User talk:Fredio54

Note
Fredio54, Please help review process in which editor Brianyoumans may be using to delete articles-the editor seems to be using a personally subjective standard that may not fall firmly within the Wikipedi:verifiablilty guidelines. Case in point Brianyoumans "I need to seed some notability," re: Gregg L Greer Article. Furthermore Brianyoumans editing seems to be causing an environment of adversity which could prove harmful to Wikipedia. Review rule #3,4,1

A disruptive editor is an editor who exhibits tendencies such as the following: 1.Is tendentious: continues editing an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from other editors. Tendentious editing does not consist only of adding material; some tendentious editors engage in disruptive deletions as well. An example is repeated deletion of reliable sources posted by other editors. 2.Cannot satisfy Wikipedia:Verifiability; fails to cite sources, cites unencyclopedic sources, misrepresents reliable sources, or manufactures original research. 3.Engages in "disruptive cite-tagging"; adds unjustified [citation needed] tags to an article when the content tagged is already sourced, uses such tags to suggest that properly sourced article content is questionable. 4.Does not engage in consensus building: a. repeatedly disregards other editors' questions or requests for explanations concerning edits or objections to edits;b. repeatedly disregards other editors' explanations for their edits. 5.Rejects or ignores community input: resists moderation and/or requests for comment, continuing to edit in pursuit of a certain point despite an opposing consensus from impartial editors.--Greeralivetoday (talk) 13:45, 5 November 2014 (UTC)--Greeralivetoday (talk) 15:01, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of FreeEMS
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article FreeEMS, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Brianyoumans (talk) 03:21, 13 August 2008 (UTC) Thanks for the heads up Brian

Your recent edits
Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 15:37, 20 August 2008 (UTC) Technique noted.

AFD Discussions
Please don't modify another editor's remarks in an AFD discussion. If the information is incorrect, you should make a note in the subsequent discussion, for example:


 * Clarification - contrary to the rationale in the nomination, the software is currently in release, and has been for some time.

Regards -- Whpq (talk) 21:28, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, no worries on the edit others comments, but why did you remove mine? Fredio54 (talk) 22:06, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * My apologies on that one. I screwed up when I reverted the strikethrough.  I've added your comment back in.  Regards, -- Whpq (talk) 04:46, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Not a problem, however you lost my fix to the formatting of the last comment, I'll fix it again now (add br tags) Fredio54 (talk) 09:15, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Unless you are DaveBMW, they are not your comments to "fix" -- Whpq (talk) 12:15, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It would seem Brian thinks that dave and co are/were sockpuppets by me. I thought I'd better take the time to say that no, I am not dave, but that dave did give me permission to fix the formatting on his post. It's all null and void now anyway. The sad thing that I just realised is that you must have been looking through the edit logs to even see that I had touched it... fairly bored are you? :-) Internet "communities" breed strange behaviour indeed. Fredio54 (talk) 17:08, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Your addition to my talk page was funny
...but you should review the policies on personal attacks and assuming good faith. I assure you that there was nothing personal - how could there be? - and that many other editors regard the removal of substandard or unnecessary articles as a service, not a detriment. Many, many articles are removed each day for the same sorts of reasons as the FreeEMS article. If you want to put some information about FreeEMS into Wikipedia, I would suggest starting an article titled something like "aftermarket EFI systems". In the context of the article, you could discuss and link to your system as well as others such as MegaSquirt (which already has an article). (Whether MegaSquirt deserves an article is a good question; it is actually in use, which is a point in its favor, but I don't see any external reviews or coverage.) Regards, Brianyoumans (talk) 20:05, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I realise it was nothing personal Brian. I'm glad you found it amusing, that was it's primary purpose. Secondary was perhaps giving you a wake up call. Per the wikipedia version of "notability" the article should have been deleted, but I strongly question the validity of that definition. Tomorrow I shall buy 10 domain names, host them on 10 different services with 10 different registered name and addresses and put up 10 different articles talking about FreeEMS and how real it is and bingo, the page is back. That in my eyes is a total crock of shit, wouldn't you agree?

'''I would like to note though that the wikipedias own guidelines say "if you don't know about the subject, stay out" and "future tech is acceptable without extensive references" and that "if no consensus is reached default to keep" all three of which are present for the article in question, and all three ignored. This seems to "not be cricket"...'''

As for MegaSquirt and VEMS, they definitely deserve a place in wikipedia despite my personal dislike for each of them. www.diy-efi.org (not my site) also deserves a place as it fathered all three and is very significant in terms of diy efi history. I agree that a separate article should be written and chunks of each removed and placed there. I disagree that aftermarket efi systems should be the title, VEMS, MS and FreeEMS are VERY different to all other aftermarket EFI systems. FreeEMS being by far the most different for a number of very very important reasons. An article entitled "DIY EFI systems" would be more appropriate and that itself could be a sub topic linked from a more general aftermarket EFI systems article. So, as I see it, it should be 4 articles, one for each and one comparing them all in the context of availability of source and hardware designs and conditions placed upon those things. A general efi systems page would have maybe 30+ commercial products in it, all but 2 of which are closed projects 100%. 2 are semi open (vems and ms) and one is not aftermarket at all as it is not something that is marketed or purchasable. I hope this clears the subject matter up for you somewhat.

To draw a comparison, if wikipedia was here in 1990 and there was a page about linux up you would have deleted it... would that have been a good move? I think not ;-) Fredio54 (talk) 09:32, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * See WP:CRYSTAL - the job of an encyclopedia is not to predict what will be notable, but to cover what is. As to the deletion discussion, the two editors arguing for deletion were both experienced editors with no conflict of interest. Arguing against was the article's creator and several new or brand new editors, who frankly looked like either sockpuppets or "astroturfing" (recruiting people to come and support your view). And you failed to make a good argument for keeping. As to the articles, you clearly know much more about the area - feel free to write some new articles. If they are of more general interest and contain appropriate refs, they will be valuable additions. Brianyoumans (talk) 14:12, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't get confused Brian. I said it is notable now, just not by the wikipedia book of easily thwarted rules. No crystal ball required, just a decent understanding of the subject. All you have to do to verify that it is for real and notable is download the source code and have a read of it. Download the schematics and look through those. Can't get any more real than that my friend. I could generate all those "third party" pages for you if you like and you would have no case ;-) Of those editors on the discussion, 2 found the my site through wikipedia, and one I've known for a while. One alerted me to the deletion in the first place and the others I linked to laugh at the ridiculousness of it all. They found it so ridiculous that they felt the need to comment. I certainly didn't ask for it. Writing off valid discussion based on how much the users have interfered with content on this site is about as intelligent as beating your head against a brick wall. Quite likely you generate the desire to do that in many users as evidenced on your talk page and on others too :-) I shall not take any more of your valuable time up though, at least, not unless you enter any further drivel into this page ;-) Bye for now Brian. Fredio54 (talk) 17:02, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

September 2012
Hello, Fredio54, I saw that you made a draft for a new article at User:Fredio54/FreeEMS. Accoring to WP:STALEDRAFT, "Short term hosting of potentially valid articles and other reasonable content under development or in active use is usually acceptable (the template userspace draft can be added to the top of the page to identify these)." But in this case, you haven't edited your draft for a long time. If you are done, please donate it by moving User:Fredio54/FreeEMS to a WikiProject Abandoned Drafts subpage (a participant may help). If you are not done, please finish it and move it. If you abandoned it, you may request it for deletion by putting "db-u1" or donating it. Thank you. -- Trevj (talk) 05:26, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks Trevj! I've updated it to a satisfactory point this morning, and will continue to update it until it's WP quality and WP considers it notable. Note, originally this was just a rescue, as a bunch of wiki-nazis forced the deletion of the page. I was strongly demotivated to continue working on anything on this wiki and didn't log in for a very long time. At some point, once the ridiculous notability requirements are met, it can migrate back to the original URL. Cheers for the bump! :-) Fredio54 (talk) 08:49, 12 September 2012 (UTC)