) 03:16, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

List Of Khatris Changes
Hi Fred,

I have been reading this Page on Wikipedia since almost 2-3 years. This page in current form has been edited now and the version i am reverting to was the one which was present earlier and has been changed. Whatever people i am trying to add .All these people have separate Pages available in WikiPedia itself where even this is mentioned as these people were born in Hindu Khatri family. Why and on what basis you as an admin want to keep the list small. Iam not able to understand.

Also, see the Page with title "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Rajputs" where armed forces people etc are mentioned .Even some of the reference have been edited and kept. Milkha Singh a Sikh has been mentioned as Rajput.. Please check the details and do some thing for this .Saurabhchopra60 (talk) 20:31, 8 September 2019 (UTC)


 * @Saurabhchopra60: These are points that you should be bringing up at the article's talk page. Additionally, please limit yourself to using one and only one account. You may not abuse multiple accounts in an attempt to circumvent WP:3RR. —C.Fred(talk) 20:53, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Fred you asked about authenticity of my additions.I answered you on that .Tell me please What is stopping you from adding the additional Info for people whose details are available in WikiPedia itself, I am trying to add. I know you are bound may be due to some other reasons. Till now I used to think that Wikipedia is correct source of Info ,but now Wikipedia showing its true color. I wont be creating any other account any way, I created it because it was blocked by your Team Member. This is full bias on one page as i shared "List of Rajputs" you do not have any issue with names added but this Page is deliberately changed to its present form .Saurabhchopra60 (talk) 10:38, 9 September 2019 (UTC)


 * The List of Rajputs article is properly maintained with "self-identification" taken into consideration. There was a consensus regarding "self-identification in case of Indian caste BLPs". - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 13:43, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

What do you mean by "self-identification" ? Can you explain ? Also in your earlier comments to another user who raised same issue about army personals name addition ,you told him indian army does not maintain any caste based identification so we are removing the names from "List Of Khatris" .Then how come it is ok for you for "List Of Rajputs" Page where also Rajput People names who served in Indian army names have been added. Also, let me know if I want to make addition to this Page "List Of Khatris" on what basis you will consider it authentic. I dont know what "self-identification" you are talking about - "Milkha Singh" himself told in many interviews that I am a Sikh ..he is being added as Rajput and you are Ok with it .Seems totally Illogical.Thank You. May be Wikipedia is under pressure to maintain the Page as it is and remove all the name of good people of a particular community so that in future if any body go to Page ,they will not be aware of all these great People through a single Page but for other Pages WikiPedia does not seemd to have any Issues maintained in same way. Thanks. Saurabhchopra60 (talk) 15:36, 9 September 2019 (UTC).


 * @Saurabhchopra60: Those are content-related matters. They are best addressed at the talk page of the article or list in question.
 * My involvement in this matter is focused on the administrative side of things, including your use of multiple accounts. I am concerned by your statement that you created an account "because it was blocked by your Team Member". This implies that you are evading an active block, and that is grounds for an immediate, indefinite block of your account. Please clarify that statement. —C.Fred (talk) 18:29, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

RE: Check Edits
Hi Fred,

I noticed that you recently "undid" a couple of my edits due to a lack of "sources" so today I went ahead and sourced my edits. If possible, can you check my edits to see if they comply with Wikipedia? If they do not, let me know what I need to do in order to fix the issue. KobeSteakMan (talk) 14:46, 9 September 2019 (UTC)


 * @KobeSteakMan: My concerns about the edits are twofold. First, even if this public-access show is up for an Indie Award, I have reservations about whether it is notable enough to be mentioned in articles about the sites they investigates. Second, given how many of your (recent) edits focus around that show, it raises the question of whether this is a topic you just happen to be interested in, or whether you have a conflict of interest. —C.Fred (talk) 18:34, 9 September 2019 (UTC)


 * @C.Fred: History and the paranormal are definitely topics that are of interest to me and because I have a personal connection to both of these locations that are struggling to preserve their property, infrastructure, and history due to a lack of visitors, I know for a fact that just by mentioning on their Wikipedia pages that a TV show had filmed there will add credibility to the locations, as well as make potential visitors more inclined to visit. For the record, the show has already won the award (https://patch.com/virginia/fairfaxcity/local-paranormal-tv-show-wins-big-representing-fairfax?fbclid=IwAR3u3UBZWqfuuQ7jxuR9eJyAGwOdIMNuKBG2Dg6w7sVI_1gyQG5415ztIQU).  There is no "conflict of interest" on my part and if the Indie Series Awards was not "notable enough" then why do they have their own Wikipedia page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indie_Series_Awards).  I hope this clarifies everything and I hope this situation wasn't based on personal opinions but rather making sure that everything was compliant with Wikipedia's policies. KobeSteakMan (talk) 23:21, 9 September 2019 (UTC)


 * @KobeSteakMan: "I know...that just by mentioning...will add credibility to the locations, as well as make potential visitors more inclined to visit." In other words, the motive of your edit is promotional, wanting to improve the traffic/attendance/prestige of the sites.
 * The Indie Series Awards were not linked, so it was not obvious which awards you were referring to. —C.Fred (talk) 02:27, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the assist with the recent edit on Ravenel's page. I'm pretty sure while adding the breaking news paragraph and editing my source I screwed something up. Still not sure what happened but glad you were able to correct my original contribution. AnAudLife (talk) 20:30, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Ray King (baseball) edits inquiry update.
Hello. I did a few edits today on Ray King's (baseball) page today that were not accepted. Go to professional career; It says he played nine seasons, should be 10 seasons. He appeared in 577 games, should be 593 games. He pitched 403 innings, should be 411 innings. He issued 177 walks, should be 181 walks. For St.Louis Cardinals in 2004, had 2.41 ERA, should be 2.61 ERA. Source: Baseball Reference, Baseball Cube in external links. Don't see anything about holds, verification for that? Thank you for your time.2601:581:8000:21B0:88C8:75C0:7CD3:8BAD (talk) 21:00, 12 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I checked the total stats against three souces mentioned in the article: ESPN, MLB, and Baseball Reference. Everything checked out except for holds, so I've re-updated them. As for holds, there are differing figures for ESPN and MLB, and BR doesn't recognize or report them. I've commented them out, pending discussion. —C.Fred (talk) 21:12, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Arthur Chamberlain
I'm glad you didn't mention James McDonald Ramsay! DuncanHill (talk) 22:20, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

How do I object to the speedy deletion
I have a page which I find HIGHLY useful in my bartending work, so do other bartenders at the Prime Time Pub, a list of cocktails (alphabetical)

It is DIFFERENT from the list of cocktails which exists which is by liquor type. Not everyone agrees on what liquor is in every cocktail and some cocktails have multiple liquors, like a long islang iced tea.

What is in a martini? is it vodka? Is is gin? It's a preference.

There is supposed to be a "button" so I can "object to the speedy deletion" of my SORELY NEEDED page.

But someone removed the button.

How can I plead my case if no one let's me press that button?

Alex Miller Xandermiller (talk) 21:21, 17 September 2019 (UTC) xandermiller


 * @Xandermiller: There is no case to plead. The speedy deletion has already been declined by a reviewer. —C.Fred (talk) 22:32, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Zoe Sugg
Hello! We last spoke when discussing if Zoella should be changed to Zoe Sugg, and now I've requested an article name change, it'd be great if you could help out on the discussion on the talk page! Thank you – DarkGlow (talk) 15:07, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

QNet
I am a novice at editing Wiki pages so pardon my lack of knowledge. Have been editing QNet wiki page since 2013-14, you can cross check, since it is the only source of accurate and truthful information for gullible public.The page has been edited on the sly by unscrupulous persons who have changed certain lines to suit the company reputation keeping my news links intact as can be seen in the first edit box. Its founder Vijay Eswaran wanted in India for trial, has written a book himself to propogate his company actiivities and this is given as a link.Forbes writer Donald Frazier published a sponsored article years ago, given here as a link. I have mentioned portions of his Interpol arrest in my edit from that article.The rest of the links in the second edit box are all Qnet publications like Obtainer Magazine, B.H.Mayer watches sold by QNet. They are not news but articles on sports sponsorship and marketing events by the company which not significant and seldom noted in articles about companies as remarked by Pichpich and Cullen328 whenever company agents try to publish articles on various sponsorships and donations.In third edit box, they inserted lines on Olympic games which bear no relation to the referenced news links given after them which you yourself can check.Next they cite sources from their own page like qnet.net qigroup.com. Since they spent a huge amount on advertising and your wikipedia page on QNet is dissuading people from joining the pyramid scheme, they have started to edit and modify all the previous edits so as to brush up their scandalous past and crooked activity. They have made their sponsorship edits so long that a viewer may miss reading the important portions regarding arrest and confiscation of their properties by police.The company has been asked to wind up by the Government of India for defrauding several innocent victims which you may verify. Kindly do not allow sponsored links and references to be a part of this page since they are already editing google seo search and quora so that their tainted past remains hidden from prospects who may be lured to sign up in this pyramid scheme.I hope my page edit is accepted if found bonafide. Thanks a lot for your patience. Jitumoni1995 (talk) 22:03, 17 September 2019 (UTC)


 * @Jitumoni1995: Wikipedia is not "the only source of accurate and truthful information for gullible public"; Wikipedia articles repeat what has been published in reliable sources. The article, as best as I can tell, represents what is in those reliable sources. If there are specific concerns about specific sources, raise concerns about the specific sources at the article's talk page or WP:RSN. —C.Fred (talk) 22:34, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

You seem to suggest that I have been posting unreferenced and unsourced information on QNet all this 5 years. What a great way to applaud my services.Now I need to consult and hold a meeting with all the admin before posting a news article link on the QNet Page is it? And the QNet Independent Representatives are free to edit as it suits their whims and fancies, bringing articles from their sponsored PR pages and magazines.Show me one line where I have posted anything out of context or which has violated wikipedia policies. Just because I removed their promotional links at one go despite your reverted you seem to remove all my other well referenced edits on this page which have genuine news sources. QNet is in the process of winding up in India, a fact which I wanted to put at the top of the page to warn the public against putting their money in this product based pyramid scheme. You removed that too, without consulting any of the other admin which you yourself suggested.Complete random rules. I have posted severtal edits in a single day previously, nobody reverted my edits. This is the first time that my edits have been removed citing issues of permission from admin folks.You are indeed doing a wonderful job as an admin. Keep it up. Maybe QNet may hire all wikipedia admin and buy out the domain page itself.Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jitumoni1995 (talk • contribs) 17:49, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * C.Fred, after looking at their edits on other articles it became clear to me that the user is not here to improve our project. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 17:53, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * @Drmies: Yes, they seem to be a little too interested in righting great wrongs and not enough in building an encyclopedia. —C.Fred (talk) 18:37, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi
Why u change Actor dileep latest photo? RAJEEB RAHMAN (talk) 14:33, 26 September 2019 (UTC)


 * @RAJEEB RAHMAN: Because it's the most recent image we have that is under a free license. A screenshot from a movie is not under a free license and may not be used in a Wikipedia infobox. (By claiming it is a free license when you uploaded it to Commons, that also makes it a copyright violation.) —C.Fred (talk) 14:42, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Shahryar (singer) copyvios
Hi C.Fred. Even after your revdel at Shahryar (singer), the copyvios report still rates at 50% (https://tools.wmflabs.org/copyvios/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&title=Shahryar_(singer)&url=https://www.shahryarrumi.com/biography/). Perhaps it needs to be done back to an even older version? --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 19:57, 25 September 2019 (UTC)


 * @Drm310: It's pretty pervasive; it's in every version as far back as I could find. I'm wondering whether it needs to be started completely from scratch. —C.Fred (talk) 20:36, 25 September 2019 (UTC)


 * You're right. I checked the sources and they're a steaming pile of WP:SPS... about half are to his own YouTube channel. There's nothing notable here, just promotional crap. I'll nom it for A7/G11. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 20:45, 25 September 2019 (UTC)


 * @Drm310: It was up for G11 back in the day but declined—oh, wait, I declined it. Retag it, and let's see if another admin acts on it. If it sits quietly for more than 24 hours, ping me, and I'll delete it. —C.Fred (talk) 20:49, 25 September 2019 (UTC)


 * It's been declined again. I disagree with the reasons, so I will take it to AfD. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 15:15, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Why u change this photo also?
What happend this photo deleted. Also RAJEEB RAHMAN (talk) 17:03, 26 September 2019 (UTC)


 * @RAJEEB RAHMAN: Because it's not a free image. You cannot swipe an image from a website and claim it to be free for reuse. —C.Fred (talk) 17:05, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Los metros
don't make changes in los metros please, the sources are very reliable FrancyGarin (talk) 14:59, 27 September 2019 (UTC)


 * @FrancyGarin: What sources? You haven't cited any. —C.Fred (talk) 15:03, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Eilish, Billie
How about not alpha sort in absence of evidence that "Eilish" serves as her last name since it's clearly her second first name? --King Rk (talk) 16:37, 27 September 2019 (UTC)


 * @King Rk: Why, then, do reliable sources treat it like one? —C.Fred (talk) 16:38, 27 September 2019 (UTC)


 * You're right. A lot of them treat it like a surname. It seems already established. I still think it's wrong, I can't see any intention from her side, but as far as this article concerns, it shall be Miss Eilish. --King Rk (talk) 16:53, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Apparent sockpuppet reverting legitimate edits
Hi C.Fred, I see that you temporarily blocked user Voche537, who appears to be a sockpuppet of user Generic515. He's back at it, edit-warring here and here, for example, reverting reversions I made of edits by Generic515, who greatly overestimates his command of English, and is determined to impose his bad edits on articles regardless of WP policy. Carlstak (talk) 15:15, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Suggestion to change Tagalog Wikipedia to Filipino Wikipedia
Good day Sir/Madam! The national language of the Philippines is “Filipino” and not “Tagalog”. It is supported by Commission on Filipino Language (Komisyon sa Wikang Filipino). These are the links:

1.) http://booksphilippines.gov.ph/archives/5172 2.) https://learningfilipino.com/blog/difference-between-tagalog-and-filipino/ 3.) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filipino_language 4.) https://theculturetrip.com/asia/philippines/articles/tagalog-or-filipino-explaining-the-philippine-language/ Jsnueva1022 (talk) 11:57, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Mind if I refer you to Tambayan Philippines noticeboard regarding your suggestion? Blake Gripling (talk) 12:47, 30 September 2019 (UTC)


 * @Jsnueva1022: It's not our place to comment on what the proper name of the Wikipedia should be; we just go with what the name of it is. As was suggested, if you think this needs corrected, take it up on the noticeboard or at the other language's Wikipedia. —C.Fred (talk) 17:51, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind suggestion. I added it as a discussion to the Tambayan Philippines noticeboard. 😊

Jsnueva1022 (talk) 00:18, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

geelong dragons page
hello thanks for the report i am new to wikpida and trying to set up a afl page for my teams football club just haveing trobuble setting it up — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gwsforlife (talk • contribs) 01:50, 3 October 2019 (UTC)


 * @Gwsforlife: Make sure the club is notable before creating the page: as a rule, outside the US, only fully-professional clubs are notable. —C.Fred (talk) 02:03, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

thankyou for your feedback the reason of delation of Geelong dragons fifa football club is due to me geting the name of the team incorrect — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gwsforlife (talk • contribs) 05:33, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Question because I am new
Hello!

I saw that you undid my edit on Chris Ulmer's wikipedia page. Your description of your edit was "Prose says otherwise,". As I just joined Wikipedia today, may I ask what that means? Not to start an argument, but the official SBSK website did state that Chris was the founder.

Please let me know what this means. I hope that you can understand why I am confused because I am just trying to correct an incorrect mistake. Once again, please explain to me what that term means, so I could use that information in the future.

Thank's, JivingGinger 2601:283:4301:3BE0:4953:F15:93A4:D5A4 (talk) 00:07, 4 October 2019 (UTC)


 * The website was silent on who founded SBSK. It's unclear whether it was a solo effort or he had business backing/a partner. I'd like to find a clearer source about the history. —C.Fred (talk) 00:09, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

The information is clear and the website does discuss this topic. You can see the whole backstory here. The website says, "In 2016 he utilized his diverse education and founded the non-profit Special Books by Special Kids." This quote shows no evidence that it was formed with a partner.

Supporting this claim, on Alyssa Porter's description it says, "Alyssa transitioned into her role as Executive Director upon the founding of SBSK..."

This clearly shows that Chris Ulmer is the founder and CEO and that Alyssa Porter is just an Executive Director. This information is coming directly from the official website. The website labels Chris as founder and CEO. None of these titles are applied to Alyssa Porter's labeling. Their own website is the best source, Wikipedia should be reflecting that information. Please explain to me how I am wrong. JivingGinger (talk) 00:22, 4 October 2019 (UTC)


 * @JivingGinger: Thank you for the link. That page makes it pretty clear. Given that Porter isn't mentioned there until SBSK became a nonprofit, I've removed her from the article entirely. (Plus, while the page is implicit that the two are in a relationship, it's not clear enough to call her his girlfriend.) —C.Fred (talk) 00:30, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Answer to your message
Hello. I have never break this rule. I have never revert more than three times per day. I have never revert even 2 times per day (as I can remember). Why you warned me about that? As for my edits in the respective article. I explained several times but the other editor just ignore the explanations and repeat one thing. I can prove my thesis and I can give you citations and sources of information about this issue if you want. The other editor have never talked with me in my talk page about the respective issue but instead he report me. I would say that this is not fair behaviour. Furthermore I am new (freshman) in editing in Wikipedia. I just want to improve some articles in which matter I have knowledge (as in the respective case). And now I see that I have warning. I can not understand that. I had enthusiasm to help in improving of articles but now I feel myself insulted and I am disappointed. However, I still believe that wisdom will prevail. Have a nice day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Puldin (talk • contribs) 23:57, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Keeping this thread at your talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 00:15, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

You're tangentially involved in this discussion
A discussion is occurring at WP:ANI that you're tangentially involved in. It was opened by MrOllie about Nostrium's edits to his page. You also offered an opinion on his edits as well. Thought you might want to be aware of this. Necromonger... We keep what we kill 13:08, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

My guy
I included TWO DIFFERENT SOURCES. Dont blame me for unbiased journalism. I agree the name is stupid af. 75.121.31.179 (talk) 21:12, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Dont Template Me
Use your own words to tell me how you feel. Don't spam a default template. Your warning said I provided NO RELIABLE SOURCES. I concurred that was BS because I provided 2 sources and therefore disregarded your false warning. I agree Shorty Gable is a retarded name, but Wikipedia is unbiased journalism. And you know damn well you're just going to end up reverting back to whoever's version added Shorty Gable (because it wasn't mine) whenever he gets announced as Shorty Gable every single week for the remainder of his WWE career, smh. 75.121.31.179 (talk) 21:18, 13 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Umm, no. There were no sourcesin your last revert. —C.Fred (talk) 21:18, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I was looking into that unblock request and noticed that you blocked someone who you were involved in a content dispute with? That doesn't strike me as a good idea, even if they technically violated 3RR while you didn't - it could well be argued that you, too, were edit warring, particularly since the IP editor explained the issue on the talk page and pointed to that explanation in edit summaries but got no response. Huon (talk) 21:06, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * @Huon: So an admin can either block the offending editor or remove the BLP violation but not both?At the time of the block, it looked like a cut-and-dried BLP and 3RR violation: the early edits added refs (which another editor reverted), but the later edits just added the new ring name with no new source. In most circumstances, that behaviour calls for reverting the unsourced material and blocking the offending editor, and at the time, that's what I did. In retrospect, I think I missed or misinterpreted the talk page material; if I had a do-over, I'd have done another close read of the talk page and linked articles instead of relying on the WWE's page about him (which, at the time, had not been updated).Over the course of the unblock request, it became clear what existing references supported the edit, and new references emerged. As a result, I did a couple of things. First, I unblocked the IP to mitigate their block history, when/if admins look at itin the future. Second, I decided to get involved in the content discussion, since I felt the IP could use the support of an experienced editor in the discussion. If you prefer that I recuse myself from the content discussion because I previously acted in an administrative capacity, I can—although, because the discussion has led me to agree with the IP, undoing my own edits may have the perverse effect of making it look like I am reverting the IP! —C.Fred (talk) 21:24, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * There were sources confirming the IP editor's content both on the talk page and inline in the article itself. Thus there was no BLP violation. If someone points to the talk page in an edit summary, maybe looking at that talk page before blocking them might be a good first step? Huon (talk) 21:40, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, rather ironically I missed your comment about you having missed the talk page, so my snark was uncalled for. Still, to me it looks that the IP editor did everything "by the book" (except reverting one time too often) and got reverted and ultimately banhammered by multiple people who didn't bother to follow up any of the various attempts to communicate. That seemed very harsh. Huon (talk) 21:48, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * @Huon: On the one hand, I'm not going to throw the other editors under the bus who did revert but didn't comment on the talk page. On the other hand, I probably shouldn't have taken the edit summary of "IP, stop. See my response at my talk page." at face value—or should've caught that it referred to user talk and not article talk. It's certainly not going to be on my admin highlight reel this year. :) —C.Fred (talk) 22:42, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * And now the IP in question is checkuser-blocked. This is starting to feel like a pro wrestling plotline. :) —C.Fred (talk) 22:46, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Andi James
Hello! A heads up, Andi has posted on his Facebook today (22/10/19) the following:

"Ha ha lol Wikipedia have not taken down my post where I call their editors a bunch of lying twats result."

So somewhere (suspect on the Tube Challenge page) he has written this. Thought you should know, thanks.

Rhlon (talk) 14:15, 22 October 2019 (UTC)


 * @Rhlon: I'm not finding it in so many words anywhere. —C.Fred (talk) 16:07, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Article Arjuna
Respected Sir, Dinesh 2069 is a fraud. He is intentionally spoiling the article. he intenionally added wrong or misleading content. even i might be wrong sir. i request you to edit as per previous version as per "Monkbot" or "Fylindfotberserk" version. Sir, you corrected only grammar but content in it is wrong. Please look into it. Once see my edit sir. Its 100% correct. Dont block me sir. Others are waring me that im creating vandalism. but its "Dinesh2069" who created Vandalism. So please look into this sir. Im requesting you. waiting for your reply sir. SIR, once again im requesting you not to edit as per Dinesh version. please........ Karna fan club (talk) 16:40, 23 October 2019 (UTC) Karna fan club


 * @Karna fan club: Please tread lightly. I am willing to assume good faith that you are trying to improve the article, as Dinesh2069 is also. Please do not call him "a fraud" unless you have solid evidence to back up the assertion. —C.Fred (talk) 17:54, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Excusing note.
If I spoke anything wrong, please forgive me sir. But "Dinesh2069" is against Arjuna. It's very clear from his edits. In the article, there are many sub articles depicting wars, in which Arjuna actually had won out of his own potentiality. He edited in such a way that Arjuna had almost lost or won war by crooked means. This is very sad sir. I'm not a fan of Arjuna or Bhishma or Drona. I believe in Lord Krishna only. So whatever is truth, I put it on wikipedia. Thanking you Karna fan club (talk) 02:35, 24 October 2019 (UTC)Karna fan club

Thank you, C. Fred... will clean them up. BC — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rcorsini54 (talk • contribs) 13:02, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Mention in ANI discussion
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Disputed and WP:BITEy block of new editor. --DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 23:10, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Seen and replied. —C.Fred (talk) 23:30, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

== Listen I do not know about how you do this but I am a relative and I am sick of seeing people add photos of my great great Aunt that are not her. And also totally disregarding her second husband. If you can add the content you removed in the format you choose then please have at it! Our family would greatly appreciate it! It took me forever to figure out how to send you this! And I would like to upload a picture of her for your article! ==

I am trying to upload a picture of my Aunt. I don't understand how a family member can violate a copyright!?? And what is violating a copyright if I am providing information about her second husband and the fact that she went by his name once she married him! And even up to her death on her obituary which I also can provide a copy of... Margueritesgreatgreatniece (talk) 01:33, 31 October 2019 (UTC)


 * @Margueritesgreatgreatniece: For matters of copyright and photos, the question becomes who owns the photo. If it's a family photo that you took, then you can release it under a free license. If you didn't take the photo, then only the photographer can make the release. If it's a commercial photo, it probably can't be used for copyright reasons.


 * As for the information about her second husband, it's unsourced. You failed to provide a published reliable source that states she remarried. We do not go by family histories and the like. Obituaries can depend on where they were published.


 * Finally, the notice on your page should have stated that, because you are a family member, you have an inherent conflict of interest with your family member. —C.Fred (talk) 01:49, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Derek Acorah
I'm replying to your message regarding the edit on the Derek Acorah page. He has not received a lot of criticism regarding his abilities, no more than he has had praise for his ability. The edit was to balance, as what was restored again is in fact defamatory. Kettlebom (talk) 21:51, 7 November 2019 (UTC)


 * @Kettlebom: You should discuss that at the article's talk page to see if there's support for that opinion. Given how long the text has been there, I'm inclined to believe there won't be. —C.Fred (talk) 21:53, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

That's the whole point, it's based on opinion and not fact, therefore the the edit should stand, and not be one sided. Kettlebom (talk) 23:11, 7 November 2019 (UTC)


 * No, it's based on analysis presented in reliable sources. Take it to the talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 23:50, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Then your sources are tainted. It should be for you to realise that. What's the point of editing if you remove it because you dont agree with it. Let the edit stand and see if there is any further edits. What I removed was opinion based, if you were to opinionate on other Faith's other than spiritualism and those who practice it youd remove anything non factual as so not to offend. Talking to you is similar to talking to a Brick wall unfortunately Kettlebom (talk) 00:04, 8 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Maybe they are. You should discuss that at the article's talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 00:05, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

hi
my changes have been blocked even though they are sourced. User:Meters is incorrect please help me. 02:31, 12 November 2019 (UTC)Thereporterr22 (talk)


 * @Thereporterr22: First, you need to provide independent reliable sources to support your changes. Second, because you "work closely with the mayors office", you have a conflict of interest with the Milton article. You really should not be making direct edits to it at all; instead request any changes at the talk page and let fully independent editors review them. —C.Fred (talk) 18:01, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

"Teckal-undantaget" My rookie mistake, sorry!
I now posted it in the Swedish Wikipedia where it belongs. I put it on the English Wikipedia by mistake. Thanks for reporting! As you may have noticed, I contributed the English original, Teckal exemption. Staffansolve (talk) 21:11, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Shamna Kasim

 * @C.Fred:

Dear Fred,

Thank you for telling me in a kind way. I moved the page because another user, Neutral Fan, told me that Shamna was her proper name (in a rude way - see my talk page). Additionally, on the talk page, the move is supported.

--DragoMynaa


 * @DragoMynaa: Yes, that's where the history of the page was before your moved. You moved it to Poorna (actresss), which broke the history on the article. That's why your move was reverted. The article—and its full history—is now back at Shamna Kasim. —C.Fred (talk) 00:30, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

GLAM/Field Museum
Thanks, Fred! Just getting started here, and may not have used the correct template for a GLAM. Have reached out to a fellow librarian and seasoned Wikipedia user for help! Grings1 (talk) 21:57, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Question on 3RR
Hi, I seem to be misunderstanding the WP:3RR, since I reported something I thought was a violation, but that turned out to be incorrect here and also here. To help improve my conflict resolution skills, would you mind explaining what I was misunderstanding? Is the first removal of material not a revert? RockingGeo 岩石  Talk  16:03, 13 November 2019 (UTC)


 * @RockingGeo: Removing material is not automatically a revert, unless the material was recently added. (Example: if a sentence was added that said "all dogs and cats go to heaven", and I just removed "and cats", that's not a revert. If you added it back in, then that is a revert. It gets tricky, though, if you include a source when you re-add cats.) In this case, since I could see where that line had been recently added, I didn't count the removal as a revert. —C.Fred (talk) 22:36, 13 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Hello C.Fred. Thanks for your work, especially as an admin. - no challenge from me there! Just a note about WP:3RR - (something I learned from making a request at the admin noticeboard). My understanding is now that the rule is broken by performing more than three reverts on a single page (that is, four or more). I had always thought 3Rs breaks the rule. Pretty sure I've not broken the rule (>3Rs). Gderrin (talk) 20:18, 17 November 2019 (UTC)


 * @Gderrin: I don't see a warning on your talk page, so it's hard to say when/if you might have broken 3RR. Note that a person can edit war without breaking 3RR by the letter of the rule, and a person can be warned about 3RR before they actually break it. —C.Fred (talk) 17:25, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

About Spshu...
Spshu had made that I should be trouted and not him; he said that he doesn't deserve to be trouted and that I should never post a message, not even a single message on Spshu's talk page. 'Cheers! Central Time 301' 20:12, 19 November 2019 (UTC)


 * @CentralTime301: And...? —C.Fred (talk) 20:13, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

You need evidence for this section about Spshu making a threat to me? Check this out: 'Cheers! Central Time 301' 20:15, 19 November 2019 (UTC)


 * @CentralTime301: Please point to the specific diff where they added the threat of legal or off-Wiki action. I see nothing of that nature on your talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 20:17, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Surinder Amarnath
Hello, awaiting your revert on the Surinder Amarnath talk page .. I myself have been travelling since the Cricket season is on and hence get delayed in my reverts .. I’m sure something must be keeping you busy too .. hoping for a revert soon. Thanks Dvasports (talk) 16:36, 20 November 2019 (UTC)


 * @Dvasports: Sorry, I'm not seeing anything that needs reverted. I am seeing where your edit request at Talk:Surinder Amarnath was denied, and the denial seems in order. —C.Fred (talk) 18:53, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Well in this case kindly delete my father Surinder Amarnath”s article from this forum as we the family of Surinder Amarnath feel that the way things are presented are detrimental towards his reputation. The constant effort by some to control content seems to be a deliberate effort to defame him which cannot be allowed. Moreover my legal team has advised that either you present all cricketers in the same way as Surinder Amarnath or else completely delete Surinder Amarnath”s write up from this forum. Rules of wiki should be same for all and Cannot be selective. Thanks Dvasports (talk) 13:42, 22 November 2019 (UTC)


 * @Dvasports: I would appreciate it if you focus on Wikipedia policies and keep your efforts on-Wikipedia; mentions of your legal team create the appearance that you would take off-Wikipedia action, and Wikipedia does not tolerate legal threats.
 * That being said, I see nothing in the article that strays from guidelines on biographies, either in general or as related to cricket players. Further, I see evidence that Amarnath is a notable cricket player, so there is no justification for deleting the article. —C.Fred (talk) 15:07, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

In that case you cannot have a selective presentation on Surinder Amarnath and other players. It has to be the same. Please mention from which year to which year a particular player has played first class cricket and test cricket and the number of tests played in the intro of all cricket players. You can definitely not be selective in the writing pattern of one player as compared to the other when I have already objected to the way of presentation with respect to my father as we the family are feeling offended as we fee it’s detrimental to his reputation when we compare other cricket players introduction. Kindly edit the intro pattern for all players without which there is clear bias that can be seen and will not be tolerated. Dvasports (talk) 15:57, 22 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I am concerned that your conflict of interest is becoming an obstacle in this situation. I have requested additional help at the conflict of interest noticeboard. —C.Fred (talk) 16:14, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Well to cut it short .. I do not have any interest in you glorifying my father Surinder Amarnath but I am concerned that the presentation is different from that of other players and we consider it a detrimental towards my father’s reputation. It would be best to shut down this issue without much discussion. The least I can expect is either you bring the intro at par with other players or you may please edit it and present it in a simple way for instance -

Surinder Amarnath is a former Indian Test and First class cricketer. He played a total of 10 Tests and 145 first class matches & first came into prominence when he made his Ranji debut before he turned 15.

I believe that the above mentioned description doesn’t in anyway glorify my father and only presents the facts based on wikis policies. Nor have u quotes any journalist nor any quote mentioning Surinder Amarnath as a very talented or classy batsman .. it’s ok if those things are left out but at least what is there should not damage his reputation while taking care of the he facts as well. I hope u will agree with me on this at least. Dvasports (talk) 18:08, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Create Template
Hi Can I create an Template? An article that doesn't count? M.k.m2003 (talk) 12:03, 24 November 2019 (UTC)


 * @M.k.m2003: I strongly discourage you from creating a template. I would focus on improving existing content rather than creating new content. Further, since your ban says articles but also says it applies to any namespace, you have to be very careful that the template isn't viewed as an attempt to sidestep the ban. —C.Fred (talk) 17:40, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Request to restore the article Selection Gradient
Hi C.Fred, I have edited the article Selection GradinetEVEC2 (talk) 16:06, 26 November 2019 (UTC) as per my knowledge. It would be great help if you could help me to restore it by reviewing it. Thank you for your time.EVEC2 (talk) 16:06, 26 November 2019 (UTC)


 * @EVEC2: The review would be for submission through AfC, not "restoring" it, but I'll take a look. —C.Fred (talk) 19:38, 26 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I've asked for assistance from WikiProject Ecology: see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ecology. —C.Fred (talk) 19:46, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you C. Fred for your help. EVEC2 (talk) 20:01, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Asking for the closing of name request move(s)
In Bantu peoples in South Africa can you close those requests in the talk page but consider reasoning of participants, as of the last request being of the real consideration to all it's left with a couple of days. Untrammeled (talk) 23:06, 27 November 2019 (UTC)


 * @Untrammeled: I'm not sure it's ready to be closed, unless you're telling me you're withdrawing the most recent request for a move. —C.Fred (talk) 23:09, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm withdrawing the first two, the last one can be closed after its seven days have passed. Untrammeled (talk) 23:17, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Username
Hello, how can I request a new username? Dan Bilzerian (talk) 19:55, 2 December 2019 (UTC)


 * @Dan Bilzerian: The links are in the message I left at your user talk page. Given how short an editing history you have, it may be easier to create a new account. —C.Fred (talk) 19:56, 2 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Ok. I'll create a new account then. Cya. Dan Bilzerian (talk) 20:24, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Mike Berlon Site Edits-Need Help
Boardwalknw8 (talk) 19:43, 4 December 2019 (UTC)boardwalknw8

Need some information please. Have one corresponding concerning MIKE BERLON site. Was under the impression that this was considered to be a content dispute and was working on suggested changes by JEBCUBED. Now have been advised by GIRTH SUMMITT that all my edits have been unilaterally reversed. What's going on? Rationale seems hard to understand? Just trying to update an old site with new information. What am I missing here? Any suggestions? Boardwalknw8 (talk) 19:43, 4 December 2019 (UTC)boardwalknw8


 * @Boardwalknw8: Girth Summit has reverted to the status quo ante version of the page before your bold edits. You need to discuss the edits on the talk page and reach a consensus before trying to add the material again. —C.Fred (talk) 19:44, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

The word "dotard"
A couple years ago, I included an entry to this word (dotard) in the List of disability-related terms with negative connotations list, and I have included a source to back this up. Maybe we can redirect this entry to the linked article? Just an idea. Johnnysama (talk) 06:10, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

close the RM, move and protect?
That's not a very good admin move, you should know better. There wasn't clear consensus to close the RM, neither had the seven days expired. Oh and it wasn't even me who opened the RM. I guess rules don't apply now. Sennen Goroshi ! (talk) 20:41, 7 December 2019 (UTC)


 * @Sennen goroshi: There was consensus, and the RM ran for seven days. The rules in this situation are pretty clear, and your move of the page was out of order. —C.Fred (talk) 20:43, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

"Requested move 7 December 2019" - were you looking at the previous RM? Sennen Goroshi ! (talk) 20:44, 7 December 2019 (UTC)


 * @Sennen goroshi: Correct. Your move was against that consensus, and that's why it was reverted, and then reverted with move protection established. —C.Fred (talk) 20:47, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Do you call that consensus? Non-admin closure? Involved parties uninformed? It's not an issue that I intend to dwell on, but I just see editors pushing hard to use a relatively unknown local language term on English wikipedia, when there is a perfect English title we could be using. Sennen Goroshi ! (talk) 21:01, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

About JunaPadar pageMahavirsinh18 (talk) 06:10, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
Hi CFred, currently you have blocked me from editing because I made continous edits in one page JunapadarJuna Padar. I just wanted you to know that I was not aware of the guidelines so I made the mistake and another thing I wanted you to know is that JunaPadarJuna Padar is a village where I live.I myself belong to this village.So a user named @JatBrand was contineously editing that page and was mentioning and editing the caste which was wrong.When I edit it correctly then that user again reverts it back and mentions it wrong.So I personally appeal you to edit that page to correct content and unblock me from editing because I belong to that village and I can assure you that so please stop @JatBrand from editing that page.It's the caste which he mentions wrong thats why I am bit curious about it.Thats all I wanted to say.I hope you will respond to this very quickly and take action.Thank you.Take care. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahavirsinh18 (talk • contribs) 06:10, 7 December 2019 (UTC)


 * @Mahavirsinh18: You are not blocked from editing. The article is protected. I reverted it back to the last stable version of the page. Once you and JatBrand sort out your dispute at the article's talk page, then we can look at unprotecting the page. —C.Fred (talk) 19:48, 7 December 2019 (UTC)


 * @C.Fred:
 * Oh yes my friend I was wrong, I was not blocked from editing, infact the page is protected which is good and I also want it to be protected so dont remove it from protection.But you reverted page back to last stable version which is not correct because the mentioned caste ("Khasia Koli") by @JatBrand is not correct so I would kindly request you to make that edit yourself to ("Gohil Rajputs").I am personally here because of the wrong caste mentioned in the page and I live in that village Juna Padar and I can prove it so if you need any proof of that I can provide you so I am appealing you to make that changes yourself.I hope you understand.Thank you.Mahavirsinh18 (talk) 06:44, 8 December 2019 (UTC)


 * @Mahavirsinh18: Then you will need to provide reliable sources to support the change. —C.Fred (talk) 14:46, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Why a cyber attack is not notable
You have taken a cyber attack on the United States, a main city/US military off the current events list. Please explain how that is not notable. The content is still be made, as the attack began today as a result of an attack on Friday. Until you respond, I am undoing your undo to the current events category. I am ok with a stub tag added and others, but the topic is notable, just this is a new article (Created 30 mins before this message) and still needs work. The topic is receiving national news coverage across the United States. Possible terrorist attacks are notable, especially one a fit the size of Pensacola. Thank you for responding.Elijahandskip (talk) 19:55, 9 December 2019 (UTC)


 * @Elijahandskip: Part of my concern is why it is on today's current events and not Saturday's. Per sources, the attacks began early Saturday morning. I am also concerned that there are no lasting effects noted. Other cities have suffered attacks, but they do not have articles. That said, if the link to the naval base attack is proven, it may be that this gets mentioned in a section of the article on that attack. —C.Fred (talk) 19:57, 9 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Pensacola is smaller than Atlanta, yet there's not an article on the cyber attacks in Atlanta—because there was no lasting effect. —C.Fred (talk) 19:59, 9 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree with C.Fred. Adding: there are too many unknowns in this story, and said page is meant for worldwide notable events. I am OK with the notability tag on the one-sentence event's article created by Elijahandskip. The little information (for now) would merge into another page, but I'm not able to find out which page. For now there is no detail at all on the method used, the perpetrator or the attack's goal. Only maybes and suppositions. Wakari07 (talk) 00:04, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, I forked this discussion to the relevant article's talk page. Wakari07 (talk) 00:20, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm still editing
...and I'm still going to upload and put more of these images. Basically they are bantu peoples of South Africa's objects heritage, I'm making the article imaged with relevance. Untrammeled (talk) 01:04, 10 December 2019 (UTC)


 * @Untrammeled: It goes against a lot of the guidelines for images. Have you read the Manual of Style yet? —C.Fred (talk) 01:52, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Maku, Iran at AN3
Do you want to go ahead and close WP:AN3? I agree that there was no 3RR violation. The other choices could perhaps be (a) no action, or (b) warn both not to revert again without consensus. But it's a close call. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 17:43, 10 December 2019 (UTC)


 * @EdJohnston: I've closed it with no action, but I have the page on my watchlist. —C.Fred (talk) 20:06, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Request for help with COI edit
Hi sorry to bother you I was wondering if you could help me edit my brothers wikipage. (Theoryofadeadman76 (talk) 21:32, 13 December 2019 (UTC))


 * @Theoryofadeadman76: It will depend on if you have reliable sources to support the change. Thank you for asking for help rather than trying to make the change yourself. —C.Fred (talk) 21:40, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Help
I disagree that my edit was objectable in any way. I would like a second person to explain to me what is wrong. I replaced a dead source with a live one that was nearly identical. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Salzano1 (talk • contribs) 23:45, 16 December 2019 (UTC)


 * @Salzano1: With regard to the message I left, it is an advisory that you have reverted the article three times. If you were to revert a fourth time within a 24-hour period, your account could be blocked. It has nothing to do with whether your edit is "right" or "wrong". —C.Fred (talk) 23:47, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your response. I will do as suggested re: the article's talk page but it is empty. Is there any other avenue for resolving a conflict where I believe the editor is being spiteful? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Salzano1 (talk • contribs) 00:08, 17 December 2019 (UTC)


 * @Salzano1: Yes, but in this case, I don't see intentional spite. You're better to focus on the content of the article and leave the conduct of other editors out of the consideration. —C.Fred (talk) 00:12, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Ordinarily I would agree but MrOllie won't explain what is objectionable or what guideline was violated. Other than the talk page, is there any other avenue for resolving a "edit war" between 2 users? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Salzano1 (talk • contribs) 00:20, 17 December 2019 (UTC)


 * @Salzano1: He did but he didn't. In one edit summary, he said "unreliable cite"; that's an allusion to WP:Reliable sources. I see his concerns: the site you're citing is written by a single attorney. That sets off alarm bells for it being a blog or otherwise unreliable. The fact that the writer is an attorney might be a mitigating factor. —C.Fred (talk) 00:23, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Donji Kraji


Hello. At various times, each of us has put full protection on this article for reasons of edit warring (you for 3 days, me for two weeks). After protection expired, the problem has continued. I am considering putting indef protection on, with a note that it can be lifted once at least one change has received proper consensus on Talk. Does this sound like the right thing to do? Going to WP:AE would be an alternative but that forum is slow and sometimes hard to persuade about obvious issues. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 17:45, 19 December 2019 (UTC)


 * @EdJohnston: On the one hand, the two parties are talking to each other, though it's at User talk:Santasa99 rather than the article talk page. On the other hand, it's close to devolving into name-calling. I don't think it's quite critical enough to need the protection, but it's getting close to that point. —C.Fred (talk) 19:27, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Setlist.fm
Hi C.Fred

I tried to add an article about the wiki webpage http://www.setlist.fm. It was deleted by you, after a bot detection I assume, because it was considered not notable. Before challenging the deletion, I would like to understand which is the criteria to consider an article with enough notability.

I already take a look at web notability article Notability_(web), and I still don't understand why this webpage doesn't fulfill the criteria.

As an example, all this Google News Search has this page as a reference. Additionally, the Set List article has it as its first external reference. I also observe webpages in this List of wikis with a lower quantity of external references, lower number of entries and higher Alexa rank.

I don't want to mean that you're wrong in considering that setlist.fm doesn't have enough notability, but I want to understand why.

Donmopa (talk) 18:40, 19 December 2019 (UTC)donmopa


 * @Donmopa: The hits in that Google news search are passing mentions of the site, not articles giving in-depth coverage of the site. So, the site fails the notability criteria. We'd need to find articles that have been written about setlist.fm to use as sources. —C.Fred (talk) 19:29, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Donji Kraji CoA dispute
Hi, C.Fred, you asked for information on source statements/passage, is there any particular reason for that, and what do you think, taking into account everything said in my TP afterward, and assuming that you translated what you needed, that one could say or do to argue against froward removal and reverts in article.-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  19:47, 19 December 2019 (UTC)


 * @Santasa99: Check your talk page for an update later. And remember that Wikipedia operates on consensus, which there doesn't seem to be (yet) in this situation. Apparently there's an RfC open, but I haven't dug in to see what the scope of that is. —C.Fred (talk) 19:58, 19 December 2019 (UTC)


 * You better do that, dug in as deep as your patience and time allows you, otherwise you won't be able to comprehend how screwed up things are by looking at the surface only. I want to be an editor, and although I can recite majority of policies and guidelines in my sleep, I don't want to be a lawyer, nevertheless, I'm pinned down by some particularly tendentious editing, with some really messy background, for which I have only vague clues how to resolve despite being knowledgeable of intricate web of policies and guidelines, but less and less will to do so. One particularly good editor already showing signs of desperation.-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  20:24, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Not Redundant
What I re-added to Billie Eilish’s page is not redundant. It is 100% accurate to add that to the article. What you are doing is very disruptive. CheatCodes4ever (talk) 04:33, 18 December 2019 (UTC)


 * @CheatCodes4ever: Why does that song need mentioned twice in the intro? —C.Fred (talk) 04:34, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

What do you mean? CheatCodes4ever (talk) 04:36, 18 December 2019 (UTC)


 * @CheatCodes4ever: I mean that the second paragraph contains the sentence 'The album contained four Billboard Hot 100 top 40 singles: "When the Party's Over", "Bury a Friend", "Wish You Were Gay", and "Bad Guy", the last of which became her first number-one single in the US.' So we don't need to talk about the song hitting number one twice in the introduction. —C.Fred (talk) 14:46, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

That’s not what I’m trying to show. I’m trying to show what Billie is most known for. CheatCodes4ever (talk) 08:47, 20 December 2019 (UTC)


 * @CheatCodes4ever: But you didn't add just "best know for her single 'Bad Guy'" to the intro sentence. You added a full sentence about the song hitting number one. The problem is, the intro is laid out chronologically, so you broke the order. —C.Fred (talk) 14:24, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Hey!
Hello fellow C.! I noticed you edit a user talk page that I had previously edited and noticed that your username starts with C. as well. So I thought I'd just say hi! :D ― C.Syde  ( talk  |  contribs ) 21:45, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

"Disruptive Editing"
That was not "disruptive editing". The section I deleted was started by me, and was deleted because I felt my tone and approach were inappropriate. I then started a new section to re-frame my argument.

I could edit myself whenever I want, including full removals of content. This was a talk page I contributed to, not the actual article.Jonathan f1 (talk) 22:20, 20 December 2019 (UTC)


 * @Jonathan f1: You can edit yourself, but you cannot remove the reply that left. Further, since she replied, it's a bad idea (but not prohibited) to remove your original remark. —C.Fred (talk) 22:26, 20 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Fine, then restore it, but I am going to remove my original remarks and leave Linda's alone. Again, I raised the same issue in a new section and there is no point leaving the old one up. But do as you wish.Jonathan f1 (talk) 22:30, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Merry merry !
 ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  02:41, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your help on the page: Nike Dattani !
Dear C.Fred, I am grateful for your help in spotting BLP violations by some brand new users on the page "Nike Dattani", and removing the tag-bombing. I also notice you permanently blocked the user NikeDattani, which I thank you for, since it's quite obvious that the user is NOT actually Nike Dattani. The user has only 5 edits in total, and all 5 of them seem to be an attempt at damaging Nike Dattani's reputation. The most recent one was on the page "Hierarchical Equations of Motion" and all the user did was remove the entire paragraph that cited some of Dattani's papers: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hierarchical_equations_of_motion&diff=prev&oldid=921150731. Now if this user really was Dattani, why would he remove that paragraph which cites his own papers? Furthermore for more than a year the "Nike Dattani" page listed "Kyoto University" as one of his former institutions, and there was a valid reference/citation given, and the fake user NikeDattani made an edit which simply removed "Kyoto University" from his list of former institutions. I don't see why Nike Dattani (the real subject of the article) would want to remove Kyoto University from his former institutions list, unless he was embarrassed about being there, but he has listed Kyoto University himself in his LinkedIn profile, and there's so many online interviews and publications where he lists himself as being from Kyoto University, so it doesn't make sense that he would try to use Wikipedia to erase this. I am 100% sure that user NikeDattani is not actually Nike Dattani. Searching further I see that user A.S. Brown has tried to raise this concern already:

"I am not Dr. Nike Dattani, but he he spoken to me to express some concerns about the contents of this article. In particular, he has concern about an account whose has appropriated the name of the subject of this account. He has asked me to speak here to ask if it is possible this account have it's user name changed as its edits imply views that are not his own.--A.S. Brown (talk) 03:23, 30 October 2019 (UTC)"

Looking at that user's contributions on 30 October, lead me to this discussion where there was an attempt/request to have the fraudeulent user's name changed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Reidgreg#Nike_Dattani

Since the user that you caught vandalizing (user "gaurarjun") was complaining about "Nike Dattani making edits to his own page", when in fact the user named NikeDattani that he was referring to, was not actually Nike Dattani, do you think it would be possible to have the NikeDattani account that you blocked, be completely removed or have their name changed?

Thank you, and Season's Greetings! Dr. Universe (talk) 04:25, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

1RR cases
Hi Fred, I am here to understand how admins at AN3 perceive the 1RR rule. Appreciate if you can help to answer these 3 Qs.

During an edit war, between User 1 (U1) and U2

Stage 1 : U1E1 adds a text,  Stage 1.5 : U2E1 removes it. Stage 2 : U1E2 re-adds it,  Stage 2.5 :  U2E2 removes it again Stage 3 : U1E3 re-adds it,  Stage 3.5 :  U2E3 removed

Q1: At what stage exactly has the User 1 (U1) crossed the bright red line. (and liable to be blocked.)  ? Q2: At what stage exactly has User 2 (U2) crossed the bright red line. ? Q3: At what stage exactly have both crossed the bright red line. ? -- D Big X ray ᗙ Happy Holidays!  11:35, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Mary Sue Page
TBH, the controversy over Rey Skywalker/Palpatine is certainly relevant. Rather than locking the page down, I would suggest a blurb at the end of the lead saying something on the matter. High Ground lll (talk) 02:00, 22 December 2019 (UTC)


 * @High Ground lll: You're welcome to present an idea for that at the article's talk page, along with the reliable sources to back the assessment up. —C.Fred (talk) 02:02, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Alright, I created a talk page about it. Tell me what you think. High Ground lll (talk) 02:23, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Carolyn Murphy - removal was explained
Hi I did explain the edit you just reversed as an "Unexplained removal" "grammar, Wikilink, reduced WP:UNDUE, improved source." I don't think it warrants a section, and most of it seems WP:UNDUE for a WP:BLP. 47.28.21.214 (talk) 03:13, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

With regards to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RingCentral
Hi Fred, I noticed that you have removed my submissions stated what I have submitted is for promotional and advertising purposes. I hope you give the references a read as I have only written an article to go through on the list of free online fax services as well as key considerations when selecting one. If again that's considered advertising, can I get you to look at references "Adam C. Uzialko (August 15, 2017). "The Best Online Fax Services". Business News Daily. Retrieved August 22, 2017." and if that's considered advertising as well?

Regards, Fedya. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FedyaTheoderich1983 (talk • contribs) 03:35, 23 December 2019 (UTC)


 * @FedyaTheoderich1983: When you submitted two different links in a row like that, it raised concerns about your motives for the addition: were you really trying to highlight the reports, or were you trying to get a link added for specific site? —C.Fred (talk) 14:34, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Happy Holidays
Happy Holidays text.png Hello C.Fred: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers,  D Big X ray ᗙ Happy Holidays!  15:15, 24 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

SoftBank Robotics
Why did you delete this article? It seems to be a notable research group, so I can't understand why it was deleted. Jarble (talk) 14:52, 24 December 2019 (UTC)


 * @Jarble: The article failed to make clear how the company was significant or important. Further, the text read more like a promotional brochure than a neutral encyclopedia article. —C.Fred (talk) 14:54, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It seems very likely that this group is notable, since it has developed several robots that are clearly notable, such as Pepper and Nao. Maybe it should be a sub-section of the SoftBank Group article instead of a stand-alone article. Jarble (talk) 15:20, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * @Jarble: Since SBG acquired them, that would be a reasonable place to start with the content. —C.Fred (talk) 15:22, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Happy New Year C.Fred!
Happy New Year! Hello C.Fred: Thanks for all of your contributions to improve the encyclopedia for Wikipedia's readers, and have a happy and enjoyable New Year! Cheers, Donner60 (talk) 06:52, 27 December 2019 (UTC) Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks (static)}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Alisher Usmanov
Thanks for reverting this edit. Do you mind suppressing the edit summary due to violation of WP:LIBEL? The summary mentions Usmanov and Putin in vulgar terms. Thanks, — kashmīrī  TALK  21:16, 27 December 2019 (UTC)


 * @Kashmiri: Yes check.svg Done I got another edit summary by the IP as well. —C.Fred (talk) 21:18, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

𝓒𝓱𝓻𝓲𝓼𝓽𝓶𝓪𝓼 𝓓𝓮𝓵𝓲𝓿𝓮𝓻𝔂 2019 - please block
Appears to be LTA My Royal Young. S0091 (talk) 22:42, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Resolved. S0091 (talk) 22:47, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

AntiWORLD deletion
Good eveing! I finally got back to working on Portlands punk rock scene. Before I move on to other bands and venues I'd like to get the Antiworld page cleared for publication. I have linked every possible source I can find. Many similar bands have much less info. Please let me know what I need t0 do to make this page admissable for publication. Thank you!

Bonnieblagg (talk) 06:57, 29 December 2019 (UTC)Bonnie


 * @Bonnieblagg: Looking through the references, I see maybe a half-dozen that appear to be independent and reliable. Some of the magazines, it's hard to verify because the link only goes to a title page, not the article in full. If you can point me to some that are available online that have independent coverage, that would help my assessment. —C.Fred (talk) 15:05, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

May Days
Thanks for you intervention at May Days. It is getting increasingly difficult for me to discuss with the specific user. Have a look at this answer. . How am I supposed to respond? Also look at his User Page and Talk. Cinadon36 00:58, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

==May day - May day== Before 3 months: In Greek : Τρείς μήνες φραγή για:
 * αδικαιολόγητο κυνηγητό χρήστη.

means ~3 months ban for injustice hunt of a user*.

the admin is Diu (most famous Greek WP user ;))


 * NOT ME!!!

Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 01:24, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

I have raised concerns on some of Αντικαθεστωτικός edits, and instead of answering my concerns he is playing the "cencorship" card. It is not true that I haunted the specific user and nevertheless, I do not want to add to our discussion what goes on at greek WP (if I provide diffs, who could read them anyway?) This is yet another personal attack, on top of breaking 3RR. I had all the good will to discuss edits at Talk Page. Cinadon36 01:34, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

A 2nd admin of Greek Wikipedia about the same user who is haunting users "Φαίνεται να υπάρχει όντως ένα είδος κυνηγιού χρηστών" It seems there is a kind of hunting of users

Please check with Google translate if my translation is correct or ask a Greek member.

The pattern is the same.Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 01:38, 30 December 2019 (UTC)


 * @Αντικαθεστωτικός: This is not the Greek Wikipedia. Actions taken there do not lead to actions taken here. If you really feel that another user is harassing you across multiple Wikis, then the place to bring your concern is WP:ANI. Be warned, though: if you open a report at the administrators' noticeboard, your conduct will be scrutinized. On the other hand, you cannot make empty claims like that against other users. If you continue to do so, that could be viewed as harassment of another user. So, tread carefully. Personally, I'd rather see you leave editor conduct out of the equation and just focus on the article content. —C.Fred (talk) 03:55, 30 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I have reported it many times. I wasn't his the target in Greek Wikipedia, but other users. Anyway, I just added a paragraph in May Days. It is the most uptodate historians view. Is it valid? If no --->PLEASE BAN ME INSTANTLY. Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 09:12, 30 December 2019 (UTC)


 * @Αντικαθεστωτικός: There are a lot of other admins who would have already called your bluff on that and indefinitely blocked you. I am not quite so quick on the trigger; however, statements like the above indicate that you have a battleground mentality. English Wikipedia is a collaborative project; if you are unwilling or unable to edit in a cooperative manner with your other editors, then I may have no choice but to block you indefinitely for the good of the project. —C.Fred (talk) 14:22, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your time. Yes please ban me permanently. Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 14:32, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Blocked indefinitely per WP:NOTHERE. —C.Fred (talk) 14:38, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, this is not the first time I face this kind of harrassment by the same user. In the past he also claimed that me and another user (an admin) were censoring him. Cinadon<b style="display:inline; color:#c0c0c0;">36</b> 09:48, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Αντικαθεστωτικός keeps adding reworded controversial material at the article and when questioned at Talk he makes peronal attacks (ie "if you are honest"). More importantly he does not address the questions and misrepresents my arguments.(ie see his comment on context issue). I am not going to revert as I do not see it as a solution, also I do not want to break 3RR myself, but this is quite frustrating...<b style="display:inline; color:#008000;">Cinadon</b><b style="display:inline; color:#c0c0c0;">36</b> 11:25, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Happy New Year, C.Fred!
<div style="border: 3px solid #FFD700; background-color: #FFFAF0; padding:0.2em 0.4em; height:auto; min-height:173px; border-radius: 1em; box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0,0.75);" class="plainlinks">

Happy New Year! C.Fred, Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.

CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:42, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

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

2020ismyyear
Just as an fyi 2020ismyyear is a sock of MariaJaydHicky. I routinely revert any live edits from their socks when I find them. No objection though to your reverting if you believe the edit was constructive. Happy new year. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:07, 1 January 2020 (UTC)


 * @Ad Orientem: If you mean the Trina edits, in that one case, it was semi-constructive. There were deeper ongoing problems with that article, though; I repaired the dob. —C.Fred (talk) 17:11, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

HELLO Friend
You reverted my changes on Bugles. They were factually correct. Can you revert this please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snippert (talk • contribs) 21:54, 28 December 2019 (UTC)


 * @Snippert: Since you reversed what was in the article, you must provide reliable sources to support your changes. —C.Fred (talk) 14:47, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

If you read the current citation, you will see that General Mills owns bugles, not Tom's. I am correct, so please revert the changes. comment added by Snippert —Preceding undated comment added 20:35, 1 January 2020 (UTC)


 * @Snippert: On second look, you're right. —C.Fred (talk) 20:46, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Vijay Antony
Hi Friend, I noticed that the page edit on Filmography section in Vijay Antony's page is reversed. May i Know why the format is not accepted ? I wanted to put in that format as in because it clearly portrays that the movie contents are same however there were bilingual and improves the readability quotient. I was requested for proof for showing that the movie was bilingual

Here is the sample of it. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/tamil/movies/news/Vijay-Antony-to-play-Salim/articleshow/21553160.cms?referral=PM

Now if we remove the edits these movies though these were of same contents gets missed from the filmography the mentions of what is really being done and out there in public but not reflecting there in wikipedia. I am ready to talk to anyone regarding this to maintain the format.

If you go through my edit the table format here gives a clear picture of what has been done in both the languages co relating that to the other language and year. This is a mistaken case where it is being given as COI, i am not paid for this. I collect all these details about the actor in particular hence i hold contact with him.

Kumarcd (talk) 20:07, 4 January 2020 (UTC) Kumarcd


 * @Kumarcd: As I stated, we have a standardized format for the filmography tables. Even for actors who appear in multilingual films, there is no call for two columns for the film title.
 * Second, whether you're paid or not, if you're editing at the direction of the subject, then you have a conflict of interest. —C.Fred (talk) 23:26, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Draft: Susan Wakil
Hi C.Fred, wishing you a very happy new year! I hope you enjoyed the holiday season. Thank you so much for your kind edits to the Draft:Susan Wakil page. I really appreciate the change of title to a name that will be accepted. I am a newbie and I was wondering if you could offer any advice on what I could add to the page, or change, to help it be more likely to be accepted? Any advice or assistance would be so appreciated. Bobcat100 (talk) 03:36, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Bill DuBay
If I may ask, why did you reinsert a grammatical error and remove biographically pertinent names that appear in the RS cited source? It's standard practice in biographies to name offspring, certainly adult offspring, as it typically done throughout Wikipedia and in book biographies. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:17, 11 January 2020 (UTC)


 * @Tenebrae: It is not standard to insert non-notable children's names, although we may be more liberal with adult children than minors. Please consult WP:BLPNAME, which says inclusion of names is a matter of editorial judgment. —C.Fred (talk) 23:20, 11 January 2020 (UTC)


 * That said, I did fix the spelling error. —C.Fred (talk) 23:22, 11 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the latter. Actually, having written biographies, it's standard in any professional sense to include offspring. The policy states: "The names of any immediate, former, or significant family members or any significant relationship of the subject of a BLP may be part of an article, if reliably sourced, subject to editorial discretion that such information is relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject." As a journalist and author, I can say with professional certainty it's relevant to a complete understanding of the subject. For instance, the fact he named a son after himself provides a certain insight. In any case, if you're adamant, I guess the next step is to open a discussion at the article talk page. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:28, 11 January 2020 (UTC)


 * @Tenebrae: The secondary issue at this article is that the names had been added by an editor with a COI. If, as an independent editor, you're advocating inclusion, that changes the lens that I'm looking at the article with. If you reinsert, I won't object. —C.Fred (talk) 23:32, 11 January 2020 (UTC)


 * You bring up a good point; I seem to recall having had to edit out some promotional, COI content myself at some stage.
 * I appreciate your taking the time to thoughtfully reconsider after discussion. That is collegiality and collaboration in action, and not all editors are always so gracious. My thanks, --Tenebrae (talk) 23:38, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Should've blocked the /64...
...since we now have block evasion, Special:Contribs/2001:569:7a36:f800:dcab:cb1b:38b0:776d. Special:Block/2001:569:7a36:f800::/64 ought to cover it.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:32, 12 January 2020 (UTC)


 * @Jasper Deng: Rangeblocks are outside my wheelhouse. Plus, I saw some evasion from an IP4. —C.Fred (talk) 03:40, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

René Favaloro
Hi, you imply that René Favaloro did something bad when you insist that he committed suicide (Wiktionary: commit; To do (something bad); to perpetrate, as a crime, sin, or fault.) I think yours is an unfair insistence. Suicided is a legitimate verb (Wiktionary: suicided; simple past tense and past participle of suicide.) It has kinder implications. Rayf 06:54, 16 January 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by RayForma (talk • contribs)


 * @RayForma: (Unfortunately,) It is still a common term in the US because it is used by authorities (e.g., police) and then reported in direct quotations. The AP does not recommend "to suicide" as a term for it, though; they suggest "killed himself", "took her own life", or "died by suicide". It would be based on that lack of recommendation that I made any revert to the Favaloro article. —C.Fred (talk) 15:32, 16 January 2020 (UTC)


 * That said, see this copyedit which tightened the prose and removed the phrase in question. Since suicide appears twice in the following paragraphs, I don't think any meaning is lost by not using that word on the first mention. —C.Fred (talk) 15:35, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Intellitech draft
Thanks for the heads up on Intellitech draft. I went to edit it for submission but it looks like it was simultaneously deleted while giving me notice? Jtagchair (talk) 16:33, 19 January 2020 (UTC)


 * @Jtagchair: See your talk page for more, but I've restored it to draft space. —C.Fred (talk) 17:56, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

William Tucker Lindsay
You sent me a note about this article being pending. I did not leave it so. I actually completed it and posted the article.

After that, someone by the name of Dan arndt, who clearly has no knowledge of rowing history, rejected the article for no stated reason. I do not know how to reinstate it.

This gets me to my real gripe. I am a serious and published rowing historian. I not infrequently find edits amended, or in this case an article rejected, by people who have no detailed knowledge of the subject matter, no access to primary materials, and who behave with extraordinary hubris. This isn't how serious historians behave. They sometimes disagree, but they analyse source material, have sensible discussions on its interpretation, and are open to new thinking. I find little of this on Wikipedia.

So, feel free to reinstate the article. If you have a difficulty with it, please let me know what queries you have. Right now I am finishing a book (on rowing history), am completing a research article (on rowing history) and am still analysing a trove of primary source material (on rowing history) to which I was granted access at Oxford University last year, and which has never been seen before. I find so many errors in Wikipedia articles that it is not funny - just see some of the errors I have corrected in the last week - yet when people who know what they are doing find their contributions blocked, it is frustrating beyond words. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BNCBCHistory (talk • contribs) 13:21, 23 January 2020 (UTC)


 * @BNCBCHistory: I took a little look at the history of the page, and here's what I found:
 * You submitted a draft at Draft:William Tucker Lindesay-Bethune, 14th Earl of Lindsay on 8 January 2019.
 * Dan arndt rejected the draft for failing the notability criteria for biographies (specifically, WP:ANYBIO).

I note that Dan arndt claims he cited a policy as the basis for rejecting the draft, but the policy has three separate components, and failing to specify which really means he has not stated a reason. Of course, if he read the draft and saw that the subject was a Deputy Lieutenant, then he should have realised that the subject met the criteria on that basis alone, as well as the other accomplishments in Lindesay's life. I see that this is no longer considered a reason not to publish, and the question is in fact one of references, so can someone please publish it, because there is no button to request publication. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BNCBCHistory (talk • contribs) 09:47, 25 January 2020 (UTC)


 * The draft sat untouched for six months. There were no attempts made to improve the references or more clearly demonstrate his notability.
 * The draft was speedy deleted on 9 July 2019 as an abandoned draft.
 * The draft was restored on 14 July.
 * Auric made some improvements to the references on 21 July.
 * The draft sat untouched for another six months.
 * The draft was deleted again on 23 January 2020.
 * The draft's talk page contained no discussions on how to improve the draft.
 * Bear in mind that Wikipedia is not a historical journal or secondary source. It is meant to function as a tertiary source, summarizing what has been written in secondary sources. (As a side effect, that means that primary sources should generally be avoided in Wikipedia articles. It's better to cite scholarly papers, journal articles, news stories, than to cite primary sources like autobiographies. (For sporting events, there's usually some kind of published results table to cite.)
 * All that being said, I will restore the draft to draft space. Please continue to work on it and submit it for review. It sounds like there are enough sources out there about him to show notability and get the draft accepted. —C.Fred (talk) 15:53, 23 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Noting that I did not reject the article for "no stated reason", I rejected it because it did not address the requirements of WP:ANYBIO - which I stated in my comments at the time. Dan arndt (talk) 04:02, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

And I have added more references, but again, I do not know how to ensure this is posted. I have done everything that could be asked, and it languishes because of petty bureaucracy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BNCBCHistory (talk • contribs) 09:22, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * @BNCBCHistory: One thing that would help if is if you resubmit it for review. Place the code  at the top of the article. This will alert other editors that you're ready to resubmit it. You may also want to visit WikiProject Scotland and ask for assistance there, since the subject's main claim to notability seems to be his status as an Earl. —C.Fred (talk) 15:26, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

User:NormanGear report
Hi User:C.Fred, this is new to me, so I am not totally sure how to go about it. Apologies Melroross (talk) 22:24, 27 January 2020 (UTC)


 * @Melroross: Frankly, I think the report is premature. You have made no attempt to discuss the situation at Talk:Portuguese people. Instead, you escalated it straight to WP:ANEW. You really should engage in some discussion there first, especially since I see no evidence of a violation of WP:3RR. —C.Fred (talk) 22:27, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi C.Fred
Regarding this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latter_Day_Church_of_Christ

I apologize for undoing your revision without contacting you. I am new to wikipedia and was not aware that I could message you.

I do not represent the Latter Day Church of Christ, and I don't care what the article says about them.

I am, however, a representative of "DP Creations, LLC", and an owner of "H Haven LLC"

As you can see in the following state registry links, the entities I have removed from the list are not DCCS holdings, as the article stated. They are actually holdings of DP Creations, H Haven, and their respective individual owners. If you pay the fee to "View Management Team", you will see that "DP Creations, LLC" is owned by Nevin Pratt, and Denise Pratt, and that "H Haven LLC" is owned by Jacob Pratt, and John Pratt:

https://secure.utah.gov/bes/details.html?entity=4857903-0160 https://secure.utah.gov/bes/details.html?entity=10418472-0160

You can see for yourself, by checking the above links, that the edit I made was a removal of factually incorrect information. I believe that the person who added this incorrect information, "76justice79" did it out of spite. There is no source for their false information. I think we would all like to help keep Wikipedia accurate. Please let me know if there's anything more I can do. Thanks! Jspratt97 (talk) 15:56, 2 February 2020 (UTC)


 * @Jspratt97: If you are removing them from articles, then you still have a conflict of interest. —C.Fred (talk) 17:41, 2 February 2020 (UTC)


 * @C.Fred: Yes, I understand this. I will instead request edit if the content reappears. Thank you for your help. Jspratt97 (talk) 18:13, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

move protect
Would you mind also move protecting this? There are a ton of citations but my (admittedly) little understanding of the language gives me the impression they aren't exactly stellar or reliable sources (or coverage for that matter) and it seems the user is bent on spamming mainspace with it. Praxidicae (talk) 21:42, 6 February 2020 (UTC)


 * @Praxidicae: I'll keep an eye on it. I'm not sure that move-protection or salting is needed just yet. —C.Fred (talk) 21:43, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * And they seem to have figured out where draft space is. —C.Fred (talk) 21:45, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Diligence and time on Star Trek
I have to say, when I logged on this morning and saw all those anonymous edits to TOS episodes, I was like, oh man, I have to go visit every one of those pages and check that edit and probably revert it. Luckily (for me), you had already done it. This took a lot of time, patience, and commitment to both Wikipedia and the Star Trek articles themselves. I am therefore awarding you the "Recent Changes" Barnstar for this work. Thanks! StarHOG (Talk) 14:52, 7 February 2020 (UTC)


 * @StarHOG: I accept this award, as long as I'm not required to put on one of the high-collared Federation formal uniforms. :) The hardest part was seeing and verifying the pattern; then it was just a matter of control-clicking the rollback button many times on their user contributions. —C.Fred (talk) 15:15, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Ooops
Very sorry for this edit! A mis-click; I have self-reverted. Best, The Mirror Cracked (talk) 22:04, 11 February 2020 (UTC)


 * @The Mirror Cracked: No worries. it happens with multiple eyes on a situation sometimes. —C.Fred (talk) 22:04, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Is there a way we can speak in private?
If you want to discuss things more openly that is, otherwise that's okay. Robert-M-Gervais (talk) 04:14, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

The entire discussion needs to stay deleted. Robert-M-Gervais (talk) 12:18, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

What is going on at Talk:Canadian Nationalist Party?
Hi C.Fred, can you enlighten me what is going on at Talk:Canadian Nationalist Party? This user Robert-M-Gervais has weirdly invaded my talk page. Carlstak (talk) 15:43, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

They were just a troll impersonating someone else. Best to ignore it. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 17:46, 15 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Glad that's over with :P -  FlightTime  ( open channel ) 17:49, 15 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks, MJL. I knew they were up to no good, and most likely misrepresenting themselves; I just wondered if anyone had more information about their shenanigans. Carlstak (talk) 17:54, 15 February 2020 (UTC)


 * @Carlstak: And it seems the end(?) of the drama unfolded while I was asleep and at work. Sorry you got dragged in.
 * @MJL: If they were impersonating someone else, there is probably some cleanup left to do. —C.Fred (talk) 20:07, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Bluebird K7
Hi, regarding your undoing of my edit to this page and the edit war that it caused previously; today I simply added a statement of fact, back up by a news source. Please tell me why this is not allowed! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nosuchagreement (talk • contribs) 16:51, 18 February 2020 (UTC)


 * @Nosuchagreement: This addition was part of your edit war; I see you added the link on 5 February. Thus, you must get consensus before you attempt to add it. —C.Fred (talk) 16:59, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

"Ofo founder 戴威" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Ofo founder 戴威. Since you had some involvement with the Ofo founder 戴威 redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Dq209 (talk) 18:38, 18 February 2020 (UTC)


 * @Dq209: This is overdue cleanup. I think I left the redirect after a page move so the original editor could find their page. Thank you for catching this! —C.Fred (talk) 18:48, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

What do you mean?
"Based on your username, do you have a connection with the team, such that you have a conflict of interest with that article?"; I want you to specify what you mean by leaving this message – DreamTeamLietuva (talk) 19:52, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Reply in thread on your talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 19:45, 21 February 2020 (UTC)


 * It means exactly what it says. Are you just a fan of the Lithuanian national basketball team, are you a volunteer for the team, or are you paid staff? The US fielded a basketball "Dream Team" of pro athletes in the 1990s, and the Lithuanian team is sometimes called "The Other Dream Team", so it is a reasonable link. —C.Fred (talk) 19:48, 21 February 2020 (UTC) (copied here from User talk:DreamTeamLietuva])


 * I'm just a resident of that country. Well, I can say I'm a fan of Lithuania basketball team – DreamTeamLietuva (talk) 23:49, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

help needed
take a look at User talk:86.2.21.217 Thanks Rjensen (talk) 20:30, 22 February 2020 (UTC)


 * @Rjensen: Did I miss something with the revdels? IP is on their last strike before I revoke talk page access. I'll give them some opportunity to reason, but they're running out of chances. —C.Fred (talk) 20:31, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * he names me and Materialscientist in terms of [description of IP's harassment redacted] Rjensen (talk) 20:34, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * @Rjensen: Another admin has revoked their talk page access. I have deleted the page revisions I could find with that text. If I missed one, let me know. Further concerns should be escalated to WMF via email. —C.Fred (talk) 20:36, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Overuse of SPS - Not So
You're statement that there is an overuse of SPS is not correct.

Firstly: The site is for the Latter Day Church of Jesus Christ, which is a separate organization than the DCCS. The DCCS's website is not "self-published" by the Latter Day Church of Christ.

Secondly: The references to the site do not make statements of fact, simply statements of belief of the DCCS itself, which, of course, can only come from an original source. (A third party source can't speak the find of a first party source.)

Thirdly: Most of the facts in the introduction of page are not accurate anyway. Most don't have "reliable" sources to back them up. (If one believes that tabloids are "reliable sources" one should think again.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.121.70.130 (talk) 22:09, 27 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Then the source is simply unreliable: how is the DCCS a reliable source? —C.Fred (talk) 22:19, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Or, how are the beliefs of the DCCS relevant to an article about the LDCJC? —C.Fred (talk) 22:21, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Response to your message
Hello C.Fred,

Thank you for your helpful message. I have never created a Wikipedia page, although I have done some light editing a couple of times. So, I am a neophyte to all this!

You noted that it appears I may have a conflict of interest in attempting to create a Wikipedia page on Sally Swift: Founder of Centered Riding and Centered Riding Inc. Although I am a Centered Riding instructor, I have retired completely from teaching. I knew Sally Swift through Centered Riding (she was my riding teacher many years ago), and I wanted to continue to have some involvement. So, I volunteer with the non-profit organization she founded, Centered Riding Inc. I do so as a member of the Communications Committee and the Publications Committee. I am not now nor have I ever been paid for any of my volunteer activities with Centered Riding. In my working life, i was a federal public servant in the Government of Canada, so I am familiar with conflict-of-interest criteria and guidelines.

As you noted, I should change the name I use, which is currently "CR Teacher," to something that does not imply I might be being paid or have a conflict of interest of some kind in relation to Centered Riding and Sally Swift. So, I will do that.

I set out to create a Wikipedia page on Sally Swift at the request of the Board of Trustees of Centered Riding Inc. (all the Board members are volunteers, too). Since there was a page on Centered Riding, they thought there should be one on its founder, Sally Swift. As Communications Committee member, I was asked to tackle this project.

I do apologize for giving the Wikipedia officials the appearance of that I might be a paid agent and/or have a conflict of interest, both of which are not the case, as I noted earlier.

QUESTION: Do you think I should ask step back from this and find someone else to do it? Now that I have the content prepared, it might be relatively easy for someone else to take it from here.

Thanks again for reaching out.

Yours sincerely,

CR Teacher (talk) 22:27, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * When you say I do so as a member of the Communications Committee and the Publications Committee, that is admitting a conflict of interest, even if you're not directly being paid for edits. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:32, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * @CR Teacher: Yes, you should step back. As Ian.thomson mentioned, you have a conflict of interest because you are a volunteer member of two committees of Centered Riding Inc. Frankly, the main reason I tagged your draft for speedy deletion was because it read like a publication from the corporation, not an independent encyclopedia article. —C.Fred (talk) 01:07, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Denied Removal of Page
Hi there, I'm trying to remove a page for Leah Golberstein. She is a client of mine and does not want her information on Wikipedia. My two requests have been denied and I don't understand why. I'm happy to provide more information/proof if necessary.

Kind Regards,

Darlinclementine 03/02/2020 2603:3016:1117:4000:4D97:B994:6B97:9D8D (talk) 18:00, 2 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Certain information that was unsourced, such as her date of birth, has been removed from the article. That said, we generally do not remove articles at the subjects' requests. WP:AUTOPROB is a link to instructions about what to do if you feel there are other issues with the content. If you were to attempt to nominate the article through the WP:Articles for deletion process, then the community would discuss whether Golberstein is notable enough for an article; her wishes for the article to be deleted will not have a direct effect on the discussion. —C.Fred (talk) 18:11, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Regarding your edits at the Seraphim Rose Page
Kindly remove yourself from an further editing of the Seraphim Rose page as you have a blatant COI through your association with a Catholic fraternity, as noted on your user page and which I've screen-shotted. Seraphim Rose is well-known to have criticized the Catholic Church and its teachings vociferously in countless of his published writings, and your membership in Phi Kappa Theta furnishes, ipso facto, ample grounds for inferring that you are in violation of WP:COI by continuing to participate in altering the content which appears therein. Furthermore, there has been a profusion of posts, including my own, regarding this issue at the talk section of the page sufficient to justify the current revision. Please therefore desist from any further action regarding the content of this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.132.126.95 (talk) 23:16, 3 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Since I am now an involved editor as a result of these personal attacks—not as a result of my membership in any organization—this matter has been escalated to WP:ANI. —C.Fred (talk) 00:24, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!!
Hi C.Fred, thanks for all you do on Wikipedia, and for all your help at BLPN. My you have a wonderful Christmas and a Happy New Year. (and if you don't celebrate Christmas please feel free to take that as a Happy Hanukkah, a great Dhanu Sankranti, a blessed Hatsumode, or whatever holiday you want to insert there.) Zaereth (talk) 08:55, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Thoughts on warring on Gen-Z?
Hello. I see now that Paleontologist99 has reported me for warring without warning me which is part of the requirements before reporting. He's not participating in the discussion and not motivating his edits. How would you suggest we proceed? Could you possibly aid in making a report for his warring edits? I have no background in doing so but i do know of the rules. I feel as if there is foul play at work as he is just trying to avoid participation in the discussion. --Gaudi9223 (talk) 21:43, 4 March 2020 (UTC)


 * @Gaudi9223: At this point, I'd focus more on your own conduct, since you have blatantly disregarded 3RR. —C.Fred (talk) 21:50, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Sam Smith
Okay, tell me what you're thinking. How can "In May 2014, Smith came out to the public as gay. They acknowledged a relationship..." can possibly be correct? He's not transsexual, is he? Deb (talk) 21:13, 9 March 2020 (UTC)


 * @Deb: See the note in the intro of the article: "Sam Smith is non-binary[1] and uses they/them as pronouns." It's not explicitly stated in MOS:GENDERID, but it's understood that preferred pronouns should be used. —C.Fred (talk) 21:46, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I've not heard that; there's a mismatch between their personal preference and the preference for non-ambiguous wording in an encyclopaedic article about them. So although I could go along with that if it's been agreed on the article Talk page. The main thing is, it's not helpful to revert changes that are made in good faith; much more useful to undo, with an informative edit summary. Deb (talk) 14:17, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * @Deb: Fair point. There've been a number of other articles, like Laverne Cox, where people mis-pronoun with intent, that I may have reached for the rollback button too quickly. I should've left an edit summary noting that it was to repair the pronoun mismatch. —C.Fred (talk) 14:52, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and I'm sorry I didn't notice it at the time. Deb (talk) 15:08, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Where's my discussion?
I thought I'd added a discussion about Jackson Browne and Daryl Hanna, and C.Fred's removal of a reference to my blogpost on the subject I'd added, a reference unfairly and dispararagingly described as 'spam'. Where's my discussion? MrMeaning (talk) 13:31, 13 March 2020 (UTC)


 * @MrMeaning: It's on User talk:MrMeaning, where you created it. —C.Fred (talk) 16:54, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Help!
Hi Fred, understand that you are an admin that recently deleted a page that the National University of Singapore and the Singapore Ministry of Education are putting together to help our Singapore students overseas (and who are trying to get back to Singapore) Harrischai (talk) 16:51, 16 March 2020 (UTC)


 * @Harrischai: Wikipedia is not a webhost. If the NUS or Ministry of Education wants to put up a page with information, they should do so on their own websites. Wikipedia is not a forum for the sharing of information, and it should not be offering travel advice. —C.Fred (talk) 16:52, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Have we accidentally breached any rules that Wikipedia has set? Harrischai (talk) 16:52, 16 March 2020 (UTC)


 * @Harrischai: Yep. See above. —C.Fred (talk) 16:53, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Just a further clarification: Is it because NUS is an institution, or because of the type of information that is being shared? Harrischai (talk) 17:17, 16 March 2020 (UTC)


 * @Harrischai: It is because of the type of information. Anybody trying to set up a similar page would be advised to get their own website and not put it here. —C.Fred (talk) 17:25, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

@C.Fred -Hi, appealing to your removal of the page recently created by group of students from NUS. The information is meant for community reference beyond NUS. Can you help to reinstate this page and allow our users to correct any unintended messaging - e.g. promotional in kind or self-declared truth? Appreciate your help to new wiki users to learn how to contribute in a neutral way. Thank you very much. ETohNUS (talk) 21:45, 16 March 2020 (UTC)


 * It is inappropriate to create a page with advice for how students can return home. In trying to create a page, ask yourself this: what would be useful to a reader five years from now gaining an understanding of what happened in the past? —C.Fred (talk) 23:58, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

SBFC Finance Private Limited
Hi, Thanks for your review. Iam new to Wiki, Can you help me with what part of the article seemed promotional, so i can make required changes and re submit the sameBuzzkiran (talk) 12:01, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Afghan Sikh Wars
Hi, Just following up on your response in WP:AN3 for "User:Kansas Bear reported". Though page is protected, how is Kansas Bear able to still make changes? No complains but just need information for my understanding. Thanks.
 * 1)   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.189.187.121 (talk) 20:13, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Because they have sufficient user rights to edit the page at this time. —C.Fred (talk) 20:25, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

New draft help
Can you please suggest me some tips for improving my draft? Thanks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Meme_Lord_519/sandbox Meme Lord 519 (talk) 09:15, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Aditya Birla Capital
Sir may I know why you redirected this page. This page has lot of information so people can know all about this company Ktdk (talk) 18:33, 28 March 2020 (UTC)


 * @Ktdk: Established community consensus, from WP:Articles for deletion/Aditya Birla Capital, is that the subsidiary is not notable enough to have a page. Any coverage is best handled in the parent company's article. —C.Fred (talk) 18:42, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

About User:Stuartman1998
I would like to report User:Stuartman1998 continues to harrass me in my talk page can you please talk to him again WweSpiderman 21:06, 30 March 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by WWESpiderman (talk • contribs)


 * @WWESpiderman: He has not done anything further since I left a message for him earlier, so I'd just let it go. You are free to remove his message from your talk page, of course. —C.Fred (talk) 21:14, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
 * And by let it go, that includes leaving ill wishes on his talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 21:16, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you I've already seem to have done it already WWESpiderman (talk) 21:16, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Valley Center
Good Morning. I see you edit Valley Center https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valley_Center,_California I made some adjustments for a couple events in our town. Please review and edit if I made errors. Thank you for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RVC760 (talk • contribs) 17:53, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Regarding the ValequezBot incident
I’m the operator of ValequezBot. I’ve been developing the bot for some time now and I had made a few tests and decided it was safe to test on the bot accounts own talk page, I hadn’t realised that Teahouse was open on another tab. I begain the test, the bot was supposed to correct “helo” into “hello” but it changed it into “hell” instead. I made it clear that “helo” was supposed to be corrected into “hello” but something went wrong with the code and the bot changed the tab and begain correcting everything into “hello”. I wanted to cancel the program but couldn’t and tried to erase the code which resulted in my computer crashing. I apologize for the inconvenience caused by my bot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rodrigo Valequez (talk • contribs) 19:21, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Walt Disney
Is there any problem about my Walt Disney edits. Honest Yusuf Cricket (talk) 02:06, 7 April 2020 (UTC)


 * @Honest Yusuf Cricket: Yes. As noted in the edit summary, the grammar is poor. —C.Fred (talk) 02:22, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Information on a Wrestlers wasn't wrong
My info on that Wrestler was not wrong he's signed to all elite Wrestling go to allelitewrestling.com he's listed on the roster under a different ring name before undoing my info WrestlinGGuyJJ (talk) 21:27, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

I must be tired yep I got the wrong Wrestler on the info yep he's not signed to that promotion I need more sleep 😑😫 WrestlinGGuyJJ (talk) 21:30, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Ironworkers Memorial Second Narrows Crossing
Hello C.Fred, do you object to inclusion of the Jamieson book in the article or only the way I referenced it? Thanks, ... PeterEasthope (talk) 01:39, 12 April 2020 (UTC)


 * @PeterEasthope: The references should be citations that are used to back up specific items in the text. The book you added was just a general reference. —C.Fred (talk) 01:47, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

AFD
You had some involvement concerning the article amBX so there may be interest in the AFD. --Otr500 (talk) 15:29, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * My apologies, I see that you were the uninvolved Admin in the request for restoring the article. My involved began by running across the request and that there appeared to be COI concerns. It seems that the article creator is not the same person that claims to have created the article (stating on the request "I created the page"), and I was notifying all I saw involved of the AFD. Since realizing you are the Admin I would like to ask if you will take a look to help with my confusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Otr500 (talk • contribs) 15:55, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Warning
I understand my warning but you gave no such warning to C.J. Griffin who also took park in it(Also reverting 3 times in a 2-4 hour period). My edit ending up being the preferred choice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.78.78.148 (talk • contribs)


 * It is not the "preferred choice". It is just the version that the article currently sits at. —C.Fred (talk) 00:32, 14 April 2020 (UTC)


 * What about a warning to the other user? He did the exact same thing I did yet received no warning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.78.78.148 (talk) 00:47, 14 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Focus on your conduct, not theirs. Even if they didn't take the matter to the talk page directly, they did at least switch to discussion by tagging their concerns about the addition. —C.Fred (talk) 03:00, 14 April 2020 (UTC)


 * So did I explaining why I was defending the edit. I'm not so much focusing on his conduct as I am focusing on your lack of consistency while handing out warnings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.78.78.148 (talk) 06:18, 14 April 2020 (UTC)


 * No, you did not. You kept making revert upon revert. Plus, I had concerns that, as an unregistered editor, you were unfamiliar with the 3RR brightline rule.
 * If you prefer absolute consistency, though, I will be glad to revert the page to the status quo ante situation and enforce that until a consensus is reached at the talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 13:12, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

your message
It is hard to collaborate when your posts get deleted and then some guy decides to protect the page because his politically correct version is drivel, and he can only protect a page to keep it that way.

Please read the part about the fourth horseman and see where disease is first mentioned!

Per the prophecy the first horseman is "war of conquest", the second is "war for the sake of war" (loot, rape, slaves and simply the love of killing) the third is famine, and the fourth is disease.

Again check the part on the fourth horseman for particularly STUPID language..71.174.129.190 (talk) 23:33, 14 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Per whose interpretation of the prophecy? Remember that you must base your arguments on reliable sources. —C.Fred (talk) 23:45, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

April 2020
Hi, I didn't remove anyone's talk page comment at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring, I only removed my complaint, because I posted it on wrong section. Biainili (talk) 20:06, 19 April 2020 (UTC)


 * @Biainili: You removed your complaint and my response to it. Since it was responded to, you shouldn't remove it. —C.Fred (talk) 23:09, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

question
how can I cancel protection on pages University Gee in Claude (talk) 13:58, 24 April 2020 (UTC)


 * @University Gee in Claude: Which pages? You're better off requesting an edit at the talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 14:00, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Especially if the article in question is one like Muhammad that is a target for vandalism and disruptive editing if unprotected. —C.Fred (talk) 15:17, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Jake Longstreth Wiki
Bruh Pelekalikimaka (talk) 20:07, 26 April 2020 (UTC)


 * @Pelekalikimaka: Burden is on you to attribute the claim and provide the source. —C.Fred (talk) 20:32, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

“Ezra talks Tik Tok's influence on trending songs and schemes to make Jake a sensation on the app.”

https://the-time-crisis-universe.fandom.com/wiki/Episode_118 Pelekalikimaka (talk) 00:46, 27 April 2020 (UTC)


 * And to provide a reliable source. —C.Fred (talk) 01:23, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

category
Can you please help this guy] to differentiate a Singer-Songwriter and a singer, songwriter. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 16:23, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

"The institute for Iran-Eurasia Studies (IRAS)/wiki" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect The institute for Iran-Eurasia Studies (IRAS)/wiki. Since you had some involvement with the The institute for Iran-Eurasia Studies (IRAS)/wiki redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Regards, SONIC  678  02:09, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

What the hell?
You posted this warning

"If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page"

Ahem! All my recent posts are either on a user's talk page or on an article talk page! So what is your REAL problem?71.174.128.111 (talk) 00:16, 30 April 2020 (UTC)


 * It's a standard template for disruption. Frankly, you're lucky I checked to see if your last block had expired and didn't just block you on the spot for admitting to ban evasion. —C.Fred (talk) 00:20, 30 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Go on Fred, let him back, he's fun :) Achar Sva (talk) 00:25, 30 April 2020 (UTC)


 * What block log and where did they admit to evasion? I've blocked them from Talk: for 72 hours. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs) 10:29, 30 April 2020 (UTC)


 * @Doug Weller: On Talk:Book of Daniel, they said "I don't think I'm as arrogant as the people that got me banned for saying Alexander was the Greek general that conquered Persia!" Compare that with the message on User talk:71.174.129.190, "Now banned for saying that the Greek king that conquered Persia was Alexander!!!" I checked the log for that IP: no evidence of a ban, just a 31-hour site block on 14 April for edit warring. —C.Fred (talk) 13:19, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Here's a /23 Ah, I blocked on the 25th noting that the IP said they were banned. I don't think they actually were. Anyway, blocking the range now for 3 days. Doug Weller  talk 13:29, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2020
News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2020). Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Gnangarra • Kaisershatner • Malcolmxl5

CheckUser changes
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg Callanecc

Oversight changes
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg HJ Mitchell

Guideline and policy news
 * Discretionary sanctions have been authorized for all pages and edits related to COVID-19, to be logged at WP:GS/COVID19.
 * Following a recent discussion on Meta-Wiki, the edit filter maintainer global group has been created.
 * A request for comment has been proposed to create a new main page editor usergroup.
 * A request for comment has been proposed to make the bureaucrat activity requirements more strict.

Technical news
 * The Editing team has been working on the talk pages project. You can review the proposed design and share your thoughts on the talk page.
 * created a script that will show a link to the proper Special:Undelete page when viewing a since-deleted revision, see User:Enterprisey/link-deleted-revs.

Miscellaneous
 * A request for comment closed with consensus to create a Village Pump-style page for communication with the Wikimedia Foundation.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:19, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Question
Does this edit violate the Wikipedia policy,"Wikipedians in turn are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a blocked editor (sometimes called proxy editing or "proxying")..."?--Kansas Bear (talk) 17:02, 2 May 2020 (UTC)


 * @Kansas Bear: It ain't good practice, that's for sure. I've left a message to that effect at B's talk page and alerted the other editor about the policy. —C.Fred (talk) 17:33, 2 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Is it odd for someone that has never communicated with Biainili, Preservedmoose has now started editing directly against HistoryofIran? What a "coincidence".


 * Kingdom of Commagene --Preservedmoose first edit 2 May 2020.
 * Mithridates I Callinicus --Preservedmoose first edit 2 May 2020.
 * Antiochus I Theos of Commagene --Preservedmoose first edit 2 May 2020.
 * Sames II Theosebes Dikaios --Preservedmoose first edit 2 May 2020.
 * Ptolemaeus of Commagene --Preservedmoose first edit 2 May 2020.
 * Orontid dynasty --Preservedmoose first edit 28 April 2020.
 * Satrapy of Armenia --Preservedmoose first edit 2 May 2020.


 * I know harassment and proxy editing when I see it. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:06, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * @Kansas Bear: I might suggest filing a report at WP:ANI based on your concerns about their edits. —C.Fred (talk) 22:10, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Your edit today at Cody Ko
I don't know the applicable etiquette, but since I mentioned your edit in a new section at Cody Ko talk page, without pinging you, I thought I'd better advise you here. Hope that's OK. NedFausa (talk) 00:53, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Creating a new Wikipedia Page.
Hello, C. Fred. This message is to inform you that I was hired to create a page for my client. I have already put on my user page that I'm being paid. You can see it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ApplePear97

My client's name is Shalkal Carty. He is a recording artist and feels it is time he had a page about him. If a page is allowed, this is the link he gave me to use a source for information. https://www.cbs19news.com/story/42079927/meet-shalkal-a-renowned-dancehallreggae-artist-and-a-top-notch-lyricist

However, if he's not well known enough to have a page created, I will inform him immediately. I just wanted to do the right thing and inform you of everything before I do any type of editing. ApplePear97 (talk) 16:14, 11 May 2020 (UTC)


 * @ApplePear97: First, that page is a press release, so it does not count as coverage in independent sources for the purposes of WP:GNG. Second, I do not see anything in that article that indicates that he meets WP:NMUSIC. Based on that, I recommend that you do not attempt to create a page for him at this time. —C.Fred (talk) 16:48, 11 May 2020 (UTC)


 * @C.Fred Thank you. I will inform him of this. ApplePear97 (talk) 16:53, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Angela Criss
I noticed you recently blocked indefinitely. However, you did not identify her as a sockpuppet (suspected or otherwise) of, even though the user who originally reported KelseyLawtonTr1 to WP:AIV did so (see here). Given the very probable sock status of KelseyLawtonTr1 I think that you should consider adding a new entry in the block log referencing this and adding the suspected sock template to her userpage. IntoThinAir (talk) 20:58, 12 May 2020 (UTC)


 * @IntoThinAir: I didn't cross-reference the report boards before blocking the user. I saw them causing trouble and blocked them for that directly. —C.Fred (talk) 21:01, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * But thank you for pointing that out. I've adjusted the block and the user page. —C.Fred (talk) 21:04, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Deletion of BakuBoy & Austin Blake
Dear C.Fred,

Please explain the reason of deletion of page BakuBoy & Austin Blake. I created that page years ago in order to support younger artists and let people learn more about them.I don't think if that page violated any rules. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donandres99 (talk • contribs) 17:26, 14 May 2020 (UTC)


 * @Donandres99: They were not notable in 2017, per Articles for deletion/BakuBoy & Austin Blake, and nothing has changed to make them notable now. —C.Fred (talk) 18:54, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

"Vijayaba Nationa School" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Vijayaba Nationa School. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 17 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Regards, SONIC  678  20:22, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Revdel
Hello! Can you revdel this? Thank you for reverting it. Very nasty stuff. Who needs to see that kind of thing? Thanks.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:38, 20 May 2020 (UTC)


 * @ThatMontrealIP: Done. —C.Fred (talk) 02:38, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you kindly!ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:54, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Thirteen Years of Adminship!
<div style="display: flex; align-items: center; height: 50px; padding: 2em 1em 2em 1em; border: solid 3px #2B547E; background-color: #E6E6FA;"> Wishing C.Fred a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Chris Troutman ( talk ) 17:12, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Content dispute at 2019–20 Western Libya offensive
Mr.Fred i'd like to report a certain individual who refuses to allow me to make changes with proof. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucius Corin (talk • contribs) 17:14, 20 May 2020 (UTC)


 * @Lucius Corin: Report on what grounds? You have a content dispute. Take it to the talk page and reach consensus there. —C.Fred (talk) 17:17, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

i'd like you to go and scrutinize every single edit iv edited in that page, im very new here, and being turned against for simply providing facts, please and thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucius Corin (talk • contribs) 17:20, 20 May 2020 (UTC)


 * @Lucius Corin: I see the concerns that have been raised about your edits. I also see that you're citing Twitter feeds. You really need to find better, more reliable sources that Twitter. Based on that, I would suggest self-reverting your last change to 2019–20 Western Libya offensive and working with other editors at Talk:2019–20 Western Libya offensive to find a solution that uses reliable sources. Wikipedia is collaborative: you need to work with other editors, not against them. —C.Fred (talk) 17:29, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Another administrator has protected the article. You will need to work to gather consensus at the talk page. Only once clear consensus is reached will an administrator update the article. —C.Fred (talk) 17:31, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Happy Adminship Anniversary!
<div class="boilerplate metadata" style="background-color:#E6E6FA; border: 1px solid #7D00B3; margin: 0.5em auto; padding: 0.5em; width:90%; text-align: center"> Happy Adminship Anniversary! Have a very happy adminship anniversary on your special day!

Best wishes, CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:51, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Articles for Creation: List of reviewers by subject notice
Hi, you are receiving this notice because you are listed as an active Articles for Creation reviewer.

Recently a list of reviewers by area of expertise was created. This notice is being sent out to alert you to the existence of that list, and to encourage you to add your name to it. If you or other reviewers come across articles in the queue where an acceptance/decline hinges on specialist knowledge, this list should serve to facilitate contact with a fellow reviewer.

To end on a positive note, the backlog has dropped below 1,500, so thanks for all of the hard work some of you have been putting into the AfC process!

Sent to all Articles for Creation reviewers as a one-time notice. To opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page. Regards, (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:35, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Request to undelete/recover "Draft:Perfectmind"
Hey C. Fred,

You're recently speedy deleted the article created with the title Draft:Perfectmind under G11. Would you please kindly share with the draft you deleted? I would like to recover and improve it.

As well, I can't see the point in deleting this one when thousands of other similar pages exist on wikipedia.

Thank you!

PerfectMind Inc. (talk) 19:13, 27 May 2020 (UTC)


 * @PerfectMind Inc.: No. Wikipedia does not have thousands of pages created by employees to promote their employers. —C.Fred (talk) 19:36, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

I disagree, see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CoverMyMeds or even https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HubSpot But we can leave at that, I'm not looking to initiate a full blown argument here.

I'm new to wikipedia, so I'm not super knowledgable on how submitting articles on this platform works exactly. But from what I've gathered, admins can at least restore the deleted articles (drafts)? Would you be able to do that please? I'd like to improve it if possible.

Thank you.

PerfectMind Inc. (talk) 19:41, 27 May 2020 (UTC)


 * @PerfectMind Inc.: If PerfectMind is notable enough for an article (and I didn't even look into that side of it), Wikipedia will be better serve if an unaffiliated editor writes it based on independent, reliable sources. —C.Fred (talk) 19:45, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * And btw, the two articles you mentioned? One was written by a student, based on the timeline on their user page. The other goes back to 2009, so even if it were created by a paid user, the article has been looked at by many independent editors in the interval. (Besides, the paid-user rules were different back then.) —C.Fred (talk) 19:48, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

My edit of the article Cherokee
I changed the punctuation of the term "US" to "U.S." to make the usage throughout the article uniform. Seemed like a harmless change to me. Perhaps I was wrong. Cuprum17 (talk) 21:06, 27 May 2020 (UTC)


 * The usage was universally "US" before you made the change. Usage varied afterward.
 * Arguably, MOS:US requires us to not use periods in that article, because other nation-type entities, like CN, are spelled without periods. —C.Fred (talk) 21:09, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually, there were several instances where the style "U.S." was used before I edited the article. You might want to check the history of the article. Fifth paragraph of the lead. Second paragraph of section "Trail of Tears". Eighth paragraph of section "Trail of Tears". Ninth paragraph of section "Trail of Tears". First paragraph of "Reconstruction and late 19th century". Second paragraph of "Reconstruction and late 19th century", which also uses "US". Third paragraph of the section "Marriage". Third paragraph of the section "Tribal recognition and membership". First paragraph of the section "Cherokee Freedmen". I will leave you to make the changes you desire in the article. Cheers! Cuprum17 (talk) 21:33, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Call me
Dumbass: I thought it meant "Big Nigel". D'oh! —— Serial # 17:29, 28 May 2020 (UTC)


 * @Serial Number 54129: Under other circumstances, I might have given the user benefit of the doubt. However, when their first edit is a known pattern of garden-variety vandalism, it's time to just give them the lovely parting gifts. :) —C.Fred (talk) 17:35, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Please read
Hi, I am replying to your comment on your talk page. I have read through the pages that you recommended me to read. Now, please look at all my edits. You can see I am only adding links that are official websites of the artistes that are the topic of these Wikipedia pages. From what I read, we can't link Wikipedia articles externally to various websites because Wikipedia does not want to be a repository of links. However, from what I read, linking to official websites appears to be a good thing and I am only linking to official websites. Even if these artistes have more than one official site, I am only linking them to one link only, because I understand from what I read that every artiste generally should have no more than one official website. In fact, please check my work and if you agree with me that what I am doing is not wrong, then I would like to ask your permission to continue linking artistes to their official websites. Why am I doing this? Because after every movie or concert on TV, if I don't know who are the actors or singers or bands, I will always look them up on Wikipedia and will always click on their official website link to read more about them. It is my pet peeve if Wikipedia does not have the official link, as I would have to google again to find the official website. You can email me at [redacted] or my talk page, anywhere that is convenient for you, I will be waiting for your green light. Jollysaint (talk) 05:15, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * @Jollysaint: Most of the links you were adding look like they were for official websites. There was one case where you linked to a merchandise store that showed no evidence of being an official site of the subject. That's the link I removed. —C.Fred (talk) 16:15, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

RE:
That templates aren't justified and was added by a probably Philadelphia ip removing sources about Grand Canyon (biased user) in 2017. Thank you for put attention. --Picklespitlizyr (talk) 17:38, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * @Picklespitlizyr: Then please discuss that matter at the article's talk page. And what makes you so sure the user is biased? —C.Fred (talk) 18:42, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Pretexts to justify your sysop actions
Please, don't send retaliatory sysop-style messages, your adminship is a disaster. --Picklespitlizyr (talk) 01:40, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2020
News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2020). Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg CaptainEek • Creffett • Cwmhiraeth
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Anna Frodesiak • Buckshot06 • Ronhjones • SQL

CheckUser changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg SQL

Guideline and policy news
 * A request for comment asks whether the Unblock Ticket Request System (UTRS) should allowed any unblock request or just private appeals.
 * The Wikimedia Foundation that they will develop a universal code of conduct for all WMF projects. There is an open local discussion regarding the same.

Arbitration
 * A motion was passed to enact a 500/30 restriction on articles related to the history of Jews and antisemitism in Poland during World War II (1933–45), including the Holocaust in Poland. Article talk pages where disruption occurs may also be managed with the stated restriction.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:27, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Roomie's birthday
Hello. I saw that you changed his date of birth from 9th to 8th. Why is that? Well, it's because I live in a country where the time zone there is different (Malaysia). That's it. Emotioness Expression (talk) 09:19, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Seffa
There is a "new" editor who keeps adding baseless claims to the article and removing properly sourced content. I would really appreciate it if you could have a word with them. Thanks. M.Bitton (talk) 17:16, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry to bother you again, but a new IP is doing the same thing. Thanks. M.Bitton (talk) 23:00, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

"hosing"
Hi, is hosing some new jargon?  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  22:03, 3 June 2020 (UTC)


 * @WereSpielChequers: Did we edit conflict? The preview I saw showed that I was changing "ghosting" back to "hosting". —C.Fred (talk) 22:05, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think we edit conflicted, we were 18 minutes apart. Perhaps you edit conflicted with an edit that was also rejected by the edit filters? In any event, would you mind reverting yourself or may I do so?  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  22:23, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * @WereSpielChequers: Could be. Whatever happened, I've fixed it. Sorry about the mess. :) —C.Fred (talk) 22:41, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * No problem, strange things sometimes happen here.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  07:12, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Help with Article
Hi, I wanted to ask if this paragraph in the article Rathore is alright.


 * "Some of the Maratha clans claim to be of Rathore origin. However they claim descent from the Somavansha via the Rashtrakutans that belonged to Yaduvansha from Vrishni warrior Satyaki, unlike the Rajput Rathore's who claim descent from the Suryavansha. ".

This person has used a single word from a colonial historian (not sure) and has used other references which define the Yaduvanshi origin of the Rashtrakutas but not of the so called Maratha Rathods. Please do have a look, thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.148.144.254 (talk) 21:11, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Help with Yadav Article
Hello sir, I’m a Wikipedian who is writing this anonymously to you in anticipation of a fair, unbiased help. Dear Sir, I’ve been seeing the Yadav page and edits surrounding it, and there’s a particular person named Sitush who’s been vehemently editing the page and pages related to the community, also additionally the political parties whose leaders belong to this community, and has been reluctantly reverting progressive edits/ updates and has been keenly adamant to show the community in bad light in the name of keeping Wikipedia neutral. He is far from neutrality, and has even used languages which are inappropriate to users who try to add edits to the pages for improvement. Sir, he is acting as an administrator on those pages, imposing administrative warnings and warring every progressive approach on those pages. At several times, he has arguably edited and added conflicting, derogatory statements. Sir, as a free Wikipedian it’s my request to you, please look into this matter. Wikipedia is made by us Wikipedians who work to keep it updated. No person has to be authoritative for a particular caste, or caste related topics, and sir, believe me, I’m writing this because this person has been spreading hate indirectly-specifically targeted at this community. Thank you very much sir. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.148.144.254 (talk) 21:11, 7 June 2020 (UTC)