User talk:FredTheBiped2

Welcome!

Hello, FredTheBiped2, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! -- Jytdog (talk) 23:23, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Manual of Style

August 2015
Welcome to Wikipedia. At least one of your recent edits, such as the edit you made to Fredric Alan Maxwell, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Vrac (talk) 21:28, 26 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I have no idea what a Vrac talk page is. Someone keeps putting false information on my Wiki site. I edit. You remove my edits. What is up with that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by FredTheBiped2 (talk • contribs)  21:37, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:"Spooked" The New York Times Magazine April 27, 2003
Template:"Spooked" The New York Times Magazine April 27, 2003 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Ricky81682 (talk) 03:20, 6 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Why have you chosen to delete my New York Times Magazine article? It bears directly on what's discussed in the Wiki Page. In fact, some !@#@! has been vandalizing my page and has been reported. Why can you possibly delete the NY Times piece? — Preceding unsigned comment added by FredTheBiped2 (talk • contribs) 03:49, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:"Spooked" The New York Times Magazine April 27, 2003


Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page you created was tagged as a test page under section G2 of the criteria for speedy deletion and has been or soon may be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

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 removed 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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 03:57, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion
This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident in which you may be involved. Thank you. Vrac (talk) 20:30, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Conflict of interest in Wikipedia
Hi FredTheBiped2 I work on conflict of interest issues here in Wikipedia. Your edits to date are all about Fredric Alan Maxwell and you have claimed to be Maxwell here. I'm giving you notice of our Conflict of Interest guideline and Terms of Use, and will have some comments and requests for you below.

Hello, FredTheBiped2. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you have an external relationship with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:


 * Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
 * Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Spam).
 * Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies. Note that Wikipedia's terms of use require disclosure of your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you.

Hi wiki. This is Fredric Alan Maxwell. You can confirm that by writing me at my Gmail account of the same name, and I will respond. I would appreciate if you would quit condescending. I was investigated and cleared by the US Secret Service, of which the New York Times published my first-person piece about, to which I gave my Secret Service file to and they fully vetted. Oh, to WIki the New York Times and Dumb Joe's Blog are the same thing. Sorry. Oh, after the piece appeared then-Senator Hillary Clinton wrote me a humorous hand-written fan letter about it. However, Wiki seems to think that amateur editors, not fearful of libel, are more qualified to judge such things. Really? Honestly? Oh, and you can't maintain your "integrity" by allowing a first-person account. Oh, and you can't hold WIki accountable because people write under fake names, and say things they simply cannot substantiate, which, of course, trumps one of the most-respected publications in the world. Sure thing. Oh, and WIki's conflict of interest is that they are, well, how can I say this, wedded to Wiki, which is rarely cited as a reliable source, but your literally parallel universe has eliminated my source because, well, I mean, how to I put this just right. You have no reason to, but that doesn't stop you. I get livid when people defame me. Wouldn't you? t. SO I guess Richard Henry Dana's Two Years Before the Mast doesn't count as a valid source. Neither does Malala Yousafzai autobiography because, you know, it doesn't matter she won a Nobel Prize, this is her telling her story, so that's a conflict of interest. I am not threatening to sue, I do not want to sue, but kindly, like real publications in the real world, give me the contact information of your lawyer(s). I want to find out how they justify doing what Wiki is doing to me. Oops, I mentioned real world lawyers. Will you ban me from Wiki? If you want to "maintain your integrity", tell me a third party, unconnected to either of us, who will adjudicate the matter. Oops, you mean I question the great and powerful Oz, excuse me, Wiki's honesty and infallibility and system?
 * See this page: Contact us - Subjects for info and contact information. Regards, Vrac (talk) 21:59, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Comments and requests
Wikipedia is a widely-used reference work and managing conflict of interest is essential for ensuring the integrity of Wikipedia and retaining the public's trust in it. As in academia, COI is managed here in two steps - disclosure and a form of peer review. Please note that there is no bar to being part of the Wikipedia community if you have a conflict of interest; there are just some things we ask you to do (and if you are paid, some things you need to do).

With regard to disclosure, as I noted above, you have already claimed to be Maxwell. Taking that on good faith, you have outed yourself, so the WP:OUTING policy is not relevant to the rest of what unfolds here. I have made the relevant disclosure at the article Talk page, in the beige box at the top of the page. You have a conflict of interest with regard to the article about you.

With regard to the "peer review" piece - this may seem a bit strange to you at first, but if you think about it, it will make sense. In Wikipedia, editors can immediately publish their work, with no intervening publisher or standard peer review -- you can just create an article, click save, and viola there is a new article, and you can go into any article, make changes, click save, and done. No intermediaries - no editor, no publisher. What we ask editors who have a COI to do, is a) if you create an article, submit it through the WP:AFC process so it can be reviewed before it publishes. b) And if you want to change content in an existing article on a topic where you have a COI, we ask you to propose content on the Talk page for others to review and implement before it goes live, instead of doing it directly yourself. You can make the edit request easily - and provide notice to the community of your request -  by using the "request edit" template. I made that easy for you by adding a section to the beige box at the top of the Talk page -  there is a link at "click here" in that section --  if you click that, the Wikipedia software will automatically format a section in which you can make your request.

Will you please agree to follow the peer review processes going forward? Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 23:07, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

You now question if I am me? I assure you I am, and have been my whole life. Peer-review? Jytgos, my good friend Bruce Levenberg, whose helping me out with this crud,  told me you called him a "meat puppet". And you want me to have you judge my work? You have professional writers and editors reviewing? Because? Oh, I see, you can't afford competent qualified people to make that decision, to review the facts. How about we submit this to the Columbia Journalism Review and see what they have to say? Oops, I mentioned a respected professional authority on such thing. Of course, on Wiki they are secondary to the no-name dubiously-qualified people you call "editors". You game, Wiki? You chicken, Wiki? Your move.
 * HI sorry for the delay responding. Yes, your friend is a meatpuppet here.  It is good that each of you disclosed the relationship to make it clear to the community that you are working together.  Two things.  Every time you log into Wikipedia, you agree to abide by the Terms of Use for Wikipedia, which obligates you to follow our policies and guidelines.  Wikipedia is not a wild west where you can write and behave however you want.  If it were, this place would be a garbage dump and a mad house.  It is neither.   This whole place functions on consensus, and the policies and guidelines were created slowly over the years by the community, to govern itself.  The way things work here is actually really wise and beautiful, once you come to understand it.   It is not like any other place.
 * Editing Wikipedia is not a right - it is a privilege that is freely offered to all.  But it is a privilege, that can be lost.  Ignoring the policies and guidelines, and ignoring what other editors are telling you about how this place works (which is what you are doing), will quickly lead to you getting temporarily blocked, and if you keep doing it, to you being indefinitely blocked.  It happens. (see "Ukip MEP David Coburn banned from Wikipedia indefinitely".
 * There are plenty of people who will help you, if express a willingness to learn.
 * The foremost thing right now, is your acknowledging that you have a conflict of interest, and refraining from directly editing the article. Will you do please do that?
 * After that, the next step for you should be go to the article Talk page, and ask - really ask - what is wrong with the content you want to add, and for you to listen to the answer. And if you don't understand the answer, to ask - again really ask - for further explanation.  I hope you will do that.  Good luck here. Jytdog (talk) 01:16, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

WP:MEAT
FredtheBiped2, you disclosed here that Blevenberg is your friend and you have summoned him to Wikipedia to help you argue with Vrac. Please know that this is a violation of meatpuppeting, which is against Wikipedia policy. Please stop doing that. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 23:19, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Jesus Christ, this is getting ridiculous. Please stop taking valid cites and references off of my page. Does not truth have a place here, or are you all caught up in the the procedure more than the product? Oops, I should have known the answer based on your action. Oops, since I'm not a techie I asked a techie friend to help me. Oops, stupid me. Sorry.

Additional notes
I've provided you with the standard "welcome" message at the top of this Talk page. Please know that Wikipedia is not like any other place on the internet. While this is "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit", it is not a wild west. The WP community has developed a whole forest of policies and guidelines that govern article content and editor behavior; the welcome message above provides an introduction to them. Please also know that editing Wikipedia is a privilege, not a right. We take editing privileges away from editors who don't abide by the policies and guidelines and who refuse to learn about them. We do of course make allowances for new editors who try to learn - we want to grow the Wikipedia community.

You are new here and don't know much about those policies and guidelines. Rather than editing aggressively, please slow down and ask more questions. I'll be happy to help you, if you have any questions. But you have to try to learn. Good luck. Jytdog (talk) 23:28, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Opps, let's see, I've been posting on Wiki for about a decade, but I'm new here? Okay, tell me how I can post what Vrac takes down. Tell me how I can post what my friend Bruce posted, all of which was true and cited and took a lot of time only to be taken down. (BTW "a forest of policies"?)

Jytdog, I haven't heard from you, but I wonder what the Russian-born and raised Lila Tretikov, Wiki's exec director, thinks about not being able to find a reference to the Russian translation of Bad Boy Ballmer on Wiki because people keep removing it.


 * You should be able to read the WSJ article by clicking on this link, then clicking on the first result in the google search which should be the WSJ article in question. Vrac (talk) 03:01, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Vrac. I stand corrected. That was the piece Rebecca Buckman did on me, which made a few mistakes, like leaving off the full quote, that "I ran out of names to call editors". I've never said that Microsoft had anything to do with the investigation, just that with the way they treat Federal Judges, I wouldn't be surprised. And I had filed before the piece came out, so her reporting was shabby. (And I know exactly why that is, but that's another story) Oh, and I got my full Secret Service file. Cost a little over $8,000 in legal fees. What do I have to do to get you to quit implying that I wasn't investigated by the Secret Service? And why should I have to do anything except have you remove it in the face of absolutely no evidence it didn't happen? None.


 * In order to state it as a fact we need a reliable source, written by someone other than yourself, that states it as fact. Wikipedia's definition of a reliable source can found here: WP:RS. The absence of evidence that it didn't happen isn't enough to include a statement that it did happen.  Wikipedia has a policy on verifiability that is explained here: WP:V. A relevant quote from the first paragraph is: " Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it.[1] When reliable sources disagree, present what the various sources say, give each side its due weight, and maintain a neutral point of view." Regards, Vrac (talk) 12:18, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Jesus, Vrac, you are not being neutral. You have no evidence that the investigation didn't happen yet you imply it didn't. Your claim is not verified. So remove it. Now. And why have you taken such an interest in my life? BTW The investigation was verified by Lloyd Grove at The Washington Post in his Reliable Source column on June 24, 2003. It's literally a reliable source. Here it is: 'From the Ministry of Truth Mailbag: Writer Fredric Alan Maxwell has just received a handwritten fan letter from Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) for an April 27 New York Times Magazine column about his unsettling experience of being investigated by the Secret Service. The agency was concerned about an unfriendly remark about George W. Bush Maxwell was overheard allegedly making in a bar. While being interrogated by agents, Maxwell wrote, he volunteered that he had attended a White House news conference and that "Hillary looks far better in person." The senator responded: "Dear Mr. Maxwell: I vouched for you with the Secret Service -- anyone who thinks I look better in person is a true patriot, albeit myopic. In any event, don't let this experience deter you from speaking up and out. We need to keep our sense of humor during this Orwellian time. All the best, Hillary Rodham Clinton."


 * That is awfully thin. At any rate the article is up for deletion so there isn't much point debating the issue until the outcome of the debate is known. Regards, Vrac (talk) 21:41, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Hey, Vrac, FYI About the second day in journalism school students are taught to put "alleged" in front of "threat",especiall since it was based on a bogus report. The reasons are rather obvious. FredTheBiped2 (talk) 23:12, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * On day 1 they teach you not to cite yourself. Vrac (talk) 14:22, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation
J bh Talk  15:59, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Block

 * I've indefinitely blocked you for making legal threats and meat puppetry. See WP:GAB for your appeal rights.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:26, 12 September 2015 (UTC)