User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 60

Article Editing problem
Dear Fred, I noticed this morning that the page "Bill Thomas (writer)" had the following notes as a result of recent edits by one of Wiki admins:

1. This biographical article needs additional citations for verification. Please help by adding reliable sources. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous or harmful.

2. This article includes a list of references, related reading or external links, but its sources remain unclear because it lacks inline citations. Please improve this article by introducing more precise citations where appropriate.

3. This article's citation style may be unclear. The references used may be made clearer with a different or consistent style of citation, footnoting, or external linking. (July 2010)

4. This article is written like an advertisement. Please help rewrite this article from a neutral point of view. For blatant advertising that would require a fundamental rewrite to become encyclopedic, use db-spam to mark for speedy deletion.

5. The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved.

I made corrections and input additional information, including biographical data, education and links to the recent Washington Post Magazine articles by Bill Thomas, to clarify the issues but the page was blocked for editing by Orangemike. I'll be happy to email you the updated information. Please let me know how I can submit the changes or make the page unprotected.

Additional sources: Outside GO Magazine:

http://outsidego.com/index.php/20081118465/First-Person/Soccer-in-Iran/menu-id-1.html

http://outsidego.com/index.php/20081016425/Travel/Singita-Game-Reserves.html?Itemid=0

http://outsidego.com/index.php/20080512326/Sidebar/Caucasus-Hooks.html?Itemid=0

http://outsidego.com/index.php/20080507320/Active-Lifestyle/Elite-Schools.html?Itemid=0

http://outsidego.com/index.php/20080507319/Travel/Fishing-Georgia.html?Itemid=0

http://outsidego.com/index.php/20080203154/Active-Lifestyle/Hunting-the-Hamptons.html?Itemid=0

WP Magazine: http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/washingtonpost/results.html?st=advanced&uid=&MAC=50a23aa1f3f5c6104e90e36051420d61&QryTxt=&sortby=RELEVANCE&datetype=0&frommonth=01&fromday=01&fromyear=1987&tomonth=08&today=13&toyear=2010&By=bill+thomas&Title=&Sect=ALL

The Washington Times (see page 2 for credits): http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/mar/25/searchlight-nev/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arctic2012 (talk • contribs) 04:46, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

http://johnbatchelorshow.com/podcasts/2010/08/august-14-2010-hour-2/ GUESTS: Carla Marinucci, San Francisco Chronicle; Bill Thomas and others

Thank you,


 * Please be aware that User:Arctic2012 is a single purpose account who may be Bill Thomas, or apparently at least his agent (in some sense of the term). -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  01:41, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Nableezy SPI
Hi Fred. The instant SPI does not rest on technical evidence. In fact the technical evidence will in all likihood not connect Nableezy to the Sock. the point of the SPI is to prove that the behavioral evidence connects the IP to Nableezy and that the lack of techncial evidene connecting the two will not disprove sockpuppetry. The behavioral evidence here is overwhelming. Please note the following:

In light of the above, I implore you not to close this SPI and carefully scrutinize the behavioral evidence linking Nableezy to the 208--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 14:07, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Nableezy was topic banned three times in the last six months.
 * 2) While the topic bans were in place, 208 edited articles that fell under the topic bans.
 * 3) 208 evidenced a strong familiarity with both Wikipedia rules and Wikipedia users, including DrorK, a user with whom Nableezy frequently quarreled.
 * 4) Nableezy and 208 made similar edits and in some instances, identical edits.
 * 5) Nableezy and 208 wrote similar edit summaries and employed similar phrases. (Both used the phrase "revert troll" when reverting IPs) Compare Nableezy and IP208
 * 6) Nableezy and 208 placed similar emphasis on publishers and publishing houses when evaluating RS. Compare IP208 to Nableezy as well as, and
 * 7) 208 did not make any edits to I-P articles that Nableezy himself could have made, either before the topic bans or after they expired.
 * 8) 208 made reverts on articles consistent with Nableezy's concurrent arguments on the article talk page.
 * 9) As noted in the SPI, the 208 stated in mocking fashion that he was well aware that the IP was dynamic and could not be linked to the master through conventional CU techniques.
 * 10) The 208 range geolocates to Chicago.
 * 11) The 208s have made numerous edits to Chicago related articles evidencing a further nexus between the 208s and Chicago.
 * 12) Nableezy's nexus to the Chicago area is well established.
 * Fred we are dealing with a dynamic range that is used by multiple internet connections, Nableezy being among them. Nableezy, who has a technical background from the Illinois Institute of Technology was keenly aware of this loophole evidenced by  where he mocks all of us. In any event user NativeForeigner seems to have closed the case based on your comments at the SPI. If you think the behavioral evidence warrants a second look, please re-open. Thanks--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 14:38, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Just want to add one more thing. Nableezy has had multiple editors blocked or banned on a fraction of the evidence presented in the instant SPI--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 14:48, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Personal Information on Talk Pages
Fred - You seem to have misconstrued my response on my Talk Page to mean the opposite of what I said. CharlieAnders has asked for MY personal information, not vice versa. I have asked her to keep all discussions regarding Wikipedia article issues on Wikipedia. I have not asked for and do not wish to exchange personal information with her at this time, on or off-Wiki, and I think I made that clear. I am only willing to discuss Wikipedia-related issues on and pages, not personal information.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Personal_security_practices

"Wikipedia does not require you to provide personal information on userpages or elsewhere in the course of editing the encyclopedia. "

I see nowhere in the WP Guidelines that requires I provide my personal contact information to or have off-Wiki contact with another user.

Please do not misrepresent my statements.

76.169.140.29 (talk) 05:13, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Whitewashing Bob Day
I've reverted your contributions, I also notice I restored over 2,600 characters in doing so. This page has had a lot of issues lately with people trying to remove what they see as negative. Before making any controversial changes and to avoid edit wars, please discuss on the article talk page. Thanks. Timeshift (talk) 20:22, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

My Talk Page
Hello! I noticed that you removed two edits from my edit history and I'm confused. I imagine your intention is to protect me but I just wanted to make sure. Ol Yeller '''Talktome 20:05, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Consensus for the link at Bob Day?


Timeshift has removed the link to http://bobday.com.au from this article seven times in the last few days:


 * 1) 20:09, 11 September 2010  (edit summary: "reverting fred's whitewash on this troublesome article.")
 * 2) 21:56, 12 September 2010  (edit summary: "rv - again major disagree over results, and looking at the website, it seems a site designed to attack this site, with no mention of who owns the site (bob day? a fan?)")
 * 3) 09:36, 14 September 2010  (edit summary: "nope")
 * 4) 15:30, 14 September 2010  (edit summary: "see talk and COI discussion")
 * 5) 01:21, 15 September 2010  (edit summary: "rv Fred - and which of the three at ELYES are you laughingly attempt to claim applies here? i'll say it YET AGAIN. talkpage WP:CONSENSUS is key, stop ignoring.")
 * 6) 04:07, 15 September 2010  (edit summary: "TALKPAGE DISCUSSION AND CONSENSUS please. This has STILL not happened. How can you even comment when you say Family First supports WorkChoices? You don't even know what you're arguing!")
 * 7) 21:43, 15 September 2010  (edit summary: "no consensus, nothing on website states website is owned by bob day, run by bob day, is his official site, or anything else. reasonable doubt. stays out.")

I have now warned him about the 3RR rule. I am trying to guess what would happen if you presented the issue at WP:AN3. The outcome would still be uncertain:
 * If the link is *unofficial*, there could theoretically be a BLP concern. This might be taken care of by a sufficiently thorough review on the article Talk, which hasn't happened yet. The site does appear to be 100% positive about Bob Day, so BLP seems an unlikely claim.
 * It is not certain there there is consensus to include the link.

Usually, when the link was restored, it was you who did so, which could make the 3RR reviewers think it's a two-person edit war. It would be better to clarify the opinion of the talk page editors about the link. There is at least one editor in favor (yourself), and perhaps as many as three. There is at least one editor against (Timeshift9), and perhaps as many as two. Somebody could write on the article talk and try to do a summary, including those who expressed an opinion at WP:ELN. Do you want to do that? An WP:RFC is possible but they usually take a lot of time. A more focused talk discussion might be enough. EdJohnston (talk) 23:09, 15 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The site is entirely an attack site against this article for reasons unknown (is he that insecure of his own political views?), and the site does not say it is owned or run by him. If it were to, I wouldn't have an issue. But creating an attack site against this article and not putting a name to it does NOT qualify as a valid external link. And to top it off, such a controversy hasn't even been discussed/resolved on the article's talk page. Where is the consensus to include the disputed link? If Fred actually followed wikipedia guidelines and went about discussion and consensus as he should, none of this would ever have happened. How many reports has Fred made to various wikipedia boards and dismissed him? Fred, it's time to pull your socks up. Timeshift (talk) 23:14, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Fred, I have asked at both ELN and WQA for other editors to get involved. I am relying on your assertion that Bob Day has claimed ownership of BobDay.com.au and that may not be enough for other ELN editors. Since you received an email from Bob Day (or his staff), it might be helpful if you could get him or his staff to insert a claim of ownership or authorization at the site. WQA is limited, especially against intransigent editors. I'll put your talk page on my watchlist. Vyeh (talk) 04:19, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Consensus discussion is occurring at Talk:Bob Day... obviously not by either of you two. I find it truly disappointing that you both continue to carelessly knowingly ignore wikipedia guidelines. This will be decided by consensus. If consensus goes against me, so be it. Timeshift (talk) 04:27, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Serious question
Can you explain your reasoning behind the (paraphrasing) 'weeks-long assumption that Bob Day was just whinging'? Timeshift (talk) 00:25, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh that's gold! So you are saying that the article was always biased, you are biased, you ignored the bias due to your bias, but when you attempted to make a few edits you encountered my bias and the reason for the biased nature of the article? :D Timeshift (talk) 00:36, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Note you're making edits and i'm not reverting them. I am not trying to control the article as you claim. I am simply fighting for segments where outright removal is not in the best interests. Considering your revelations in the past hour i'm sure consensus could be reached and everyone could move on. Timeshift (talk) 01:50, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Reply to talk page post
Personally I'm happy for him/her to be set aside from the sockpuppet issue - I was surprised by the link, and I'm still inclined to believe they're a different person, so we can deal with them as such. This person didn't engage in the crazy attacks on the other editors and did engage in good faith with suggestions made. Orderinchaos 05:15, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Alison Taylor
Sorry Fred, I kinda stepped on your toes there. I won't object if you restore the speedy, seems like we were nominating it through different processes at the same time, and I would assume for the same reason. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:53, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Wikinfo
Wikinfo, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Wikinfo and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of Wikinfo during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 09:21, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of China National Highway 110 traffic jam for deletion
A discussion has begun about whether the article China National Highway 110 traffic jam, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/China National Highway 110 traffic jam (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 16:24, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of Packaged dry macaroni and cheese mix for deletion
A discussion has begun about whether the article Packaged dry macaroni and cheese mix, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Packaged dry macaroni and cheese mix until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. SummerPhD (talk) 23:57, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Foreign relations of Tibet
Dear Fred Bauder, I have translated in french the paragraphe Foreign_relations_of_Tibet. If I am correct, you contributed in writing it. Do you have any reference to it? This would be of help to me, since I was asked to provide references. With many thanks for your good work and for your help.--Rédacteur Tibet (talk) 13:09, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for your response and indication. As far as I know this paragraph is correct and neutral. I will follow your work on the article and will add the reference in the french translation. All best wishes. --Rédacteur Tibet (talk) 15:57, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Great find
Anthony (talk) 17:22, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Curious about sockpuppetry
If it was confirmed that accounts are sockpuppets, why aren't the socks blocked? &mdash; Timneu22 · &#32; talk 10:14, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * We don't automatically impose blocks on socks, if it seems a warning might be enough. If socking continues with these or other socks then a block should be imposed. Fred Talk 13:44, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Atlantic Wind Connection
This edit contains too much direct copying from the New York Times article you cite as a source. The detail added is welcome but paraphrasing is necessary to avoid extensive blocks of quoted text. Fred Talk 07:34, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Other than a few brief quotes from individuals that were put in quotation marks, there was no direct copying. All of the detail that was added was paraphrased from the articles cited as references. Can you point to what you believe was "direct copying" from The Times to the article? Alansohn (talk) 17:53, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I will do my best to address your concerns while restoring the sourced material that had been deleted. Let me know if you have any further issues. Alansohn (talk) 23:28, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Links to Wikia
Hi, i was wondering about the link to Wikia.com: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Aneutronic_fusion&action=edit 'I know the Amazon is a "stream" Any reason to use an external link to wikia here or can I replace it to a link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stream I am in the process of clearning up the wikia links. Mike James Michael DuPont (talk) 18:21, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The point is that some terms such as "stream" are used technically. That point is clearly made in the Wikia article but not in our article. Changing it would vitiate the point I was making, which was not understood by anyone anyway; however, it's ancient history without any current relevance for any purpose other than maintaining an accurate history of editing. Fred Talk 18:38, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Atlantic Wind Connection
The DYK project (nominate) 00:05, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Eugenia B. Thomas K-8 Center
Many thanks for dealing with the revisions of Eugenia B. Thomas K-8 Center.  Chzz  ► 16:49, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Wakhan/Wakhan Corridor
There wasn't much (any) support for this merge when I proposed it in Feb 2008 - looking at the history of Wakhan Corridor, the merge tags got removed in April 2009, and since then there has been an effort to differentiate the subject matter of the 2 articles. The AKDN document cited on Wakhan Corridor does differentiate the two. But I agree that there is so much overlap in common usage that a merge would be sensible.

Can I suggest you also tag Wakhan and discuss your rationale on Talk:Wakhan, per WP:MM? We can then see if there is more support this time around. --Mhockey (talk) 22:41, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Kehrli new POV dispute
You were involved in an arbitration a couple years ago. [] A nearly identical behavior and dispute has arisen. [] I was wondering if you could pop in there and try to clearly define the scope and purpose of Wikipedia to Kehrli [] as apparently the outcome of the last dispute and the resulting ban did not make such things clear. To summarize: He/she has chosen a different obscure unit-like scaling procedure and is trying to synthesize a well defined unit based on selective use of a few literature examples in combination with the widely accepted rules of metrology. Very elegant work that might be a good idea, but novel nonetheless, and thus not for Wikipedia. I am not a primary participant in the dispute. He/she has also been going over much of the material that he/she was banned from (for 1 year) and is persisting in the course of action that he/she was banned for now that the ban is expired. I have not been policing these actions and the pages have fallen into subtly novel/POV pages.--Nick Y. (talk) 20:05, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Olga Diaz
I see you made the article about Olga Diaz from the article i suggested to the Signpost. Lets see how long it lasts. Spongie555 (talk) 03:27, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Fred, about your question
Fred: I left you a message here: User_talk:Kehrli —Preceding undated comment added 19:14, 2 November 2010 (UTC).

cite journal
Fred, I wouldn't know how to add a field to this template. Is this something we should raise on the template's talk page? -- JN 466  23:06, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I might be able to add it if there is agreement regarding Template:Cite journal, but it is specialized work. Fred Talk 23:17, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

An external link you added...
Hi Fred, this thread may be of interest to you. Regards! Franamax (talk) 23:05, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Outed again
Fred, people must love outing me. Will you please, I'm sorry to have to ask you, take care of it? Really, I'm so sorry. I thank you in advance. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 05:20, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I see even my town and state is there too. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 05:24, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I've reverted, for the time being, my posting of excerpts from mainstream newspapers that quote, or are written by, a certain library activist. That activist is actively engaged in editing Wikipedia articles in his area of activism. We all know of cases where that kind of editing has turned out poorly, even where we might have supported the activist's causes. There are so many other topics, it's best to avoid those we feel most strongly about.   Will Beback    talk    10:24, 20 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Excuse me, but how is it that an admin would not know not to out a user? Drrll (talk) 12:23, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It is not that simple. The problem is how successfully address conflict of interest without doing so. It is not a trivial problem. Fred Talk 14:50, 20 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Fred, his reverting his edits is not adequate as it remains in the edit history and I have no doubt that edit history will be used over and over to out me by reference.


 * As to the COI issues, the following is entirely relevant: User_talk:LegitimateAndEvenCompelling. In particular, allow me to repeat one paragraph here:


 * "I further feel you are colluding with others to persecute me, one of whom is someone known to me to be defamatory to me and one other outside of Wikipedia in multiple and nefarious ways affecting our families and our good names, and over the course of years. It appears that he has obtained an unwitting ally in his efforts. You were concerned that '[t]his is looking increasingly like a battleground for off-wiki disputes.' Well your actions tell me you have four square joined someone in his battleground for off-wiki disputes, and that person may be acting illegally in his off-wiki battle. Will Beback, do not become his ally."


 * Thanks, Fred, and again I'm sorry we all have to be going through this. And I am very concerned that the person harassing me outside of Wikipedia in numerous ways for a long period of time has joined Wikipedia and has coopted Will Beback in his efforts to further harass and defame me. Fred, this is not a joke. Please consider having some kind of discussion with Will Beback.  --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 16:15, 20 November 2010 (UTC)


 * LAEC links to his blog and website from his user page, and those websites contain his name. So I don't see how posting that on Wikipedia is outing. I fail to see how there can be sufficient disclosure without identification. If an activist who is frequently quoted in newspapers does not feel comfortable revealing his name on Wikipedia then that activist should not be editing topics related to his activism.   Will Beback    talk    20:53, 20 November 2010 (UTC)


 * There is and has been for a while sufficient disclosure here: User:LegitimateAndEvenCompelling. Further, depending on the circumstance, I reveal my COI again on various Talk pages.  I'm not fooling anyone and no one is getting fooled.  There are people from time to time, however, who seek to stop me from editing, and COI and outing me are some of the means they try to use to stop my editing. A newbie outing someone is understandable, but Will Beback has almost 100,000 edits. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 03:57, 21 November 2010 (UTC)


 * There was no outing since you link to your webpage on your userpage, and your webpage identifies you by name. You are frequently quoted in newspapers as the owner of that website. [And you've signed your name and website to at least a hundred blog comments across the Internet. You've made little effort to keep your identity, or even your location, private. On the contrary, by making yourself available to the media you've made yourself a public person in regard to library issues.] Now that I'm getting a better picture of the problem, it goes beyond simple COI and look more like advocacy. Editors have been banned for using Wikipedia as a platform for advocacy. There have been complaints about your editing for years. Soliciting meatpuppets on FreeRepublic, which you've done, is against policy. And that was just two weeks ago. Instead of addressing my complaints, you've accused me of belonging to some conspiracy against you and of gaining secret knowledge through nefarious means. You are free to edit topics in which you can edit neutrally. However your focus on Wikipedia has been on topics in which you are an activist, and your edits appear to be part of your advocacy. That's unacceptable. Since it appears that you will not listen to me either, maybe another RfC is necessary.    Will Beback    talk    08:42, 21 November 2010 (UTC)


 * And I just found this: Religious Internet Filters already in Public Schools, which asserts that the owner of SafeLibraries.org has a commercial relationship with American Family Association regarding library software.   Will Beback    talk    11:51, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Both businesses share the same address, and both proprietors have the same first name.  Will Beback   talk    09:09, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Paid editing?
 * http://www.wikipublicist.com/
 * http://www.safelibraries.org/contact.htm


 * Wow, a 4 year old comment in a Daily Kos! That's the evidence?  A page having a comment that confuses me with another person having my name then accuses me of the things the other guy said?   Let's be 100% clear.  Except for the few pennies per week I get from Google clicks and except for a few people who have donated money to me, I receive no money for what I am doing with respect to either Wikipedia or my library-related activity.  My activity is a big money loser for me, actually, but my payment comes in the form of the many thanks I get, the effect I have on various legislation nationwide, the ALA naming me as one of its top opponents, etc., things like that.  I never have, I am not now, and I doubt I ever will earn money from what I am doing.  And that includes the American Family Association.  The AFA has given or paid me $0.  I mean really.  Look at that Wikipublicist cite.  Really impressive, no?  No, it's not.


 * By the way, I work on pages of any political persuasion, or no political persuasion. If I am not mistaken, the page I edit most at Wikipedia is Jay-Z, and I have even been awarded a barnstar for that work.  Jay-Z is a library patron, so that must be why I worked so hard on his page and continue to monitor it.


 * Fred, are you starting to see why I am feeling WP:HOUNDed by Will Beback? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 15:21, 21 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Not really. He's addressing legitimate issues. However, what really matters is how you edit. Fred Talk 15:43, 21 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay, I feel better about it then because I trust your experience with such issues. I will endeavor to continue to comply with all Wiki policy.  Thank you. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 16:24, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I haven't previously encountered this editor (as far as I know). The record shows that LegitimateAndEvenCompelling's edits are dominated by those to Christian conservative and censorship-related topics. His/her edit history shows a consistent pattern of using Wikipedia as a battleground and attempts to misuse Wikipedia policies and guidance to win arguments and silence opposition. This incident appears to fit this pattern. I see examples of WP:TEND and WP:HEAR as well as borderline incivility. In his/her own advocacy, a common tactic is to claim that others are using Wikipedia as a soapbox. Subsequent to LAEC's community sanction case that led to his/her indefinite block (reversed three months later), LAEC became more sophisticated and wary, but appeared to continue to edit as an advocate, for the most part.(Administrators%27_noticeboard/Community_sanction/Archive12) LAEC's contributions to Talk:Southern_Poverty_Law_Center, archive2 and archive3 of that page, all from this year, provide many examples of this behavior. I think a topic ban is overdue. Walter Siegmund (talk) 21:20, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Could a topic ban be imposed without an arbitration case? Fred Talk 00:11, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * From BAN, it would seem that an arbitration case is not required. Walter Siegmund (talk) 00:34, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd originally thought of an RFC, but perhaps an AN thread would be more effective. There was already one RFC a couple of years ago, on basically the same issue.   Will Beback    talk    00:50, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That SPLC matter is old history. I am actively involved on SPLC right now.  Go ahead and find one problem with my editing there despite the obvious differences.  Further, I edit pages of all political stripes.  For example, for the co-author of "The Joy of Gay Sex," I got his photograph approved and posted on his page.  You also have to admit that the issue really is that I am not afraid to edit where others are protecting pages.  For example, ALA pages have been created and maintained to appear like Wikipedia copies of ALA pages.  My input has led the effort to turn them into Wikiworthy pages.  Is it my fault other people are using Wikipedia to promote their interests?  Is it my fault the SPLC page now looks like an SPLC pamphlet and I am leading the effort to change that?  People there are actually removing the BIAS tag and you're not supposed to, but I put it back up.  Is that a problem to anyone here? You guys know exactly what it is like to edit on a page that someone or some group is protecting.  That is what I do.  Shall I stop?  Sometimes people who oppose me realize what I'm doing and change their opinion of me.  Like Orpheus.  Is he wrong? I have gathered a number of opponents who can't stand that I am able to remove Media Matters for America references wherever they are strewn about by MMfA soapboxers.  That's right, soapboxers. Numerous procedural actions were brought against me by numerous people.  They all ended up on the losing end of the stick. Wikipedia needs more editors like me willing to do the right thing instead of being scared out by bullies protecting a page.  Look at my edits and Talk page comments now on the Judith Reisman page.  You see any problem there? The number of people who oppose me for purely political reasons it truly outstanding.  Shall I be topic banned so that the soapboxers may continue to, for example, keep the SPLC page looking like an SPLC brochure?  I led the effort to change the Censorware page to the Content-control Software page.  I won a lot of enemies there.  But it was the right thing to do and it remains to this day.  Wikipedia is better.  Should I have been topic banned on that one?  People were going around and labeling people as homophobic by added the category Homophobia to anyone they opposed for soapbox reasons.  Yes, soapbox. The community worked together to stop that soapboxing, and again it stands to this day.  Again, I gained a lot of people who did not like me after that.  Should I have been topic banned from improving Wikipedia in that case?  So go ahead and pick and choose a spot or two where I have not been perfect, but who is, and it was probably out of innocence.  You wanna topic ban me on all those pages I have improved despite the political headwinds precisely because I have tacked to the Wikipedia winds?  Wikipedia has gotten a bad name for this kind of behavior, but I know it is not Wikipedia per se doing it, it is the soapboxers, and the Wikipedia rules enable me to steer clear of sanctions every time.  I will continue to edit as I have been editing, and if you find any problems, raise them on the Talk page -- don't just seek a topic ban to make your life of protecting pages easier. Look at those people drooling to stop my editing.  BAN, AN, RFC. It's really sick that they find my editing so offensive that they need to stop me from editing the pages I edit. Who's really being offensive? They don't even go to the Talk pages to discuss issues.  No, skip over that.  Go for the throat.  It hasn't worked before and it won't work again, thanks to Wikipedia rules. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 00:54, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


 * There are some unanswered questions. Is LAEC using an alternate account for the Wikipublicist edits? And so on. He's blocked for a few days, and there's the holidays. So maybe an AN presentation next weekend. I'd been thinking of just asking for a topic ban on libraries and filtering software, but Siegmund makes the point that there are other topics where this editor has been outspoken. The editors rarely edits outside of his core interests so a full ban may be necessary, since there aren't any areas where he seems to be editing neutrally.   Will Beback    talk    14:14, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I looked at LAEC's edits to Jay-Z, a non-political, non-censorship topic, over the last year. They appear to be constructive. I saw one post on the talk page over the same period. It seemed reasonable as well. To the extent that one can generalize by looking at one article, I would judge that LAEC can edit constructively on non-political, non-censorship topics.


 * On another topic, a recent post on Free Republic is a violation of WP :CANVAS, in my judgment. Please see ( http://www.***blacklisted-domain-name***.com/tag/by:plan2succeedorg/index?brevity=full;tab=comments ). Free Republic is aimed at a conservative audience and LAEC could be expected to know that s/he was canvasing the like-minded, not a general cross-section of Wikipedia editors. With LAEC's experience, s/he could be expected to be aware of CANVAS. That was the only instance I found, but it is consistent with a pattern of battleground behavior. Walter Siegmund (talk) 03:23, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I only see nine edits to Jay Z in the past year, all on one day. Two years ago he made one quasi-political edit to the article.
 * The Free Republic matter is more serious. If you have any how a topic ban should be worded then that'd help. I'm collecting diffs.   Will Beback    talk    04:20, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Epsom College
Would you mind taking a look at the oversights on this article today to remove the person defamed/cyberbullied? You seem to have accidentally replaced the child's name. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 21:45, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Just a note
You have mail.  Them From  Space  12:15, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Block notice
Should this have a notice for the user's page or talk page? I don't see anything there informing the editor or page visitors. Thanks, Ocaasi (talk) 08:40, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Please comment
on this, if you please. jps (talk) 07:51, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Odd Comment
You left a comment on my user page that, frankly, surprises me. Perhaps it was in haste. Please assume "good faith" as per WP:CIV. In the aprox. 1,000 edits I have made in the last three years, I have never "promoted," or even mentioned my software. I have never tried to add my name or create an article about me or my software. I have never placed a link to any of my work as an external link. Those that exist have been placed there by others. I have added refs when someone has specifically requested a citation as the 900-some pages (more or less) on my sites (including the oldest such site on the web) are really the only sites available for some of this info. My 580 page book is FREE and contains none of the blinking casino affiliate ads you see on other related sites as I turn down all affiliate deals (which I am bugged about almost daily). In fact, there are no ads in the book. In the three years I have been here, no one before has ever challenged any of these links and I believe they fall within WP:COI and WP:SBS. If not, anyone is able to provide a civil response. I understand that one must be vigil about those many people, particularly in the casino-related pages, that are looking for links and do not realize it is pointless as all WP links are no-follow. That has never been my goal. I don't even trade links. Please, let us be civil and not make rash judgements. We are all volunteers.Objective3000 (talk) 03:32, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Stalin exile 1915.gif
Thank you for uploading File:Stalin exile 1915.gif. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created [ in your upload log]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 06:50, 4 January 2011 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly hi! 06:50, 4 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I have left a note on the page for this image on Commons. I don't know much about the image other than that it is old and a picture of Stalin as a young man; which makes it both interesting and in the public domain. User:Fred Bauder Talk 14:01, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Stamp collections category and other
Fred, I revised some of your edits and nominated the Stamp collections category for deletion. We really don't need that and a stamp collecting category. I understand the logic behind it but it is just too confusing. Please leave a message here or on my talk page or on the philately project talk page if you disagree. Thanks. Maidonian (talk) 00:47, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Goldenmonkey.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Goldenmonkey.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Courcelles 03:29, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Rudolf Steiner
Hello Fred. See WP:AN3. I believe that Steiner's article was the subject of an Arbcom case a few years ago, and you played some role. The new contributor, Masteryorlando, seems very determined. His edits are being reverted by Hgilbert, who is one of the named participants in the case. It is hard to know whose opinion is more balanced. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 08:04, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Timneu22
Leaving the new twist aside for the moment (at least until a CU gets there); I was unaware that RfCs about users could be conducted on their own talkpages. WP:RFC/U has instructions on how to start one; this ran rather contrary to that. I'm failing to see the logic in starting what essentially amounts to an RfCU on that user's talkpage; am I missing something here? The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 17:06, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I think you're right. Sorry about that; I haven't done a Requests for comment for many years. User:Fred Bauder Talk 23:22, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * [posted on Timneu's page; repeating it here]. Hi Fred, the instructions for user RfCs are at Requests for comment/User conduct. There has to be a clear description of the dispute, with two certifiers within 48 hours. Both certifiers must produce diffs showing that they tried but failed to resolve the dispute; without those, they can't certify. That's followed by a statement from the party, and then statements in their own sections from others. It's important to stick to the process to make sure there's enough evidence and concern for an RfC, which can be fairly traumatic for the user, and therefore not to be initiated lightly.  SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 00:03, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * You need to revise your evidence if you wish to remain as certifier for the reasons I note here. That is, if you've merely notified him and assisted in drafting the RfC/U, but haven't (yet) really made an attempt to discuss this directly with Timneu22 (like Kudpung evidently has), you would not qualify as a certifier for the RfC/U to proceed; that role would fall on Kudpung Whq & Jayen. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:47, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Joseph Abel Haskin
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Joseph Abel Haskin, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/jahaskin.htm.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 00:49, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Extensive material quoted from the biography of the subject on the website of Arlington National Cemetery in in the public domain as a work of an employee of the United States government done in performance of their duties. User:Fred Bauder Talk 00:51, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, no. The main page of http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/ contains a clear claim of copyright.  This site is not maintained by the US Government, but is a privately run non-profit.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:24, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Joseph Abel Haskin


A tag has been placed on Joseph Abel Haskin requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a clear copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:25, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I understand your rationale on the talk page of Joseph Abel Haskin, however, the site explicitly claims copyright. Based upon you r arguments, it is possible they do not have the rights to do so, but I want to err on the side of caution, and either obtain permission, or make sure to stick to PD sources. Secondarily, even with permission, we normally rewrite material, or identify it as quoted, so a rewrite is needed in any case.-- SPhilbrick  T  13:43, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for reverting your recent experiment. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment further, please use the sandbox instead. Thank you. Dougofborg(talk) 04:31, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

John W. Bryant
You recently made comments on the talk page of John W. Bryant regarding repeated deletions of a quotation from a source. We've been working on this issue on the talk page and I've drafted a proposed addition to the article here. Because you commented on the issue previously, you are invited to comment on the proposal, if you wish to do so. Thanks. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:48, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Elisa Gabbert for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Elisa Gabbert is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Elisa Gabbert until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Kevin (talk) 23:32, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

User:The006
Do you have any suggestions on how to handle the edits made by The006 on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Chinese_protests? They removed good information from the Reactions -> International section and replaced it with content that isn't written in an encyclopedic tone (e.g. starting a sentence with "And" and no citations for some statements). You had removed this content but the user added it back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.118.163.177 (talk) 06:21, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * We can try talking to them on the talk pages. It is not the references or information that is at issue but the debate mode. However, part of the information, indeed nearly all of it is already in the article. User:Fred Bauder Talk 11:35, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for responding and also bringing this up on the article's talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.118.163.177 (talk) 02:36, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Discontinued post office
Thanks for starting this & fleshing it out. Unexpectedly, quite interesting! Best regards, Pete Tillman (talk) 01:05, 7 March 2011 (UTC), a (long-ago) stamp collector

Wikipedia is not a stamp catalogue nor ...
Hi Fred! I thought I should let you know that you've been mentioned and one of your edits is being discussed here. Cheers, –  OhioStandard  (talk) 01:50, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Yo, Mr Bauder, over here
See my page for reply.

Regards Peter S Strempel  &#124;  Talk   20:56, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Joel Renaldo
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Joel Renaldo, and it appears to be a substantial copy of http://www.censusonline.us/browse/JOEL.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 19:14, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

ANI archive
heh. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 22:23, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Check your email
Please attend to it quickly. It's been almost a week.  bahamut0013  words deeds 20:08, 11 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I've resent it.  bahamut0013  words deeds 11:12, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Ph(x)
I deleted the court order from the talk page at PH(x) because as a primary legal document naming living people, I assume its a WP:BLPPRIMARY violation even on a talk page. Possibly should be rev-del'd as well? Jonathanwallace (talk) 17:50, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Unblock request of Roland0469
Hello Fred Bauder. , whom you have blocked, is requesting to be unblocked. The request for unblock is on hold while waiting for a comment from you. I can't assess the unblock request myself as the evidence has been oversighted. Assuming you don't want to review your own block, perhaps it would be possible for you to give me sufficient information to make a judgement by email. If not, then to have it assessed by an independent person you could perhaps ask another oversighter to look at it. Or maybe you have a third way of doing it. JamesBWatson (talk) 00:31, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Emailed a follow up question
VQuakr (talk) 16:12, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Revdel
Thanks! Drmies (talk) 01:22, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Since you're obviously looking in.
Could I ask you to confirm on WP:ANI that the edit of mine that Alsion oversighted included no personally identifying information about anyone. Thanks, and sorry to bother. Hipocrite (talk) 01:07, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Amway Australia
Fred I am EXTREMELY upset by your post on the COI page. I DO NOT "regularly engage in public relations work ... on behalf of Amway" and never have. This allegation is completely and utterly false. User FG222 is posting these false allegations on his blog and here on wikipedia and it is utterly unprofessional of you to repeat them, especially when I appealed to oversight to help stop the false allegations being published. --Insider201283 (talk) 14:12, 29 April 2011 (UTC) I have not posted "my blog"?? For him to claim what is "my site" is outing me. Insider outed himself here last year in regards to some site ownership, has made some claims here of standard Amway relationship, and with subsequent identities he has outed here, other claims are verifiable though seemingly contradictory. I will not speculate on speculative relationship claims. Financeguy222 (talk) 14:39, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

AE
I have appealed your AE decision and you may reply here. TFD (talk) 01:24, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

TFD
Is the indefinite ban on TFD editing articles relating to any minority peoples in the Soviet Union inclusive of article talk pages or user talk pages where such issues are discussed, or only to actual edits on those articles proper? And is the term "minority peoples" broadly defined (that is, including nations where were formerly part of the USSR, but where the peoples are not "minority" in the current nation?  I am not trying to be a nudge, but wanted to be entirely clear. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:01, 30 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The trouble originated at Talk:Lia Looveer which is an excellent example of the sort of trouble which results from TFD's acting in this way, so, yes, it includes talk pages. The term minority peoples of the Soviet Union includes every nationality other than Russian which was included in the Soviet Union such as Latvians, Estonians, Karelians, Baltic and Volga Germans, Crimean Tatars, Ukrainians, Lithuanians, particularly those who were impacted by mass deportation and the Nazi invasion. By its literal terms it includes all Soviet minorities, but many were not affected by those events and would be unlikely to be the target of ideological attacks against anti-communist emigres. Actually it probably should include Russian emigres also who are also potential victims of this sort of guilt by association, sometimes simply because they were prisoners of war. User:Fred Bauder Talk 13:24, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Third Opinion
Hey Fred, you gave an initial third opinion at User_talk:Colonies_Chris. Since then both me and Chris have replied. One other person has replied, but his reply was extremely short, and i also noticed that he might be partial to Chris, as they both seem to be part of a group of editors that focuses on amongst other things, delinking stuff. So, i was wondering if you could provide a further opinion? Omegastar (talk) 15:20, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

"It is policy to remove all contributions by socks of banned or blocked editors."
Whereas I agree with what you say regarding the socks, I am not sure the policy states that. The WP:3RR mentions banned users only and says nothing about socks. Maybe we can think about addition of socks to this policy?--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:35, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

YGM
-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 17:53, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

The appeal of your action in WP:AE
Hello Fred. While I agree that some action in this case was appropriate, I wonder if you would consider shortening TFD's topic ban to one year. A check of DIGWUREN shows that indefinite bans are not common. Long bans are sometimes imposed after shorter bans have not worked. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 14:09, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

TFD
The admonitions by three separate admins regarding his AE actions do not count as "warnings"? I rather thought them quite clear that his behaviour was a problem, and that the "next time" he did anything, he would be strongly sanctioned. Also he was clearly aware of the Digwuren sanctions as he appealed his notification thereof :).  Collect (talk) 19:37, 3 May 2011 (UTC)   Note also that one of them (Ed Johnston) weighed in just above - suporting a one year topic ban. Collect (talk) 19:38, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

TFD was already formally warned and placed on notice on October 14, 2010, see DIGWUREN --Martin (talk) 06:44, 4 May 2011 (UTC) PS. I don't want to see TFD topic banned indefinitely, but I don't think he should get off with yet another warning. --Martin (talk) 06:56, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

IRC help question
Fred, there was a heated appeal for reconsideration in the IRC help channel yesterday about Al-Bassa and some other 1948 Haganah related articles. I got as far as that Cecil Roth is not being allowed in the article and the editor claimed that modern historians agreed with Roth but that they were not being allowed either. What was the deal there? Ocaasi c 02:29, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

YGM
-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 13:50, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Revdel at Murder of James Bulger?
Hey there. Not sure what your view is, but that recent edit at Murder of James Bulger might need revdel or oversight if we're worried (rightly) about misidentification? Just a thought, I'll leave it with you. Ged UK  14:59, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

YGM
-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 18:12, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Cruel and unusual punishment?
Hi Fred. I noticed that you blocked indefinitely. The IP has certainly earned a lengthy block for its BLP transgressions, but it was my impression that IPs are never blocked indefinitely. Could it be a mistake? Best, Favonian (talk) 14:03, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Thank you. User:Fred Bauder Talk 14:11, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

TFD's appeal at AE
It appears that this discussion has run out of gas. So far, two reviewing admins have expressed disagreement with the ban, and none were in favor. Do you want to lift your ban, or propose something different? Incidentally thank you for participating at AE. All former arbitrators are welcome :-). EdJohnston (talk) 15:29, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Disappointed
You know, Fred, I always thought you were one of the more clear minded and big picture guys around here, but this is disappointing. You are picking up on a good editor, and ignoring the SPI/sock issues. This is very much "lets focus on the letter of the policies and ignore their spirit and the good of the project" bureaucratic attitude ("I don't care if you discovered a terrorist nuclear plot, you filled in the wrong form to report this and you'll be fined for that") that I did not expect from you :( --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk 19:06, 7 May 2011 (UTC)


 * @Fred. If you're going to plead sloth, then it might be best to withdraw the proposed result.  It's hard to see how superficial treatments of AE disputes can lead to good outcomes. aprock (talk) 20:22, 7 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Fred, for the new more constructive suggestions. My faith in you is being restored again :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk 22:12, 7 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Lot of work involved. Puuh! User:Fred Bauder Talk 22:19, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That's why we pay you the big wikibucks, you know... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk 22:23, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Please see my comment here. I did not first become active at Wikipedia in November 2010, November is just when I registered an account and stopped vandalizing. Before that I'd been active here since July 2009. I didn't want to mention this for obvious reasons, it's embarrassing. But if people are going to accuse me of being a sockpuppet because they think I suddenly showed up in November, I prefer being called a reformed vandal rather than a sock.Boothello (talk) 04:45, 8 May 2011 (UTC)


 * For the record, once again, I never accused you, nor anyone else of being a sock puppet. What I said was that a number of editors active on the articles were: 1) SPAs (which fits) and 2) their accounts were created soon after the conclusion of the R/I case (which also fits). To be precise, I actually suspected meat puppetry more than sock puppetry - based on previous comments and discussions, like the AN/I discussion I linked to in my statement. This was (were) also statements which referred to a set of editors not you in particular (in fact I stated explicitly that it is conceivable that one of these accounts began editing when it did by accident - what was NOT conceivable was that all of them did).Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:01, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Since you said this AE thread should also discuss the possibility of POV-pushing on these articles, I added some information about the patterns of Volunteer Marek's content editing. If we're going to discuss this in my case, I think we should discuss it in his case too.Boothello (talk) 04:43, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Revdel request
Thanks for your explanation and your removal of the "grossly offensive" content. As a note of clarification: you said suppression was unwarranted, but Revdel was--I was under the impression that Revdel was indeed what I asked for. I see now that I went through Requests for oversight, but I've done that before when asking for Revdel and there was never an indication of the difference between Revdel and oversight (I usually get a response, often from Alison, and they never commented on it). Browsing through the category "Wikipedia administrators willing to handle RevisionDelete requests" strikes me as burdensome--can't we have a button on Revision deletion? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 17:49, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Lia Looveer
Does it fall within Digwuren? You might wish to note the current discussion wherein one person appears to feel that anyone who moved to "Nazi Germany" (albeit away from the Soviets) is, perforce, able to be implicated as a "Nazi collaborator." As no RS makes the claim, I am a tad dubious, and have posted on NPOV/N about this, but an impartial admin might reasonably step in (TFD has naught to do with this). Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:03, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * BTW, one editor has now written
 * The border between "insinuations" and the attempts to reveal real cases of collaborationism is as vague as the border between the good faith desire to protect someone's name and the attempts to justify real Nazi collaborators
 * and then wrote
 *  However, if you do not want some details to appear in the biography of a person who worked in Nazi Germany during WWII, do not dig deeper, because that may reveal not only the details you want to show, but also something you want to hide
 * which I regard as clearly an insinuation of some sort (and possibly a threat) that I have a "reason" to protect Nazi collaborators. As such is a totally off-the-wall sort of accusation on his part, I am quite affronted and have asked him to redact such apparent charges.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:04, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Question about Wikipe-tan deletion notification for Kasuga
I just read and could not find any  about it on March 21. Was it possibly held on a different date? There's also no notification of the debate on the image itself. DB (talk) 14:37, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the deletion debate may have occurred on Commons. User:Fred Bauder Talk 14:41, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * See commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Wikipe-tan's past, now and future2.png, which closed with Keep. EdJohnston (talk) 20:40, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

thanks
Hi Fred, thanks for cleaning up my talk. Considering what I've been called in the past, it must have been exceptional to attract your attentions. Still, I wouldn't be an admin if I wasn't fairly thick-skinned,  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  06:16, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikisunn SPI case
Hi Fred, as you were one of the drafting arbitrators in the Sathya Sai Baba 2 case, please note Sockpuppet_investigations/Wikisunn. -- JN 466  13:49, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks =)
It's good to know that there's people like you out in the world and on Wikipedia. --DustyComputer (talk) 01:47, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Troubles log sorted
Hi Fred. Could you look at User:EdJohnston/Sandbox which is my proposal to reorganize the log from WP:TROUBLES. You were on the Committee at the time, and you could say whether I've stated the restrictions properly. I have added a new section called 'Guide to enforcement' at the top. I wanted to do this because the log at TROUBLES was out of date order, and new items were being added by admins in two different sections. I have also asked NuclearWarfare. Thanks for any feedback you can provide, EdJohnston (talk) 03:03, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * My God! You've done a lot of good work there. User:Fred Bauder Talk 03:41, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

User talk:Tatababy
There is at least one more outing edit by Tatababy on his talk page (immediately before the supressed one).Jasper Deng (talk) 20:37, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Lost page history?
Do you know what happened there? I see the page history since 14:10, 16 May 2011 stricken out, and on top is the record 22:21, 2 June 2011 Fred Bauder(talk | contribs) m (49,719 bytes) (→Suggestion) > (Therefore I am asking you). Last Lost (talk) 00:33, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * A passage which violated Biographies of living persons was suppressed. User:Fred Bauder Talk 00:35, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I am afraid, I don't understand: there were 2-3 recent sections which did not discuss any living persons. There was a discussion whether references must be added to the article or not. In particular, the talk thread "Fraud" was about section Oxyhydrogen. Can you review this talk thread and tell me what exactly was wrong there, or should I merely restart the discussion? Last Lost (talk) 01:25, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Never mind. I thought the page content wwas deleted. Which is not; only last history. Last Lost (talk) 01:29, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

BLP and Ruggero Santilli
Thanks for the oversight. That stuff was getting way out of hand, and Santilli has a reputation for filing frivolous lawsuits. Putting that aside, the Oxyhydrogen and related articles have had some significant problems for years, and these aren't the usual content-dispute issues say between Irish/English or Arab/Persian editors. Specifically, the subject has been a hot topic for scammers who want to sell people what amounts to perpetual motion machines. They've gone so far as to edit the Oxyhydrogen article to make it appear highly favorable of their product, create screen shots of the article, and then post the image (or copy the text) onto their websites. They've also gone to great lengths (and multiple socks) to remove language that relates to this type of fraud.

In case you aren't familiar with the subject, the general idea is to use electricity from a car engine to split water into hydrogen and oxygen for use as fuel or as a fuel additive with the (claimed) net result of increased mileage - or even gasoline-free operation. However, these products never produce the results claimed. A quick net search for HHO + Oxyhydrogen will immediately turn up numerous examples. This one is rather comical in that it claims a "thermo-nuclear" reaction rather than a simple chemical reaction. In short, the problems with these articles stem not from typical content disputes but rather ongoing attempts to use Wikipedia as an aid to defraud investors and consumers. As a result, it's especially difficult and frustrating to maintain these articles using our normal processes, and the frustration can boil over to bad manners. That's it in a nutshell.

Given my limited tools, my preference would be to provide such accounts a single warning specific to the article followed by an indef block should the warning fail. I haven't done so because that runs contrary to Wikipedia's culture. AN/I and check-user wouldn't be very effective as most editors there aren't familiar with the subject, and they would find themselves hit several times a week with repeat problems - and some of the editors are probably legitimate cranks rather than dedicated scammers. If I had check-user privileges, I'd be inclined to automatically check each editor attempting to subvert the article. However, I believe that runs contrary to accepted check-user practices, and I don't have the time daily to dedicate to learn, apply for, and administer what appears to be an overly bureaucratic process (though I do believe Wikipedia benefits greatly from its many anonymous editors and has gained public trust by carefully controlling and limiting the check-user process).

That said, I'm very interest on your take to this atypical issue. I, too, have been editing since 2002 (first under IPs), and I'm well familiar with the typical edit wars between real-world opponents, but the edits involving the Oxyhydrogen and related articles have an entirely different character, and it's not even the academic "Theory A" v. "Theory B" camps. It's science v. criminals, and there's really no compromise. These guys really are out there ripping off the public in fly-by-night operations. So - what to do? Rklawton (talk) 01:51, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep in mind that there is no reliable source that the process works. Proceed accordingly. In the village I live in you can pay to have this installed by the only garage in town... User:Fred Bauder Talk 01:55, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * We're taking the other approach which is to say that the process doesn't produce the results claimed - and then we're besieged by editors such as User:Last Lost (above) who want sources for even these most basic and uncontroversial claims (like the only products of the electrolysis of water are H2 and O2 in a 2:1 ratio). Herein lies the problem - how are we going to find a reliable source that's going to directly refute such absurd claims as a "thermo-nuclear" reaction when their specific H2 O2 mixture is used? No academic journal would waste their time on refutations for each new scam, and yet that's what these editors demand. Thoughts? Rklawton (talk) 02:06, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Such claims are not taken seriously by the scientific community so no research is to be expected. Rely on the lack of reliable sources for the claims made. User:Fred Bauder Talk 02:09, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * And what of the vociferous opposition? Rklawton (talk) 02:17, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Please be courteous, but insist on a reliable source for any fact included in Wikipedia. User:Fred Bauder Talk 02:19, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I have to protest against insinuations about me and false statements spread  by this discorteous user. It is false that serious community does not debunk these fringe science statements. In fact another user had already added the reference I requested, from 'nature.com'. It was not that hard: it took only about a week of variously insulting me in the article talk page.

By the way, Fred, your advice "insist on a reliable source for any fact" goes contrary to the approach preached by Rklawton: it was exactly him (and two other page owners) who belligerently refused to add a reference I asked for (and added by another user). It was truly Kafkaesque experience: I asked for references from reliable sources, and I was variously called troll, sockpuppet, Smarty Pants, someone making them to "jump through the hoops", and so on. I truly hope that not all wikipedians who claim to edit since 2002 have this attitude. And this is really weird: the very same Rklawton writes above about litigous nature of these fringe scientists. Logically thinking, in such circumstances wikipedia really has to "jump through the hoops" and back any accusations in fringe science by reliable third party references. Last Lost (talk) 17:22, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The reference in question was in place before the request for references. I simply pointed it out. Rklawton (talk) 23:49, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I stand corrected regarding the timing of the source edit. The fact that it was easily obtained does help indicate that the assertions made in the article were high-school science level and really didn't require sourcing - all of which makes me doubt Last Lost's motives and the nature of his account. Rklawton (talk) 23:52, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Your disrespect of opinions of other editors is duly noted already, ou don't have to demonstrate it again and again. I have never heard about "Brown' s gas" in high school, so your justification of refusal to add a reference is ridiculous. I didn't ask for a reference about law of conservation of energy, I asked a for a reference about a particular case of dubious science. So Rklawton is continuing to spread falsehood about my position in the dispute. I have already explained why I didn't want it to add myself: the experts in the subject are supposed to know which reference is best. Instead I got only insults from the supposed experts, and as I see I have no chance to see an apology, only self-apology. What an amazing example of behavior from a wikipedia old-timer. And what really pisses me off, I cannot file a formal complaint about his behavior, since it requires two victims of abuse. And he may continue running around with false accusations. Therefore I decided to abandon this topic owned by disrespectful people.
 * You wrote "the fact it was easily obtained" - this is another falsehood, to base your defamation upon. I googled "Brown's gas", got 140,000 hits, looked thru first four pages of search results, and didn't see 100% good references to add - I guess you didn't bother to check how "easily" they are obtained. Definitely not so easy for a person off a street; and it is the job of wikipedia to direct the access to good sources information by good links, rather than by dismissive arrogance of "easily obtained" claims.
 * Sorry Fred for using your page as a chat board, this is my last post here. I am at a loss how to deal with aggressive editors in topics with low eyeball count, so I better avoid them. Last Lost (talk) 06:01, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

YGM
-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 08:31, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

You have more mail :)
Crazymonkey1123 (Jacob) T or M/Sign mine 21:41, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Proposed Tibetan naming conventions
A while back, I posted a new proposal for Tibetan naming conventions, i.e. conventions that can be used to determine the most appropriate titles for articles related to the Tibetan region. This came out of discussions about article titles on Talk:Qamdo and Talk:Lhoka (Shannan) Prefecture. I hope that discussions on the proposal's talk page will lead to consensus in favour of making these conventions official, but so far only a few editors have left comments. If you would be interested in taking a look at the proposed naming conventions and giving your opinion, I would definitely appreciate it. Thanks&mdash;Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 20:45, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Reasons To Delete J1c3d (Y-DNA)
JohnLloydScharf (talk) 02:31, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms, original theories and conclusions, and articles that are themselves hoaxes (but not articles describing notable hoaxes)
 * 2) Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed
 * 3) Categories representing overcategorization

The hold on editing has been taken off without explanation, to my knowledge, as of this moment, without justification.

JohnLloydScharf (talk) 00:42, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

'''The one who took this off the edit hold did so without reading the talk page.

JohnLloydScharf (talk) 01:21, 3 August 2011 (UTC)'''
 * I'm sorry, but I don't understand this or what you want. User:Fred Bauder Talk 01:37, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Yworo (talk) 01:44, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Personal details of a minor
I see that you have oversighted Mohammad Muaaz Bin Zaka. If deletion is not enough for this, the same information is also in deleted articles MohammadMuaazBinZaka and Mohammad Muaaz Bin zaka. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 16:21, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Clarification needed in an AE thread
I would appreciate you clarifying something in this thread. On August 12th, I asked for the edit summary in this diff from Mathsci to be oversighted because it was outing an editor (albeit a banned one) and contained a personal attack. It was oversighted a few hours later. However, Mathsci is saying in that thread that his edit summary was oversighted by you in response to his own request, and is also implying that there was nothing wrong with what he said in it. Could you please clarify whether that’s the case?

I also think that this thread would benefit from some attention from an uninvolved admin in general, if you can spare the time for that. It’s been open since August 8th, but thus far only one uninvolved admin has commented there, on August 9th. --Captain Occam (talk) 18:51, 16 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I can't remember if there was more than one request, but I thought the request by Mathsci to suppress that inappropriate edit summary was righteous, so did it. Protecting an editor is not a proper reason for suppression; there were other appropriate reasons. Most of the arbitrators can view it and discuss it, if need be. User:Fred Bauder Talk 19:44, 16 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I’m more concerned about the edit summary not being visible to the admins who close this AE report. As EdJohnston pointed out, Mathsci’s own behavior is subject to review in that thread because he is the one who submitted it, and I think the edit summary there is relevant to the question of whether there have been problems with Mathsci’s behavior.  But as I understand it, oversighted diffs aren’t visible to most admins, including almost all of the admins who are active at AE.  Is there any way to make sure the AE thread is closed by someone who’s aware of the contents of this edit summary? --Captain Occam (talk) 20:10, 16 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I've run it by the functionaries list and asked for volunteers. User:Fred Bauder Talk 21:29, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I have informed the three arbitrators that I contacted prior to requesting oversight concerning Captain Occam's postings here. (They were Elen of the Roads, Casliber and Newyorkbrad.) I consider Captain Occam's postings here and on WP:AE to be unprovoked harassment. Mathsci (talk) 21:40, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Laurence Alma-Tadema
Hi, I have added an image, a handful of references and met almost all requirements which will qualify for DYK, except for selecting a hook. Pagesize is also over 2000chars now. Would you like to do the DYK or would you like me to do it? AshLin (talk) 21:14, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It would be interesting to learn how to do that, but I'm doing many other things. User:Fred Bauder Talk 21:30, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * My only request is that material be added with references. This is especially important when articles come up for DYK, GA, FA etc. Unreferenced text adds load to the person who wants to push it through a process as he has to do it instead. On the other hand, if that information is deleted being unreferenced, then editors feel unhappy too. AshLin (talk) 11:40, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * References cannot be added for the works section although there is no reason to doubt the accuracy of it. User:Fred Bauder Talk 12:52, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, I was only referring to the subsection "If no one marries me". I humbly beg to differ on the issue of references for lists of works, we could find and add references about her authorship of works, which verify the authorship, correctness of title and other aspects, otherwise the list itself remains an uncited, unproven assertion. AshLin (talk) 04:46, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's the problem. A Abebooks or WorldCat listing is not a source, indeed it is a violation of WorldCat's terms of service to use it as one. User:Fred Bauder Talk 09:48, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Communist front
An article that you have been involved in editing, Communist front, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Cerejota (talk) 05:33, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
Hey I did it wrong, tell me how so I can fix it ;) Cerejota (talk) 23:12, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Laurence Alma-Tadema
Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Kepler
Just wanted to say: Thanks for cleaning Kepler College. Marvellous job. An arborsculpture for you: --Phleer (talk) 03:33, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest/Advertising/Contentiousness
I completely agree with your assessment of Objective3000.

Any external gambling website to which links are provided, other than to his qfit, blackjackincolor, blackjack-scam, and others, is deleted by him. His goal on WP is to provide a billboard for his highly priced CV software. Look, in particular, at "Card counting". Of the first 9 references, 5 are to his various cites. Of the first 16, I think 9 are to his various cites. They all prominently display CV software. Indeed, his profile refers ONLY to his CV software.

I’m new, but these external links should be replaced by links to primary sources. His websites simply regurgitate the work of others. I’m happy to help provide the primary sources as alternative references in this regard.

I also highly doubt his claims of familiarity with the true experts in the gambling field. He's been on WP only since 2007 and many of his statements are inaccurate. Plus, if it matters, his writing is abysmally poor and incomprehensible because of the jargon he's coined to provide himself an aura of expertise.

He should be barred from WP as SEVERE conflict of interest/marketing motivated. And his contentiousness and meanness should not be tolerated. He's not a scholar, but a businessman and he uses WP as low cost advertising.

PhilippeMaurice (talk) 14:48, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * This appears to be a sockpuppet, probably of Mk5384, who was community banned and has used sockpuppets in the past.Objective3000 (talk) 17:36, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Confirmed Sockpuppet of Drlesmgolden Objective3000 (talk) 01:18, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Dairy Management Inc. article merged with Dairy Promotions Program article
Fred -

I am an employee of Dairy Management, Inc. Thank you for recently posting the information about the Dairy Promotions Program Content on the Dairy Management, Inc. page. We are pleased to see the content and that all of the information is accurate. Thank you very much.

I would like to bring to your attention an inaccuracy in the opening description and hope you can help us. The opening description line states that DMI is “an offshoot of the USDA” which unfortunately is not an accurate statement.

We actually are not an offshoot of the USDA nor considered a subsidiary of theirs in any way.

Can we please change the opening sentence to reflect a more accurate description of our organization? I would suggest the following:

Dairy Management Inc.™ (DMI) is a private, non-profit corporation which was established and run by America's dairy farmers to unify national and local dairy promotion efforts.

This information is supported by an article from Prairie Farmer (part of Farm Progress Companies – Agriculture’s Information Leader) which also clarifies the USDA inaccuracy.

(http://prairiefarmer.com/story.aspx/dairy/management/inc/and/americas/dairy/farmers/set/the/record/straight/43816)

Please advise as we would like to ensure that the accurate description of our organization is posted as soon as possible. Thank you very much.

RoseDMI (talk) 13:49, 2 September 2011 (UTC)


 * That seems to be the formulation used on the DMI and other websites.    Will Beback    talk    21:55, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Flash mob
Re this and Ticket#2011090610015598, please see your e-mail inbox. Regards, AGK  [&bull; ] 19:59, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your prompt response. Regards, AGK  [&bull; ] 20:09, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Invitation to New Orleans developers' meeting
Sumanah (talk) 15:28, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

PLEASE HELP ME TO UNDERSTAND
Sorry to involve you in this, but as senior editor you may be able to help me to understand the following: in the page, in the section Aquygen there is a statement damaging to Santilli professional standing: the magnecules are called a "discredited "theory and then 2 references are added (reference 17 and 18) I have pointed out that reference 18 is  a on line religious article where no magnecules are mentioned  (and therefore it is not clear why it is  there), and reference  17 is a negative article by Calo. I have presented  three positive references asking to add them next to the negative one. Please note that two  of the references  are from the same peer-reviewed journal that published Calo " The Journal of Hydrogen Energy" and a  third one is  a monograph  published by  Springer  and all three  are positive. I believe that the neutral point of view requires that all three references should be added next to the negative ones, or no references at all  should appear since these references are already present in the Santilli page. On July 18, 2011 an agreement was reached or hinted  by SteveBaker and   Qwyrxian   to remove mention of magnecules in the Aquygen section rather than adding three  positive references....after   2 months nothing has happened and I am told by Rklawtont just today that the editors are in agreement about not doing anything about it and are leaving everything as is. I see no discussion from the other editors about this points, unless the editors talk outside of the Discussion page. Keeping the Aqygen page with the word "discredited" and the negative references only is not a neutral point of view and a violation of the BLP policy, damaging to Santilli' professional standing and has nothing to do with the fact that he is defined fringe scientist. I am genuinely interested in knowing why this is happening. I have spent a lot of time explaining this in good faith in the section "Addition of References still needed" and before  in "Discussion still needed in the section about magnecules" in the Discussion page of Water Fuelled Car. . Sorry about this long winded explanation. Thank you CarlaGSantilli (talk) 14:56, 21 September 2011 (UTC)CarlaGSantilli
 * There was never an agreement. There's a lot of discussion on the talk page - all opposing your suggestions. Your sources are not reliable. You've edited under multiple accounts. You have a conflict of interest. The sources supporting your husband's views consist of published personal opinions and not peer reviewed articles. "Magnecules" are fringe science and the theory has no published support from reliable sources - though the journal your husband publishes seems to, no surprise, support them. Rklawton (talk) 18:33, 21 September 2011 (UTC
 * There was never an agreement per se, just words and sentences that I interpreted as such. The talks on the page are mainly  yours. You have reference 18  from a religious source WND  next to "magnecules" Is this a reliable information about  magnecules? Is this a notable reference? I suggested, among others, also the monograph by Kluwer ( and now Springer)  [ http://www.amazon.com/Foundations-Hadronic-Chemistry-Applications-Fundamental/dp/9048158532/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1311165913&sr=1-1] that should be next to the reference 17 because it is peer-reviewed, it is not an opinion , it is not published by Santilli and it has been the basis of several patents. But if you say that it should not, then it should not be mentioned. I never wrote under other names, many people who know Santilli have been upset  with some of you editors and I cannot be responsible for their bad behavior. It was established that as per COI policy I can be here even if some  wish me gone. I still do not see any discussion about several policies that , I honestly believe are not adhere to, but , on the light of the recent recognition of magnecules by the patent office and by the investors, it is not so crucial....life goes on. Thank you, Fred Bauder for your hospitality on your page, sorry for intruding.CarlaGSantilli (talk) 08:14, 23 September 2011 (UTC)CarlaGSantilli