User talk:C.Fred/Archive 32

Happy New Year, C.Fred!


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

Abishe (talk) 14:55, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

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

Abishe (talk) 14:55, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Mike Johnson ( American Politician)


A tag has been placed on Mike Johnson ( American Politician) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section R3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a recently created redirect from an implausible typo or misnomer, or other unlikely search term.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 17:12, 2 January 2024 (UTC)


 * There's that space between ( and American. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 17:14, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @MJL Yep, I left it as a breadcrumb so the person who moved it would see it. No objection to it being cleaned up. —C.Fred (talk) 18:22, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Erik Paaske
Hi there - I admit I am new to this so thank you for any help you can provde. Why is it now allowed to link directly to primary sources, in this case a church book entry? Trouble at the mill (talk) 18:50, 2 January 2024 (UTC)


 * @Trouble at the mill First, it's a primary source, which is to be avoided except in very limited circumstances. Second, all it does is indicate a person by that name was born that date in that location; there is nothing to link that record to the subject of the article. —C.Fred (talk) 18:56, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Understood, thanks. That being said, as we are dealing with unique names for both subject and parents I would argue that this is indisputable the original church book entry from the Kolding church that recorded the birth of E. Paaske. Trouble at the mill (talk) 19:04, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – January 2024
News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2023).

Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Clovermoss
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg Dennis Brown
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Julia W · Marasmusine · PBS



CheckUser changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Aoidh · HJ Mitchell · Sdrqaz · Spicy · ToBeFree · Vanamonde93 · Z1720
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg Maxim
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Enterprisey · Izno · SilkTork

Oversighter changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Aoidh · Firefly · Sdrqaz · ToBeFree · Z1720
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg Maxim
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Enterprisey · Izno · SilkTork

Arbitration
 * Following the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee:, , , , , , ,.
 * Following a motion, the Arbitration Committee rescinded the restrictions on the page name move discussions for the two Ireland pages that were enacted in June 2009.
 * The arbitration case Industrial agriculture has been closed.

Miscellaneous
 * The New Pages Patrol backlog drive is happening in January 2024 to reduce the backlog of articles in the new pages feed. Currently, there is a backlog of over 13,000 unreviewed articles awaiting review. Sign up here to participate!

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:54, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

User talk:2600:8804:51B:8500:6A05:CAFF:FEE6:3DB4
The ip's talk page needs to be revoked. Untamed1910 (talk) 04:50, 7 January 2024 (UTC)


 * @Untamed1910 If they keep up, they'll lose TPA before too long. —C.Fred (talk) 04:52, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

There was no reason for removing that portrait I changed.
As I perfectly described it is a clearer and more high quality image so the face of the person talked about in the article is more easily discerned. What is the reason for instantly reverting my edit? 2A02:587:5468:2800:29E8:BD2A:59CE:FB12 (talk) 02:06, 10 January 2024 (UTC)


 * As I noted in the edit summary, there is no clear evidence that the image is under a free license. That's why the image is also up for deletion. —C.Fred (talk) 02:07, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It's the official portrait of a prime minister used for half a decade in the entire country. How can it not be under free license? 2A02:587:5468:2800:29E8:BD2A:59CE:FB12 (talk) 02:08, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The Creative Commons license did not exist in 1973, which is the latest possible date for the official portrait to have been taken, yet that's the license it's claimed to be under. That claim is thus patently false. —C.Fred (talk) 02:11, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Alaqua Cox
MOS:ETHNICITY Explicitly says that Native American is not an ethnicity and is allowed to go in the lead. Please stop removing it from the lead of Alaqua Cox. She was born and raised on a reservation and is a member of the Menominee nation. JDDJS ( talk to me  •  see what I've done ) 04:18, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Edit Josh Cahill
None of the provided sources mentions any of the included name. How come the edit isn't accepted? It's not fair to brand it as edit warring.

https://archive.is/WKioM - only mentions Josh Cahill. 2402:D000:8100:A97A:FD03:A31D:4128:1CC8 (talk) 03:49, 21 January 2024 (UTC)


 * It absolutely is. This is the same issue that led to the page being protected before. —C.Fred (talk) 04:08, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2024
News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2024).

Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Red-tailed hawk · Robertsky
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Ameliorate! · Ancheta Wis · Anthony Bradbury (deceased) · Cobi · Ev · Moondyne · Worm That Turned

Bureaucrat changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Worm That Turned



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

Interface administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Enterprisey · Izno

Guideline and policy news
 * An RfC about increasing the inactivity requirement for Interface administrators is open for feedback.

Technical news
 * Pages that use the JSON contentmodel will now use tabs instead of spaces for auto-indentation. This will significantly reduce the page size.

Arbitration
 * Following a motion, the Arbitration Committee adopted a new enforcement restriction on January 4, 2024, wherein the Committee may apply the 'Reliable source consensus-required restriction' to specified topic areas.
 * Community feedback is requested for a draft to replace the "Information for administrators processing requests" section at WP:AE.

Miscellaneous
 * Voting in the 2024 Steward elections will begin on 06 February 2024, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 27 February 2024, 14:00 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
 * A vote to ratify the charter for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is open till 2 February 2024, 23:59:59 (UTC) via Secure Poll. All eligible voters within the Wikimedia community have the opportunity to either support or oppose the adoption of the U4C Charter and share their reasons. The details of the voting process and voter eligibility can be found here.
 * Community Tech has made some preliminary decisions about the future of the Community Wishlist Survey. In summary, they aim to develop a new, continuous intake system for community technical requests that improves prioritization, resource allocation, and communication regarding wishes. Read more
 * The Unreferenced articles backlog drive is happening in February 2024 to reduce the backlog of articles tagged with Unreferenced. You can help reduce the backlog by adding citations to these articles. Sign up to participate!

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:01, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Username and legal threat issues
Hi C.Fred. Would you be willing to take a look at User:AAPS Attorney? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:12, 8 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Also see User talk:Jjjerry14, probably the same person.  Liliana UwU  (talk / contributions) 04:54, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Question about a deleted page
What were you seeing at Draft:Md Mehedi Hasan Prince that I wasn't? To me it looked like someone was trying to draft an article which is what draftspace is for. I didn't really see how it fitted within the realm of G11. The only two red flags that stood out to me were a previously deleted version of the page and how it looked like they were working off of some guide on how to create an article (which could have some good faith reason behind it). So I was just wondering if you could elaborate on your reasoning so I could understand when approaching similar situations myself? Clovermoss 🍀 (talk) 13:07, 10 February 2024 (UTC)


 * @Clovermoss Looking at their username and the title of the draft, it was clear they were trying to write an autobiography. There was no claim of significance, just their website address, so it was pretty clear they were mainly interested in using Wikipedia to promote themselves. —C.Fred (talk) 13:09, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oh, I missed the username. That explains it. Clovermoss 🍀  (talk) 13:09, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

BLP noticeboard concern re: Trivium ex-band member
Hello, could you remove my username from the top of that topic?

Kinda feels weird because it makes it sound like I am an alt of galamity, and that's kinda making me feel uncomfortable.

I feel I made the edits that I did in good faith, supported by what I felt were valid citations. I've undone the edits I made on the various pages (including a couple that I self-reverted) and I won't engage in any edit-war. Joe Capricorn (talk) 19:56, 13 February 2024 (UTC)


 * @Joe Capricorn If you've been added to the report, it's because there's a good-faith concern that you are a party to the situation, especially in light of your low edit count. —C.Fred (talk) 04:44, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I can see how the concern could be brought, since I am not terribly active on Wikipedia, but I am not a party per se, but galamity did message folks on the Metal-Archives discord and I figured I'd look into it. No intention of causing trouble! Joe Capricorn (talk) 05:47, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @Joe Capricorn …but galamity did message folks on the Metal-Archives discord… Quoting from WP:MEATPUPPET: Some individuals may promote their causes by bringing like-minded editors into the dispute, including enlisting assistance off-wiki. These editors are sometimes referred to as meatpuppets… —C.Fred (talk) 11:51, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I see. I guess I interpreted the term "meat puppet" to mean a literal alt, not a separate individual taking a user's side.
 * I did involve myself on my own volition though, and I did tell galamity that edit warring isn't likely to produce a desirable outcome. Joe Capricorn (talk) 15:04, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

What makes you think that
Fangraphs is not an RS? And - for that matter -- that all blogs without exception are not RSs? 2603:7000:2101:AA00:5837:9D9C:6FE8:2843 (talk) 01:55, 20 February 2024 (UTC)


 * WP:RSOPINION and WP:USERG both cover why blogs are not reliable. —C.Fred (talk) 01:57, 20 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Not only are newsblogs potential RSs, but sources may be considered reliable when work in the relevant field by the source has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. Are you suggesting that Fangraphs is not an RS? If so, there are loads of entries that should be deleted at the project. --2603:7000:2101:AA00:5837:9D9C:6FE8:2843 (talk) 02:00, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I am suggesting that the burden is on you to demonstrate that Fangraphs is a reliable source. —C.Fred (talk) 02:01, 20 February 2024 (UTC)


 * And why in the world are your restoring a non-opinion. Asserting as your basis WP:RSOPINION? I don't get it?


 * And you assert that Fangraphs is not an RS. Have you even explored that that is the case? Looked at whether it meets our RS criteria? Notice that it is in the wp template for every single major league baseball player on wikipedia? Are we wasting time here?

It's in 9,655 Wikipedia articles. Is this a joke? --2603:7000:2101:AA00:5837:9D9C:6FE8:2843 (talk) 02:06, 20 February 2024 (UTC)


 * I've not found anything yet that says it is a reliable source, although it is a valid external link to include in articles, particularly for players. —C.Fred (talk) 02:14, 20 February 2024 (UTC)


 * This is in an article for a player! And we only include in that template what the community finds to be RSs.


 * And this is the writer -- https://www.si.com/mlb/astros/author/leo-morgenstern


 * A writer for Inside the Astros and Inside the Phillies on Sports Illustrated. His work has also appeared on Pitcher List, Baseball Prospectus, and SB Nation.


 * And you can read all about Fangraphs at their site and see it meets wp requirements.


 * And you can read at wp's rules how with a writer like this it's PERFECTLY APPROPRIATE to site him. He's cleary a writer in all manner of RSs on this subject.


 * This is a waste of time caused by failure to do mere seconds of checking before reverting. That hurts the project. Assume good faith. 2603:7000:2101:AA00:5837:9D9C:6FE8:2843 (talk) 02:18, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * One, I don't see it in the template or suggested article. Two, not all external links are reliable sources. (Classic case in point: IMDB.) Three, I could not find the Fangraphs masthead to determine who wrote the article in question and, thus, whether it was a reliable source. —C.Fred (talk) 02:19, 20 February 2024 (UTC)


 * What don't you see? That template was formed our baseball experts after much discussion on the project's talk page, which you can find on wp. This isn't IMDB - just read its characteristics on its home page. Also, this is used both in the template and in all manner of articles. The article clearly states who wrote the article in question. I indicated it above. Don't you agree that sources may be considered reliable when work in the relevant field by the source has previously been published by reliable, independent publications? Are you questioning whether Sports Illustrated, for example, is an RS? 2603:7000:2101:AA00:5837:9D9C:6FE8:2843 (talk) 02:26, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Sports Illustrated is a separate discussion outside the scope of this discussion, but as a general statement, historically SI is reliable. Again, you have failed to prevent evidence that Fangraphs is reliable and independent. Further, where is said template? If it's at WP:BASEBALL, it's not anywhere obvious. —C.Fred (talk) 02:28, 20 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Here's a nice discussion about an editor being blocked indefinitely for among other things arguing against consensus that Fangraphs is not an RS, and deleting it. JUst search for Fangraphs on the page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Community_sanction/Archive10


 * And SI is indeed within scope. Because ,, and I asked you if you disagree and you did not .. sources may be considered reliable when work in the relevant field by the source has previously been published by reliable, independent publications? 2603:7000:2101:AA00:5837:9D9C:6FE8:2843 (talk) 02:41, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I need to search the archives to see if there has been a recent discussion on SI in light of the AI incidents. —C.Fred (talk) 12:24, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * And the community sanctions discussion does not address whether Fangraphs is a reliable source, only whether to include it as an external link. There is a difference. —C.Fred (talk) 12:25, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Since there is no clarity on whether FanGraphs columns/blogs/articles are RS, I have escalated this to RSN, at WP:RSN. —C.Fred (talk) 12:42, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Finally, regarding sources may be considered reliable when work in the relevant field by the source has previously been published by reliable, independent publications: The operative word is "may"; it does not imply reliability in all cases. For instance, work by TMZ is widely published by reliable, independent publications, but there is no consensus to deem TMZ itself as reliable. —C.Fred (talk) 12:46, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm confused by your parsing of "may" in context. Of course we won't say "must" or "should" or "had better." Because use of any ref - if it is acceptable - is a matter of choice by the editor considering using the source. Here, may indicates that it is permitted. As in "is permitted to do the following." As in, "you may now withdraw your retirement funds." We can understand this from context. Anyway, as to RSN, if my ability to convince you is not effective, of course that sounds like a great idea. If you are undertain as to whether SI is a reliable source, you may (this is a case of "not permission," in this particular context) wish to post that there also. One last point. You speak of the use of the blog source - which you deleted - being about opinion, not facts. Have you checked? I am not sure that is correct. 2603:7000:2101:AA00:5837:9D9C:6FE8:2843 (talk) 17:17, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Dr. Coal
Hello. I hope this finds you well. There is a User from the Turkish Wiki you deleted due to vandalism back in 2021, Dr. Coal. He is back and accusing me of Sockpuppetry even though I am innocent. He is vandalizing pages I have made and took time to edit. I have no objections to a sockpuppet investigation opened on me, I have had two in the past and I have no problem whatsoever with a third, but the way he is handling it is extremely unprofessional. Kindly advice. Serrwinner (talk) 21:58, 25 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Hi C.Fred!
 * I hope you're doing fine. I wanted to share some insights regarding the message above.
 * Firstly, as far as I'm concerned, sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry may not have found place here on en.wiki but I think keeping this in mind should be of help in the future. In this regard, IP check is not always useful since it's absolutely -and unfortunately- no big deal to get over, especially when it comes to meatpuppetry. The user already stated here: "A random guy sent me an email (which I have been receiving over the last year or so asking for help) asking me to help out and check out his page." There is no way to be certainly sure of it, but even this single statement makes suspicion of a puppetry "reasonable". So, this is not a thought I make up myself. By the way, it could mean more if I told you that the user created the "almost same article" (impossible to be coincidental) in Turkish on tr.wiki which other puppets also had and was first created on the 5th of February. Even an IP user told here that the person, subject of the article, asked for help to get the article created. Anyways, I wanted to explain this part so you wouldn't get a false impression about my acts.
 * The article in hand is Yasin Şöhret. You see, it was moved to draft and then came back to main page etc. Even wrote here: "I think you have done a good job with the improvements, but others may not agree -- many are harsher than I am!" Tags regarding notability and sources build the context of this message. So, as someone who saw the article both in Turkish and in English, and whose native language is Turkish, I found the sources not satisfying since they were either primary or not "about" the subject, such as listing the subject's name or mentioning incidentally. This last correspondence between me and  shows that they might not be able to understand Turkish since they were able to challenge their ban on tr.wiki which is written on their talk page on tr.wiki and apparently didn't know (understand) that. If that's the case, I think I have the right to ask, how they can be so sure that the subject is notable and sources prove it? Because they should be sure to remove the tags three times (1, 2, 3) without saying anything about the tags' (in)legitimacy? Far from doing this, they told repeatedly (1, 2: "STOP DELETING THESE you vandal", 3) what I did was vandalism. How could they call it vandalism if they have no idea about the content of the sources they added? They told "there are tons of secondary sources" and this is exactly what "refbomb" is about. Either way, I don't think it was appropriate to remove the tags without saying anything about it, especially regarding what Ldm1954 told them only 3 days ago.
 * Even though I deleted the article on tr.wiki, I just wanted to tag it here since our guidelines in this regard may somewhat differ, and it would be the best if the community here on en.wiki oversee it.
 * Please accept my sincere apologies for the headache I caused. I hope to get in touch in the future for nicer reasons.
 * Best,
 * Dr. CoalMessage 23:23, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately Dr. Coal has misrepresented my discussion with Serrwinner about Yasin Şöhret. I worked with Serrwinner to improve the article after I draftified it. I think he has done a reasonable job, and had the option to either go via WP:AfC or create himself so it goes through new page review. He chose the latter.
 * IMHO notability is not something that Dr. Coal should be questioning until others have reviewed his contributions and he has New Page reviewer rights or more. I think his various edits (which Serrwinner has been reverting) are inappropriate. Leave it to the New Page reviewer. Ldm1954 (talk) 23:43, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for explaining this, . I didn't know that such a user group exists and they would do it if necessary.
 * However, my edits in hand which were reverted cannot be described as "vandalism" and the essence of disagreement still stands. I'm at least glad that I might have drawn attention for further inspection.
 * Best,
 * Dr. CoalMessage 23:59, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @Serrwinner Please clarify your statement that I deleted (sic) this user due to vandalism in 2021. What was their prior account, if they were blocked then? —C.Fred (talk) 01:00, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi again,
 * It's just a misunderstanding. As I told Serrwinner here, you deleted my userpage in 2021.
 * Best,
 * Dr. CoalMessage 01:29, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Ahhh. *checks archives* Yes. User:Dr. Coal was the target of a vandal's attack. I deleted the page to remove the grossly inappropriate attack from the history. I suppose I should consider the possibility that Dr. Coal is the target of an attack again, yes? —C.Fred (talk) 12:42, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Dear C.Fred,
 * I'm truly sorry that I intervene this much, but there seems to be another misunderstanding now. Let me explain what it is all about by breaking it into small pieces. (Details already above.)
 * I tried to tag the article "Yasin Şöhret" (See history) in terms of notability concerns.
 * Serrwinner thought (and told) that it was vandalism. (Diff links above.)
 * They came to my user / user talk page (obviously) and saw that you deleted my user page once.
 * They completely misunderstood it and thought I was blocked by you because of vandalism.
 * They wrote here so to imply that I was back and vandalising, which is completely inaccurate.
 * I hope I could be of help to figure things out.
 * Best,
 * Dr. CoalMessage 14:07, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @Dr. Coal It looks like the AfD is proceeding based on the merits of the article's sources. —C.Fred (talk) 20:19, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Unfortunately that was not the case at the time of all this correspondence. My sincere apologies again...
 * Best,
 * Dr. CoalMessage 20:32, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @Dr. Coal It looks like the AfD is proceeding based on the merits of the article's sources. —C.Fred (talk) 20:19, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Unfortunately that was not the case at the time of all this correspondence. My sincere apologies again...
 * Best,
 * Dr. CoalMessage 20:32, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Dr. CoalMessage 20:32, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Haplgroup F
Hi I just wanted to talk about haplgroup F. Someone edited it recently just to remove text and changed the orgins of haplgroup F to west Asia with older sources. purposly targeting to remove South Asia from the text https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Haplogroup_F-M89&diff=prev&oldid=1199832154&title=Haplogroup_F-M89&diffonly=1 also originally you see it says South Asia orgins. With sources https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Haplogroup_F-M89&diff=prev&oldid=1156823998&title=Haplogroup_F-M89&diffonly=1

these are nationalist from iran purposly not wanting to expose to the world that haplgroup F orgins being in South Asia.

as you can see in this edit sources that mention South Asia where removed which you reverted https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Haplogroup_F-M89&diff=prev&oldid=1107888044&title=Haplogroup_F-M89&diffonly=1

Here you can see recently they edited by another user into west Asia to remove South Asia on purpose using older sources. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Haplogroup_F-M89&diff=prev&oldid=1199832344&title=Haplogroup_F-M89&diffonly=1 Zishan12345 (talk) Zishan12345 (talk) 08:36, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2024
News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2024).

Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Sdkb · The Night Watch
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg East718 · Isabelle Belato · Mzajac · Staecker · Stan Shebs · Sugarfish · Tamzin



Bureaucrat changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg SilkTork

Guideline and policy news
 * Phase I of the 2024 RfA review is now open for participation. Editors are invited to review, comment on, and propose improvements to the requests for adminship process.
 * Following an RfC, the inactivity requirement for the removal of the interface administrator right increased from 6 months to 12 months.

Technical news
 * The mobile site history pages now use the same HTML as the desktop history pages.

Miscellaneous
 * The 2024 appointees for the Ombuds commission are だ＊ぜ, AGK, Ameisenigel, Bennylin, Daniuu, Doǵu, Emufarmers, Faendalimas, MdsShakil, Minorax, Nehaoua, Renvoy and RoySmith as members, with Vermont serving as steward-observer.
 * Following the 2024 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: Ajraddatz, Albertoleoncio, EPIC, JJMC89, Johannnes89, Melos and Yahya.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:21, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Is it okay if you check my work on 2,000 zlotych note?
I just published the page 2,000 złotych note, and I want you to check it. PolskiSlaskiegokowa! (talk) 15:13, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for expanding my ancestors Wikipedia page
Thank you for expanding the Wikipedia page of Samuel Jordan. My Family respects the work you guys put in to help it.- The Jordan's 2601:244:8300:48C0:9C7D:8148:6B3E:740F (talk) 04:57, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

I apologize
Dear C.Fred, I'm deeply sorry for engaging in an edit war. I am just deeply passionate about following the rules and I got carried away (plus I'm still pretty new here). I will never do it again. Autisticeditor 20 (talk) 22:32, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Permission to add files of all banknotes of old Polish złoty, counterfeit and old legal tender. (from 10 to 500,000,000 złotych.)
I apoligize for the copyright issue at the 2,000 złotych files, and forgot to ask permission. I want to reupload those files and TRY to follow the copyright rules. I am right now in the process of making a 5,000 złotych note draft.

Thank you.

Sincerely and apologetically, PolskiSlaskiegokowa! (aka in real life Marek Cholewicki.) PolskiSlaskiegokowa! (talk) 01:08, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

About BlueSpectre5
This new editor appears to have WP:COMPETENCY issues, in addition to the test edits at WP:RPPI, they insist that their articles are ready for mainspace when the articles clearly are not. Example: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Supercard_of_Honor_(2024)&diff=prev&oldid=1213838494  –Skywatcher68 (talk) 13:59, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Is it okay if you check my work on 5,000 złotych note draft?
Just finished Draft:5,000 złotych note. Can you check it? PolskiSlaskiegokowa! (talk) 11:29, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Edit summary
Hello C.Fred, can you hide this revision edit summary? Thanks. Wooze (talk) 02:47, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Tessa Violet's DOB
Hi @C.Fred, I saw that you reverted the changes to that I made in regards to Tessa Violet's date of birth. You claimed that the cited source that uses for the information wasn't a reliable source. To the best of my knowledge, It should follow all the relevant guidelines and I got the approval of @Toddst1 to use the source (see User talk:Toddst1). I would prefer not to continue to have an editing battle with Wikipedia admin over this, so can you explain why the source is "unreliable" in this instance? Madalyn the Rose (talk) 02:28, 23 March 2024 (UTC)


 * @Madalyn the Rose The source is user-generated content, since it derives from contributions by general editors. Such sources are generally unacceptable. —C.Fred (talk) 05:18, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thats a strange title to give someone like you. InsurgentOwl (talk) 02:11, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

I am a human being.

 * @InsurgentOwl What's your question? —C.Fred (talk) 02:12, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

About accepting a wikipage edit
Hello sir,

Myself Dharmarajsinh, we had talked yesterday if you remember. So as in our wikiproject, one of my colleague Jayesh gohel1111 have done editing of wikipage Breast Cancer, where in types of cancers he added some information about Krukenberg's Tumour and also a image related to it and also made proper citation and reference

But the edit is not normally seen now, it shows that it need to be accepted so only it would be further seen.Can you do something about it sir ? Rathod Dharmarajsinh (talk) 10:12, 29 March 2024 (UTC)


 * @Rathod Dharmarajsinh Taking a look at the Breast cancer article, the edits in question have, correctly, been reverted by another editor as being unrelated to the topic of breast cancer. Krukenberg tumors have their own article, as was noted in the edit summary of the revert. —C.Fred (talk) 13:05, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

List of substances used in rituals
I hope this message finds you well. I wanted to touch base regarding the recent changes made to List of substances used in rituals. I noticed that some of the work I had put in was reverted without prior discussion. I understand that we all have different perspectives and approaches, and I value collaboration and open communication in our team. In the future, I kindly request that we discuss any significant changes before implementing them to ensure alignment and avoid any unintentional setbacks. Clear communication is key to our success, and I believe that by working together and sharing our thoughts, we can achieve even better results. I appreciate your understanding and look forward to discussing this further with you. Thank you for your attention to this matter. --94.255.152.53 (talk) 03:16, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Kali Muscle revert
I went ahead and reverted your revert. No context has changed. Look at the diff before assuming/reverting things. 05:22, 31 March 2024 (UTC)


 * @Brenr I did. The "known professionally as" clause makes clear that it's a stage name. Leading with the "Kali Muscle" name implies that it's a legal name. It's a subtle thing with biographies, but it makes a difference. —C.Fred (talk) 12:29, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * See Kanye West for an example. Also, you're reverting wikilinks and formatting that is not related to the reason of your revert. 17:09, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * See another example, Lil Wayne. I also fixed the Person infobox, so please refrain from further edits. 17:13, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2024
News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2024).



Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Kbdank71 · Kosack · NrDg · TLSuda

Guideline and policy news Technical news Arbitration Miscellaneous
 * An RfC is open to convert all current and future community discretionary sanctions to (community designated) contentious topics procedure.
 * The Toolforge Grid Engine services have been shut down after the final migration process from Grid Engine to Kubernetes.
 * An arbitration case has been opened to look into "the intersection of managing conflict of interest editing with the harassment (outing) policy".
 * Editors are invited to sign up for The Core Contest, an initiative running from April 15 to May 31, which aims to improve vital and other core articles on Wikipedia.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:47, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Corey Rutgers Wikipedia page
Hi. I was asked by Corey Rutgers to create a proper profile page with the text that he provided me. One of the first things I had to do, was remove the auto-redirect to his Wikipage, as it transferred it directly to Belgian Cricket team page. Naturally, this is not helpful for Corey, as it basically by-passes his biog which I have now set up on his behalf. I have included a link to the Belgian Cricket team in his biog. Anglobreton (talk) 19:22, 2 April 2024 (UTC)


 * @Anglobreton Thank you for disclosing your conflict of interest. This is all the more reason you should not attempt to create a page. I'll follow up at your talk, but in short, since the community has already deemed him not notable, I'll be moving your draft to draft space. —C.Fred (talk) 20:11, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is COI and possible legal threats at Bennett S. LeBow (BLP). Thank you. Wracking talk! 04:54, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Sorry
His last words were not said by him, but by John I of Johnsburg instead, who also happened to be a Nazi. So, I confused the two. It will not happen again, thank you.

- TrueReveration TrueReveriation (talk) 01:24, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

John Paul (scientist)
Hi. Thank you for commenting on the speedy deleted article. I'm a beginner on Wikipedia. I spent months writing an article then hours editing the article in response to comments made by Wikipedia editors. It was about a scientist who worked in Scotland and was deceased at the end of last century. I still am not sure how it breaches copyright violations but certainly no-one stands to gain in any way, publicity or otherwise from the article. I would prefer not to have to rework the entire article. Is there not an old copy of it on Wikipedia somewhere? Gcwcd (talk) 16:38, 9 April 2024 (UTC)


 * P.S. Thanks for being available to talk. I doesn't seem possible to talk to the person who speedy deleted it. Gcwcd (talk) 16:40, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Gcwcd As I noted, the old copy was speedy deleted because of copyright concerns. It is still in the system archive and accessible by administrators. You can ask at WP:Requests for undeletion if somebody is willing to mail you a copy of the text. I don't email old text myself. —C.Fred (talk) 17:14, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi C. Fred. Thank you very much for sending on this WP:Request for undeletion link.  As a beginner this was quite a shock.  I will make a request that someone can email a copy of the text.  This is good news that I can request this. Gcwcd (talk) 17:22, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

World Runners Association disruption moved to other articles
Hi C.Fred, the disruption has moved to Russ Cook and Project Africa. mostly by an IP who is adding their own commentary to the articles (ex. and ). Can you please watchlist them and keep an eye out? S0091 (talk) 17:34, 12 April 2024 (UTC)


 * @S0091 The Cook article had made my radar; Project Africa is on it now. —C.Fred (talk) 02:14, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Deletion of an addition to Franklyn Harvey's Wikipedia page on 24 February 2024
I was surprised as the de-facto executor of Franklyn Harvey's estate to discover the other day that you have deleted my catalogue of contributions Franklyn made under the Publications heading of his page without notifying me. You seem to have implied that they were not sourced. Yet you have not removed two of the three publications above my addition which do not have links and therefore presumably "not sourced". I have copies of all of these referred works/contracts and many of them are already stored in the archives of Concordia University in Montreal. They are not digitized and not online and I don't believe the organizations he worked with would necessarily want their internal documents made public. The list is an effort to demonstrate the broad impact Franklyn had on a wide range of NGOs and was taken from a copy of his resume that he distributed while working as a consultant. I have added the list again and would ask that if you are going to delete them you at least advise me of your action and suggest why you are taking such action. Bthomson (talk) 16:33, 15 April 2024 (UTC)


 * @Bthomson Wikipedia is not a CV. We do not need a catalogue of community consulting projects that Harvey undertook. Further, if the projects were not written about in independent sources, they may not be significantly notable to be included. Finally, thank you for declaring your conflict of interest with Harvey; based on that, you should refrain from directly editing the article. —C.Fred (talk) 19:32, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * So as the holder of Franklyn's library and historical work I am not eligible to make his contributions to world development public? Bthomson (talk) 20:33, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Certainly not. That is not the purpose of Wikipedia. We aspire to be a compilation of published information from impartial reliable sources unrelated to the subject of the article. (That is not "Franklyn Harvey's Wikipedia page" but rather an article in Wikipedia, an online encyclopedia, about Franklyn Harvey.) "an effort to demonstrate the broad impact Franklyn had on a wide range of NGOs" is pretty much a taxtbook example of the kind of promotion which has no place here, no matter how admirable you deem his contributions to have been.-- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  20:55, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Gurdeep Singh Deepa
Hi Can you explain the reason for restoring this source here. It looks lika a Self published book, which failed to verify the information provided. Regards Sid95Q (talk) 10:27, 16 April 2024 (UTC)


 * @Sid95Q The appearance was the article was undergoing death by 1,000 paper cuts. Had your explanation of a self-published source been in an edit summary, I'd have left your edit intact; without that context, it looked like part of the pattern of what was going on last night. As a result of your explanation, I have re-removed the source. —C.Fred (talk) 10:53, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Request action
An editor you recently warned posted material that contained personal information about me. It's been oversighted (love those guys) but I'd appreciate some sort of action being taken. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:36, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Reversion of Utah Historical State Flag Image
Regarding the question of the ratio of 5:8 vs. 3:5, the long-standing dimensions of the Historical State Flag are 5:8. The new 'Beehive Flag', which is now the primary State Flag is a 3:5 ratio. The UT State Code does not specify this, but these are the actual ratios used which are commercially produced. The previous versions of this page never cited the ratio.

Please revert your edit.

Respectfully, Trace Trace.estes (talk) 21:47, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

April 28, 2024
I would recommend that you thoroughly check the original "sources" on the List of Kenan & Kel episodes page. My edits were made with completely good intentions and good faith, as literally every source online about the show cites the airdates I provided as being the original airdates for the episodes. Also, some episodes are listed completely out of order and do not match up with the order in which the episodes originally aired on television. It would be nice if I were able to freely provide my knowledge of this show without all of my work being constantly reverted. SLSmith96 (talk) 02:38, 29 April 2024 (UTC)


 * @SLSmith96 I did check the sources. For instance, the source cited for the airdate of "The Tainting of the Screw" supports the October 25 airdate. Not only did you change the airdate, but you failed to cite any source to support your change. Accordingly, your edit violates WP:Verifiability. —C.Fred (talk) 10:19, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2024
News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2024).

Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg Nyttend
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg JohnOwens · Killiondude · MelanieN · Nihonjoe

Bureaucrat changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Nihonjoe



CheckUser changes
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg Joe Roe

Oversight changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg GeneralNotability

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

Technical news
 * Partial action blocks are now in effect on the English Wikipedia. This means that administrators have the ability to restrict users from certain actions, including uploading files, moving pages and files, creating new pages, and sending thanks. T280531

Arbitration
 * The arbitration case Conflict of interest management has been closed.

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

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

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

Removals by User: Kautilya3
Hi, could you please kindly check if these removals, by user: Kautilya3, fall under the category of vandalism? I find these removals really disruptive but I am not interested in edit war.

Thank you. - MainBody (talk) 11:46, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Imam al-Quduri
Here is the reference that he was a Maturidi.

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


 * @Muslim Bonaparte I don't see anything in the translated text that says he was a Maturidi (unless it was mangled in the automated translation). Further, how does this particular mosque meet the definition of a reliable source? —C.Fred (talk) 15:55, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

IP editor talk page abuse
The editor behind continues to post random article-like content on their talk page, in defiance of your last warning. Just thought you should be aware. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 17:55, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Saba Moeel
Hi C. Fred. I would like to contest my name being used without my consent on Kool A.D's page. I do not wish to be associated with that person, and would like mention of me and my child removed. Will it be possible to mention whatever details of his personal life in vague terms, without attaching my name to his. Thank you for your message. 2601:644:500:A380:2917:E31E:B00F:B58D (talk) 04:53, 15 May 2024 (UTC)


 * There are two issues here. First, there's no way I can determine that you are that person, so I have to assume your request is from a random user on the internet. You would have to contact the Volunteer Response Team by email to credential yourself. Even then, they might not take action on the content.
 * The other option would be to start a discussion at the biographies of living people noticeboard about inclusion of the name. The problem there is that the discussion would draw more attention to the name and a possible Streisand effect about its omission. —C.Fred (talk) 11:56, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Reverting edits on Snell's law
I saw you reverted my edits in the article on Snell's law. After I've made my edits (a week or so) I noticed to my surprise that an edit war broke out by people of whom I had previously no knowledge of. Although it's not entirely clear to my as to why my edits have been reverted, I'm perfectly willing to engage in a discussion about it on the talk page. However, for some reason I have been accused by two people now of being one of the people who engaged in this edit war, even though I had nothing to do with this. Moreover, the users who are accusing me of "evading my block" (even though I never had one), are now completely unwilling to engage in a discussion on the talk page. In short: what the hell is going on here? GoneWithThePuffery (talk) 17:03, 13 May 2024 (UTC)


 * @GoneWithThePuffery Your edits were far enough back in history that I hadn't looked at them. As for the sockpuppetry, I don't see your prior comments about Snell's law, particularly the four sources comment that you alluded to. —C.Fred (talk) 19:32, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @C.Fred, my prior comments about Snell's law? What are you talking about? I only made an edit, nothing controversial, substantiated by proper sources and suddenly I'm treated as if I did something wrong. The comments about those four sources alluded to: "not reflecting the sources". As many of those sources are redundant. Why is this related to "sockpuppetry"?
 * So again my question: I made an edit in good faith, with proper sources and I have two people who are unwilling to engage in a discussion and even accusing me of "evading a block". Once more: what the hell is going on here? GoneWithThePuffery (talk) 19:40, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @GoneWithThePuffery I misread your comment. I thought you had previously mentioned the four-citation issue; instead, I see you're adding it to your previous comments. —C.Fred (talk) 20:34, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @C.Fred I'm asking something completely different, but you keep talking about some comment that is not relevant for this matter. I made a perfectly legitimate substantiated edit a while ago and you reverted it back. Why? On top of that, I'm now being accused by two muppets of something I didn't do. Why are you participating in this nonsense? GoneWithThePuffery (talk) 20:46, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @GoneWithThePuffery I am participating because of the edit war; I took the administrative action of rolling back to the pre–edit war, status quo ante version. As to your edits, I did not revert them; they must have been reverted some time between March 26 (when you made the edit) and May 11 (the version I rolled back to). As for the conduct of the other editors, mind your own comments to make sure you don't stray into personal attacks, but if they're persistently making such accusations, please provide me a diff of their comments to help me find and evaluate it. —C.Fred (talk) 01:55, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * After checking the logs, I don't see where your edit has been reverted at all. It's still intact. —C.Fred (talk) 02:01, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Please note that this editor has edited the article while being logged out, which they confessed themselves. I have no problem with discussing the matter at Talk:Snell' law if they bring another rationale than "to put four (!) sources behind one claim looks quite ridiculous" ... Best. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  12:34, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I already raised my point, but you had the audacity to start crying on my talk page over uncivil behavior, even when you're the one who started the uncivil behavior. GoneWithThePuffery (talk) 17:09, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * No it's not. You have reverted everything. I can see it because if I revert your last edit on that page I have the exact page after my changes.
 * A personal attack? What are you talking about? These people are objectively muppets. They are accusing me with no evidence at all of something I didn't do. There's no assumption of good faith and no use of civil behavior BY THEM in the first place. GoneWithThePuffery (talk) 17:08, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @GoneWithThePuffery The bulk of my revert is to revert changes made by . I'm afraid I don't understand your statement about having the exact page after your changes; are you implying that you made the changes attributed to Casteiswrong? If not, please specify exactly which edits you're claiming as yours. —C.Fred (talk) 19:34, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * "The law was eventually named after the Dutch mathematician and astronomer Willebrord Snellius (1580–1626), who discovered the law of refraction and wrote down its mathematical form. Even though the Persian scientist Ibn Sahl never explicitly stated the sine law, it has been argued by Roshdi Rashed that Ibn Sahl was the first to discover the law at Baghdad court in 984.   In the manuscript On Burning Mirrors and Lenses, Sahl used the law to derive lens shapes that focus light with no geometric aberration. "
 * And:
 * "Thomas Harriot claimed to know the law in 1602, but did not publish his results as he claimed ill health prevented him from putting it explicitly into a form suitable for publication (although he had corresponded with Kepler on the subject)."
 * ....are the edits I made at that page. They are not made by Casteiswrong, since he is (as far as I know) completely against including anything from Rashed (he simply denies Ibn Sahl having knowledge of the law of refraction). I'm not against that at all. I'm merely of the opinion that the only person who analyzed these works by Ibn Sahl in their original form is Rashed. So all the other secondary and tertiary sources are referring to Rashed. In that light, it's necessary in my view to explicitly refer to him. (Not in the least considering the fact that I know Rashed's views are somewhat controversial.)
 * Apart from these edits I merely deleted 3 of the 4 sources (per WP:OVERCITE), because they were referring to the same point (they are completely redundant...). GoneWithThePuffery (talk) 22:38, 14 May 2024 (UTC) GoneWithThePuffery (talk) 22:38, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * To add one more thing: I did initially removed "Ibn Sahl law", because I couldn't find sources that are explicitly referring to the law of refraction as such (usually it's either the law of refraction, Snell's law or the Descartes-Snell law). However, it turns out that there were indeed some sources that referred to that, and ever since I'm fine with it (I just think that four of the same kind of sources is an overcitation...). GoneWithThePuffery (talk) 22:54, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @GoneWithThePuffery Found it, and the sequence around it is telling. The edit was made by an IP on 7 May and reverted by Hu on 11 May. Thony C restored it, and Hu removed it again. The reasonable conclusion, based on behaviour, is that the IP and Thony C are the same individual. At that point, a new account, Casteiswrong, picks up the edit warring. It's not unreasonable to assume that the IP and Caste are the same person. Jump ahead to 14 May, and right after Caste is blocked, you jump into the fray. My point is this: there are enough dots that it's not unreasonable to connect you to the other two accounts. It may have been an incorrect accusation, but that doesn't mean it was a bad faith accusation.
 * Now, I'm going to be blunt. You're probably aware that your actions are under discussion at WP:AN. Anything short of your best behaviour toward other editors is likely to get you shown the door for some period of time. But it sounds like you know the material and can contribute to the article (and probably others). Limit your discussions at Talk:Snell's law to only the content of the article—what sources say, what the article says, whether the sources cited repeat the same information and might be redundant. Stay calm and stay focused on just the content. Even if you feel like you get insulted, stay calm. That's a professional technique I've learned as a sports official: the more unhinged a coach gets in an argument, the calmer we stay. That way, it's obvious by their actions which of the two parties is the rational one. —C.Fred (talk) 00:56, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Further, while "sockpuppet" has a specific meaning on Wikipedia—and has been advised to make sure there is evidence before throwing that accusation around—"muppet" has no such meaning. Thus, we're left with the dictionary meaning of an "incompetent, foolish, or stupid person"—which is a clear personal attack. —C.Fred (talk) 19:37, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I disagree with this. Accusing people of "evading a block" is an attack on the sincerity of my edits. Also Wikaviani comments with regard to me not being here "to build an encyclopedia", even though I took the time to add and reread sources to complement the sentences, is personal. The same can be said about Hu741f4, who also accused me of being someone else, and who arrogantly said I didn't improve the article. It's unbelievable since this guy probably didn't even read what I had written (he keeps referring to a previous discussion where I had no part in...).
 * The situation is now quite absurd. You have two people who are dictating really everything that's going on in that article, and at the moment they are completely unwilling to engage in a discussion. This Hu741f4 guy is merely calling my edits "disruptive", which is probably his way of saying that he doesn't agree with it. GoneWithThePuffery (talk) 22:46, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Hey, since you were involved in this issue, I think it's fair to let you know that I reported GWTP to ANI for continued edit-warring and personal attacks. I don't think that my initial mistake allows this editor to behave like they do. For the records, I would perfectly understand if you decided to stay out of this mess and I am not expecting you to intervene if you don't want to. Best. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  15:17, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * You really have some nerve. Started attacking me and now complaining after you receive a reaction. I'm sorry, but "this mess" has been started by your rude and shortsighted behavior. GoneWithThePuffery (talk) 15:22, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * You should really try to avoid attacking people and edit-warring if you you want to contribute in a constructive manner. Yes, I made a mistake, not the first one and very likely not the last one. But this is not a reason to behave like you do, ignoring WP:CONSENSUS, WP:CIVIL, WP:BRD and so on. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  15:32, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I have never in my life seen a person acting so hypocritical as you. Seriously, who are you to lecture me on WP:CIVIL? Who are you to lecture me on "avoid attacking people"? If you don't want these kind of reactions, then in the future you should do something about your own aggressive attitude. I made a comment on the talk page to discuss matters concerning the content, you ignored everything (as you're still doing) and started to harass me on my talk page. And now you're complaining when there comes a reaction? GoneWithThePuffery (talk) 17:06, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

equest clarification on "director"
Hi @C.Fred, Benjamin Freidenberg is a film director, as it says everywhere. He's involved in many other things but as for director, it's in film. Can you delete the clarification or should I do anything else? Li-reg (talk) 21:10, 21 May 2024 (UTC)


 * @Li-reg The problem is that one of the sources says Mirren will appear at the Jerusalem Cinematheque on June 22 to discuss her life and career with the director, Benjamin Freidenberg. The way this reads, it indicates that Freidenberg is director of the museum, not a film director. —C.Fred (talk) 21:12, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * well he is only a film director and I cant ask her to change is.. maybe she wrote it like that since he is very well known in Israel film industry so it sounded right for her... what should I do know, remove this? to be honest it reads ok for me but it's just me.. Li-reg (talk) 21:17, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

CIR for copyvio and caption
I think has demonstrated a lack of competency in their blowing way past 3RR to restore a copyright violation and non-English caption. Is a block warranted? ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:27, 22 May 2024 (UTC)


 * @Pbritti I'm taking a look at the St. Aloysius University situation right now. That plus the image is...I'm not sure if I want to call it CIR or disruptive, but it's a net negative to the project. —C.Fred (talk) 18:45, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Pbritti This edit says more than I can say. —C.Fred (talk) 19:06, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Frustrating. Thanks for offering your help. I can file a report if you'd like. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:20, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Pbritti Eh, even without Google Translate rendering it, they crossed a line. —C.Fred (talk) 20:59, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Irfan Ajvazi
Hello, C.Fred,

Guess what article got moved back to main space? Liz Read! Talk! 07:17, 26 May 2024 (UTC)


 * @Liz Guess what just got a G4 tag back. As I told the creator, if he declines my offer of help, then it's on with deletion. —C.Fred (talk) 13:13, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Re: Palm Springs Air Museum
I posted a reply to you on the Talk page for Palm Springs Air Museum on May 24 and have received no response. It appears no one is weighing in from your request for other opinions. I also have seen no response from @ Drmies. Please advise what steps I need to take. Thank you. @BellamyBell BellamyBell (talk) 01:59, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I had no idea because you didn't ping me. Drmies (talk) 02:01, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

C.Fred - Vandalism help
I would ask for you to please objectively look at "Toa Noadhiki05's" "reliably sourced content" which he refuses to defend other than saying it applies. I have provided numerous direct reliable sources from the Blue Dog Platform. This person has an opinion as many people do and is sitting on this article insisting it is fact using the opinions of others. It should be changed to "Center". I can provide all my sources and evidence in detail as to why "Center-Left" does not apply to this grouping. Thank you. Minnesotawaterballer (talk) 23:54, 28 May 2024 (UTC)


 * @Minnesotawaterballer What do you mean by "direct" reliable sources? As a general rule, we go by what third parties say about groups, not what groups say about themselves. —C.Fred (talk) 23:56, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I provided evidence of what other third party groups say about them as well. How can I further get consensus? Minnesotawaterballer (talk) 23:58, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Minnesotawaterballer Let's see how the discussion proceeds. —C.Fred (talk) 02:20, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Edit request
hello, @C.Fred sir. Please add my edit request to Yadav and Ahir article. In the 1881 census records of the British Empire it is stated that the Yadavs, who in their turn are identified with the Gaulis (Gwalas) and Ahirs, were the dominant race at that time. Hcsrctu (talk) 02:45, 29 May 2024 (UTC)


 * @Hcsrctu I don't see a request at Talk:Ahir, nor is it clear exactly what you're suggesting should be inserted. I don't see you active at Talk:Yadav in the last few weeks at all. —C.Fred (talk) 02:55, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * You can add this edit request to Ahir article. Thanks. Hcsrctu (talk) 03:00, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Hcsrctu Do you need assistance in making a request? I don't see a clear request of what you think should be changed. Further, I'm not inclined to change the article based on the source mentioned in that discussion without discussion by editors with more subject familiarity and a consensus among them to proceed. —C.Fred (talk) 03:04, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * You can see the discussion, as per the discussion, it was proposed to merge the content of the Ahirs as Yadavs into the Ahir article but Ahirs as Yadavs was merged by an editor without adding content to the Ahir article. I request you to please add the content of Ahirs as Yadavs article to Ahir article. Thanks. Hcsrctu (talk) 03:20, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Hcsrctu That's a completely different request from what you indicated before. Please sort out what you're trying to accomplish before making a request; I don't want to keep guessing what it is you're trying to do. —C.Fred (talk) 03:38, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @C.Fred, Actually Ahir and Yadav are two names of the same community, but both these words have been misinterpreted in these articles. The article has misrepresented the relationship between Ahir and Yadav and that Ahirs adopted the name Yadav in the 19th century, This is completely wrong because in the British census of 1881, Yadavs were clearly identified with Ahirs. So how can Ahirs adopted the Yadav name in the 19th century? Therefore, I want that section ==Ahirs as Yadavas== should be added in this Ahir article. Thanks. Hcsrctu (talk) 09:56, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @C.Fred You can pick up Ahirs as Yadavs contents from here . Thanks. Hcsrctu (talk) 10:01, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2024
News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2024).

Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg Graham Beards
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Deskana · Mets501 · Staxringold

Bureaucrat changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Deskana · Warofdreams



Oversight changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Dreamy Jazz

Guideline and policy news
 * Phase II of the 2024 RfA review has commenced to improve and refine the proposals passed in Phase I.

Technical news
 * The Nuke feature, which enables administrators to mass delete pages, will now correctly delete pages which were moved to another title. T43351

Arbitration
 * The arbitration case Venezuelan politics has been closed.
 * The Committee is seeking volunteers for various roles, including access to the conflict of interest VRT queue.

Miscellaneous
 * WikiProject Reliability's unsourced statements drive is happening in June 2024 to replace citation needed tags with references! Sign up here to participate!

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:43, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Edit request
Can you please take Mugumbate's paragraph claiming Abrahamic religions to be colonial out of the Traditional African religion page? Ethiopian Christianity and North African Islam are not colonial. 2600:1700:B270:75C0:2C37:5BBF:2FAE:25C8 (talk) 06:34, 9 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Why have you not made this request at the article's talk page? —C.Fred (talk) 13:58, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Marlon West Page
Thank you, C.Fred. I see that edits to that page written about me, have been removed. The original and current page was full of inaccuracies, including my various job titles and awards. I Have NOT received an Oscar. That is a huge misstatement. And as an Academy member that can not stand. I wrote that actual Annie ward that I did receive and that was removed. There is no such job title as an “effects coordinator”, and if there is any where, I have NEVER received it. The changes I made to that page are quite verifiable. I changed the name of my branch in the Academy to ‘The Animation Branch '' to reflect the reorganization that happened early this year.

The current post has wrong personal info and dates. So I removed information that is not pertinent instead of correcting the inaccuracies.

I have never edited on Wikipedia before. So I will submit my changes for approval before posting. But I ass you everything I changed is actually correct and verifiable within minutes. MarlonWest063 (talk) 23:55, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Marlon West Pages edits.
Thank you for removing some wrong and non pertinent information about me on my page. I truly appreciate it. Though another zealous editor Orangemike blocked me.

My account has been restored and there are still factual errors to the page that I’d love to have corrected. My attempts to correct them were removed and replaced with the same wrong information.

This opening paragraph for example:

"Marlon West (born March 11, 1963) is an animator and special effects coordinator for Walt Disney Animation Studios. He has been nominated for and won Annie Awards."

I have tried to correct this to:

"Marlon West (born 1963) is an effects animator, Head of Effects Animation, and Visual Effects Supervisor for Walt Disney Animation Studios. He won an Annie Award for Outstanding Achievement in an Animated Production in 2017 for Moana."

Those are my actual job titles that have appeared in the credits of projects I've worked on. As well as how they appear on IMDB:

https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0998326/?ref_=nv_sr_srsg_0_tt_4_nm_4_q_marlon%2520west

And the single Annie award that I won.

This seems utterly factual and easily verifiable. Not changes that I'd expect to be rejected, and be blocked for.

The following passage is also inaccurate, as it does not reflect changes at the Academy:

"West is a member of the Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences and is on the Board of Governors, specifically the shorts and feature animation branch."

My factual correction:

West is a member of the Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences and is one of two Governors, of the Animation Branch.

This happened in February of this year:

https://variety.com/2024/film/awards/academy-separates-short-films-animation-feature-branch-1235923053/

It was again rejected and wrong information restored. I am flattered that someone would create a page for me, as I am not a public figure. I can't even get a "blue badge" on X or Instagram. So I am very much a private citizen. I'd like simply for this page to reflect true and non-private information about me. It is more than galling to come up against such push back on the site I use daily, when it comes to correcting errors about my own life.

Thanks for any help you can provide.

Sincerely,

Marlon West MarlonWest063 (talk) 15:04, 14 June 2024 (UTC)


 * @MarlonWest063 Bear in mind that Orangemike blocked you in the interest of protecting you! You mentioned a blue badge on Instagram; the equivalent thing on Wikipedia, when a user holds themselves out as a notable individual, is to have their information verified by the Volunteer Response Team. Blocking the user while that is pending is a standard precautionary measure.
 * Under Wikipedia policies, IMDB is of limited usefulness as a source. It can be used to verify credits on a film or similar work, but it can't be used for biographical information, which would extend to a job title. A Disney Animation Studios (public-facing) directory would be useful as a source, since if you're in two singular positions like that, it's reasonable for that to be verifiable from the studio's site.
 * Regarding the AMPAS Board of Governors, it would help to have more sources (more Variety articles?) about your term and the branch split. The current source, a Variety article, refers to "Academy Short Films and Feature Animation Branch governors Bonnie Arnold, Jinko Gotoh and Marlon West". That leaves some ambiguity: presumably two governors are staying on through FY 25, but it's a little bit of a leap of logic to conclude you're one of them. —C.Fred (talk) 16:11, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * One other note, regarding your comment I am not a public figure. I'm inclined to agree that you aren't "famous enough" to have hit that level, and that means erring on the side of caution in terms of what information is included in Wikipedia about you. In light of that, and especially when I looked at the sourcing, I removed both your middle initial and date of birth from the article. —C.Fred (talk) 16:20, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Regarding the blocking for "my benefit" by Orangemike, it came after our intital conatct. A very resaonable exchange that would suggest you had no concern as to who you were in contact with. It was by any measure an overreach. As a longtime user of Wikipedia, I wish the stewards of the site where as interested in facts as they are in process and flexes of authority.
 * While it's taking a surprising amount of doing, I appreciate your help in making the information on this page factual and pertinent. MarlonWest063 (talk) 17:50, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thnaks so much. My point is that I am not a public enough figure that I warrant a "blue badge" on other platforms.
 * So we are in agreement that erring on the side of caution for peronal info is the best way forward. So thanks.
 * Again. Annies and Oscars are not awarded the year of release in most cases. While Moana was released in 2016, my Annie was awarded in 2017, as I stated. So please restore that. It is a quite veriviable fact.
 * My branch is now the "Animation Branch" in the Academy, not The "Short Films and Animated Feature" branch. Either way, the branch name should be captitalized. My term as a governor has another year. So it is not a lead of logic, but again, simple fact that I am one of two governors of that newlt formed branch.
 * Again this is old news: https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/oscars-animation-and-short-films-branch-splits-1235836376/
 * https://www.indiewire.com/awards/awards/academy-awards-announce-new-short-films-feature-animation-branches-1234957589/
 * https://www.thewrap.com/oscars-creates-animation-live-action-shorts-separate-branches/
 * Feel free to wait, if you like. Though in any case, lower case is not the way it should appear.
 * One more thing, could you remove my child's first name from the last paragraph. Tim is a minor.
 * Thanks again for your help. MarlonWest063 (talk) 17:00, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Here is the set of AMPAS governors for the 2024-2025 term. My co-governor Bonnie Arnold has termed out. There are two governors of the Animation Branch for this term. You can see I am one of them. You might also note, as I have now pointed out nmulitple times, the newly elected Short Films Branch governor: Chris Tashima. Yet another source that the Branch is now two branches.
 * https://www.oscars.org/news/academy-elects-2024-2025-board-governors
 * This is not a "leap of faith", it is a presentday fact. Please change that entry to reflect that.
 * Thanks so much. MarlonWest063 (talk) 18:42, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Lastly, I see you have used my proper job titles in the opening paragraph. Thanks!
 * Strange you'd pushback on IMDB for the proper credits and job titles, as whoever fashioned this page to begin with obvisousy used that to create the wholly acturate filmography included on this page.
 * Anyway, thanks for you help. One edit at a time. MarlonWest063 (talk) 18:54, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Assistance
Hi. Just wanted to get your thoughts on this user. Last year, you were involved with this IP. The combativeness and topics of interest passes the duck test. I don't wish to make the situation worse, so I don't want to revert these contributions for example that are blatant additions of unsourced content to a BLP. Their talk page behaviour here shows disregard for talk page rules despite being reverted before for going against WP:OTHERSCOMMENTS. Does WP:NOTHERE come into question? I don't want to go to ANI due to the history between me and this user, but am I able to request an admin to have a look? Should I seek an independent admin? Thanks. DaHuzyBru (talk) 05:19, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

ANI Notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 06:28, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Revoke Talk Page
User 128.253.26.81, theirs have been revoked before, maybe it still should be. My real namm (💬pros · ✏️cons) 19:46, 28 June 2024 (UTC)