User talk:Lorifredrics

Hi Lori keep the fight for justice going! — Preceding unsigned comment added by KingsonRules (talk • contribs) 00:52, 19 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you, KingsonRules!--Lorifredrics (talk) 03:55, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

June 2011
Hello Lorifredrics. If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Kingston University, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:
 * 1) editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
 * 2) participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
 * 3) linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Spam).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:11, 24 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Additionally, please see this. Thank you. -- Hoary (talk) 15:15, 24 June 2011 (UTC)


 * You seem to misunderstand our policies per this edit. Please do not add this material again in the absence of reliable secondary sources. Wikipedia is not a scandal sheet. Thank you. --John (talk) 12:24, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Sabrina Anver
If you believe that Sabrina Anver is notable then you should create an article on them. Because without the article there is no way you are going to be able to list them as an Notable Alumni of Kingston University as there is community consensus on that point. Mtking (talk) 08:33, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Kingston University
I have reverted your addition about Legal Controversies at Kingston University as you clearly have a WP:COI you need to get agreement for ALL changes made you wish to make to this article agreed at the talk page. Mtking (talk) 00:07, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

There are no factual issues here that are debatable. All matters are reported as published. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lorifredrics (talk • contribs)

July 2011
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Kingston University. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. In particular, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue edit warring, you may be blocked from editing. Mtking (talk) 00:23, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

I am working towards consensus via the talk page, but the article edit should remain until a consensus is reached -- it's not all that complex an edit to warrant preventing it from going "live" until it is resolved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lorifredrics (talk • contribs)


 * Due to your WP:COI you should not be making ANY edits to the page, please revert. Mtking (talk) 00:32, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

ANI
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Kingston University and WP:COI SPA. Thank you.. Mtking (talk) 00:30, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello. 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. You could also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address 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) 15:30, 14 July 2011 (UTC) Thanks, you're right. I need to remember to do that. I did the last time I edited.

Declaring an interest
Would you please consider making a statement on your user page regarding your connection to Howard Fredrics and Kingston University (see Conflict of interest) Mtking (talk) 00:06, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Done!--Lorifredrics (talk) 01:49, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit war noticeboard notification
Hi Lori, I hate to pile on over everything else you're dealing with, but there's now a report at the admins' noticeboard for edit wars. You have a chance to explain your reasons for violating WP:3RR, though I'll warn you that the 3 revert restriction is a "bright line rule" and just about anyone who has broken it is almost always blocked, although since you weren't warned that your next edit would be violating 3RR, an admin might be lenient and leave you with a warning. If you are blocked, since it would be your first block, it would probably only be for 24 hours. But anyway, I wanted to let you know about it, the editor who reported you forgot to do so. Thanks. --  At am a  頭 23:31, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Notification of WP:AN/EW report
Hello Lorifredrics,

This is an automated friendly notification to inform you that you have been reported for Violation of the Edit warring policy at the Administrators' noticeboard.

If you feel that this report has been made in error, please reply as soon as possible on the noticeboard. However, before contesting an Edit warring report, please review the respective policies to ensure you are not in violation of them. ~ NekoBot (MeowTalk) 07:00, 16 July 2011 (UTC) (False positive? Report it!)

Topic ban
In discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, a consensus has been reached to enact the following edit restriction: "User:Lorifredrics is banned indefinitely from editing Kingston University and Peter Scott (educationalist) (Talk pages exempt) and from any page, on any matter relating to Howard Fredric's grievances with Kingston University broadly construed (again Talk page exempt)."

The discussion, together with the resulting decision, can be seen here. Further information relating to bans is available at Banning policy. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:47, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Lori, just to emphasize that you're welcome to participate on the talk pages of these articles; if you make a proposal for an edit that then gains the consensus of other editors, it will be adopted for the article text. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:20, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

You are suspected of sockpuppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Sockpuppet investigations/Lorifredrics. Thank you. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:22, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Another malicious and unfounded attack on me, and a perfect example of the double standards used on WP by some editors.--Lorifredrics (talk) 05:23, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The results of this investigation can be found HERELorifredrics (talk) 06:33, 20 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Unfounded, yes, and I am glad that I asked for a check, so that the suspicions raised at ANI have been dispelled, and your name has been cleared. However, what evidence do you have that it was malicious? Or do you just assume that anyone who opposes your efforts in any way is malicious? Are you prepared to consider the possibility that the situation may have looked suspicious, particularly considering the timing of your topic ban and the creation of the new account, and that investigating the situation to settle it one way or the other was more constructive than leaving mistaken suspicions to fester? Anyway, I offer you my assurance that there was nothing malicious in my instigating the sockpuppet investigation. Naturally, it is up to you whether you accept that assurance, or whether you prefer to believe in some malicious conspiracy against you. JamesBWatson (talk) 06:43, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It is only malicious in so far as the double standard is employed. If I attempt to raise constructive questions or concerns (not accusations or damaging formal investigative complaints) about a user, rather than leaving them to fester, I'm jumped all over by a pack of veritable WP wolves.  Are you prepared to consider the possibility that my suspicions tend to be reasonable and expressed in good faith, even if they also sometime turn out to be viewed by other editors who bother to comment as unlikely?Lorifredrics (talk) 07:00, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * First of all, I do fully accept that you are acting in good faith. I also do understand that from your point of view the opposition to what you are trying to do looks like a conspiracy of people with an ulterior motive. In the early days of my Wikipedia editing I found that edits to an article were being reverted although I knew them to be true, and I thought this was because the edits were uncomplimentary to a particular institution, and people involved in that institution were trying to suppress the information. I now know far more both about how Wikipedia works and about the particular editors who were involved in that case, and I am 100% certain that I was wrong. Those editors were genuinely acting in good faith out of concern for protecting the standards of Wikipedia. Even though the edits they were reverting were factually correct, they were not supported by reliable sources, and there are very good reasons for not taking the word of an anonymous editor for it. Why this digression about a past case that does not concern you? It is an attempt to show that I genuinely do have some understanding of how things look from your point of view, having been through a somewhat similar experience myself. (I say "somewhat" similar, because there are significant differences too, but there is enough similarity for me to understand how it must look to you.) Of course I don't know exactly how you see things, but in essence, you post information which you are convinced is not only true but also needs public exposure, and you see people taking considerable efforts to suppress that information. I can fully understand why you suspect they have a conflict of interest in the case. However, you have not presented any evidence that looks to me as though it supports those suspicions. I personally have neither knowledge of nor interest in Kingston University. Apart from a vague half memory that some polytechnic or other took on that name when polytechnics became reclassified as universities I have no memory of ever having heard of it. I have never edited the article. The only way that I came into this affair at all is that I read the first discussion on this at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, saw that there was a clear consensus for a topic ban, and, as an outside administrator with no involvement in the case, performed the necessary administrative tasks. From the point of view of an uninvolved outsider, although I fully understand where you suspicions are coming from, there does not seem to be any evidence to support them. You have, for example, made accusations of being paid to edit this article against an editor who has been editing for well over six years, and has made over 40000 edits on many subjects, mostly not related to Kingston University. It does not remotely look as though we are dealing with an editor who is paid to edit on that subject. You said "There is now evidence that has been gathered" to support that accusation, but you have not, as far as I know, presented the evidence. If you really do have such evidence, please present it, so that it can be assessed, and suitable action taken. By contrast, the recent sockpuppet investigation concerned a new account created shortly after editing restrictions were placed on an existing account, and the new account was used only to continue a campaign that the old account had been involved in. Unfortunately, it is very common indeed for that sort of situation to arise because the two accounts are being used by one person dishonestly, and so to anyone used to the way that things work in Wikipedia, it looks suspicious. As an administrator I could easily have just blocked the new account, but I did not think doing so on the basis of suspicion was justifiable, so instead I asked for a check to see if there was any objective evidence to support action, and I am very glad I did so, as it turns out that the answer is "no", confirming that I was right to check. In exactly the same way, if there is any objective evidence to support your actions then please let me know what the evidence is, and I will take any action that may be justified. (If you have evidence that you are reluctant to post publicly then please feel welcome to email me.) I assure you that your impression of double standards is unfounded, though I have no doubt it has been your sincere impression. You refer to "a pack of veritable WP wolves". I would not myself have used such strong langauge, but I do agree that some editors have been a good deal less civil and less sympathetic to you than I think they could have been. That, unfortunately, is what happens in a project in which anyone at all is allowed to participate. However, without condoning the exact way they expressed their concerns, I do see that they had legitimate concerns.


 * Well, this message has grown to be much longer than I intended, but to summarise the essential points: I am sure you were sincere in thinking that initiating the sockpuppet investigation was a case of double standards, but I ask you to believe that that impression was mistaken. On both sides there were suspicions without objective evidence. In both cases I am willing to consider any evidence if there is any. In the one case I sought evidence, and in the other I will willingly consider any evidence you can offer. In neither case would it be justifiable to take action without evidence, just because editors have raised suspicions. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:41, 20 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks, James for the thoughtful response. I do believe that your investigation had the unfortunate coincidence of being timed along with all of the vitriol and uncalled for administrative actions against me, and that it was not maliciously intended.  I especially appreciate your acknowledgment of my sincere beliefs and good faith, both of which tend to cause me to feel that much more inclined to accept your explanation fully and completely.--Lorifredrics (talk) 23:46, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Kingston University
How should you, Bentheadvocate and I work together to make sure the wiki web page on Kingston University best reports on the issues at the place, rather than have them air-brushed out by reputation managers ? KingsonRules (talk) 02:15, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * "Reputation managers"? I've been following the AN/I discussions about you; that seems to be all you think of other Wikipedia editors in principle, and you seem to have an agenda to have negative information (whether sourced or not) placed in the article for some insane reason.  Before putting such negative information in the article, it REALLY ought to be discussed on the talk page, not just edited into the article where it could end up being libelous (if someone, say, from the university itself looks at the article and sees libelous information, the resulting news story isn't about you, it's about Wikipedia and Jimbo ends up having to defend Wikipedia again because you don't listen to other editors' suggestions).
 * Just putting that out there. Use the article's talk page.  It's there for a reason.  CycloneGU (talk) 04:40, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, I've seen nothing libelous posted about Kingston University -- only true information, except to the extent that this information has been exorcised from the page by the reputation managers. --Lorifredrics (talk) 04:58, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Alright, so maybe it's true information. Is it verifiable?  CycloneGU (talk) 05:05, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * BTW, note my comments were replying to KingsonRules specifically, but I also have an understanding you are related to someone at the university, Lorifredrics? If I am mistaken, I apologize for making the association, but I heard something about a COI somewhere.  (EDIT: Just read above, I see your husband has issues related to the university.  But once again, it must be verifiable and must gain consensus to be in the article.  Three people does not a consensus make (unless there are only five people participating).  CycloneGU (talk) 05:12, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Verifiability seems to be a moving target on Wikipedia, at least as far as this article and related articles are concerned. I've seen highly reliable evidence discounted, simply because it was a reproduction of a legal document, primary source document, or other reliable news source that was posted (with permission) on a website that has more visitors than many "mainstream" publications, i.e. http://www.sirpeterscott.com.  But whatever.... --Lorifredrics (talk) 05:22, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, my message was more for KingsonRules. If he does not respond here, I will post on his talk page.  As I said at the AN/I that you recently posted to, I hope you don't mind being witness to these comments; if it is an issue, I can take this to his talk page at any time, but I wanted to cut in on his attempting to involve you in a discussion regarding what appears to be (from the extensive AN/I) his editing agenda for the article.  CycloneGU (talk) 06:11, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * FYI, I didn't even start the Kingston University heading above. I don't especially want to see my User Talk page turned into a large discussion among a bunch of users on this topic, so I'll ask if we can please all just take this to the Kingston University Talk page for any further discussion.   I'm happy to discuss these topics there. Thanks.Lorifredrics (talk) 06:18, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Good idea. As it's your talk page I'll ask a question; would you like it condensed (hatted), which I can help with, or do you intend to remove this discussion once it's on the talk page?  (If you intend to leave this here, that is fine too.)  I also was fully aware that KingsonRules started the thread, my initial post was in reply to him.  CycloneGU (talk) 06:21, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Good question. I think I'll leave it here for now, though eventually learning how to hat would be useful.  Lorifredrics (talk) 06:28, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Writing an article about your husband
Re this -- don't even think about it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:33, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Mind your own business! It's my user space--what are you doing peering around it...unless you're a paid reputation manager?  --Lorifredrics (talk) 01:42, 29 July 2011 (UTC)--Lorifredrics (talk) 01:42, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Firstly you do not own it, secondly your topic ban (see above) covers any page (except a talk one) so would cover that, thirdly a page about your husband has been deleted before (see Articles for deletion/Howard Fredrics) and as such any page about him could be subject to deletion under WP:CSD. Mt  king  (edits)  01:52, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know such an article, once actually posted as a finished article could be marked for deletion, but the policy refers to an article that is "A sufficiently identical and unimproved copy." An article that is' substantially improved, with a different and much expanded content would not be subject to such conditions.  In any event, I would submit this article through the proper channels for reversal of deletion on the basis that it is improved and indicative of sufficient notability and verifiability.  Moreover, the article will not address matters substantially related to the topic ban -- i.e. the controversial aspects of my husband's employment at Kingston University.  To prematurely attempt to censor my user space where articles are developed goes against the spirit of WP as a place to nurture and support the development of editors and creation of meaningful content.  To mark for deletion an article in its very early development stage i.e. before posting as a regular titled article outside of user space is a form of WP editor harassment, and will be treated as such.--Lorifredrics (talk) 02:06, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Any editor is free to request the deletion of any page at any time, this includes a userspace draft and should not be seen by you as harassment. As the page stands at the moment, I do not think anyone would nominate it, however if the page looks like it has been abandoned for some time then that might be a reason, or if it contains material in breach of WP:BLP which applies to every page on WP (unlikely as you are drafting it) or it breaches a number of other guidelines or policies. Mt  king  (edits)  02:17, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * And any such request for deletion at this drafting stage would have to have a damned good reason. Otherwise, it would be harassment to do so.  Moreover, not only would this be improper, but the language used, "don't even think about it" is highly intimidatory, in breach of WP:NPA and WP:AGF, and that is not acceptable.--Lorifredrics (talk) 02:24, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * every deletion request should have a good reason, "I dont like it" never works. I firmly believe that the message was not a attack, nor was it showing a lack of good faith. Mt  king  (edits)  02:30, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Nomoskedasticity - I consider your comment above to be an implied threat -- that you'll take some sort of action against me if I write a perfectly legitimate article about a notable person, who happens to be my husband, using a NPOV and verifiable references. The purpose of my user space in this instance is to draft and develop such an article.  As such it should NOT be the target for your criticisms, as such pages are NOT to be considered as definitive or finished work, which would, once finished be posted in the normal article areas, where they may be edited by other editors, yourself included.--Lorifredrics (talk) 01:55, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It is not a threat, implied or otherwise. You are right, you are free to create a userspace draft article, however given the above, please make sure you avoid any mention of his dispute with Kingston University (as per topic ban) and given both your COI and an article has been deleted following a discussion, please make sure that you follow the WP:DRV procedure before moving the article to main space. If you are in any doubt how this works, please ask here or on my talk page and I will file one for you. Mt  king  (edits)  02:02, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I beg to differ, Mtking. Nomoskedasticity's comment "don't even think about it" suggests that any attempt to properly develop such an article (as is my right to do) will be met with the strongest possible action of opposition i.e. a complaint, attempt at banning/blocking, etc.  That's an entirely inappropriate to say on a user talk page about a user draft article page.  If Nomoskedasticity objects to the finished content, he is free to do so in the proper context of the article's talk page -- when and if the article is transfered to the main page and not before.  I consider his comments at present to be an attempt to intimidate me, and that is not right, nor will it work.--Lorifredrics (talk) 02:14, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I read it as more of some words of advice. He (I believe), and every editor is free to edit any page on WP (subject to any edit restrictions), so anyone, is free to edit the page at any point, just because you created it and it is in your userspace does not give you any special rights over it. WP:3RR still applies to it. Mt  king  (edits)  02:25, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree completely, and I will "put my money where my mouth is" if any action by Nomoskedasticity results in the form of edit warring or attempts to disrupt the normal process of development of the article in the proper way. If he (or anyone) has a bona fide contribution to make to the article's development (read: not destruction or deletion), then I would, of course welcome it.  A statement like "don't even think about it" is on its face, threatening and intimidating.  If he wants to make a helpful suggestion, a reminder about the WP policies to consider would be the proper way to express such helpfulness, just as you have done, Mtking.--Lorifredrics (talk) 02:33, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Then do "put your money where your mouth is" and get the draft to a stage where it is ready to go to WP:DRV, the longer you leave it the more likely it is to look like a WP:FAKEARTICLE. Mt king  (edits)  03:06, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth, from the position of having a NPOV, it was clearly an attempt at intimidation. it was possible that it was meant as humour, but considering this is Wikipedia that seems more hopeful than realistic! Anyway, just thought, having read the entire exchange, a neutral view might be worth adding. As you stated, there's nothing wrong with creating the article as long as the end version meets the guidelines, even if the subject IS your husband. Guy.shrimpton (talk) 16:02, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

User Page
Hi Lori,

I have Blanked your user page as I believe it is in violation of a number of WP Policies and guidelines, specifically WP:NOTSOAPBOX, WP:NOTWEBHOST/WP:NOTBLOG, WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:BLP. I have done this as an alternative to takeing it to WP:MfD where I believe it would have been deleted.

My understanding of your topic ban, means that you are unable to revet my blanking, I will revert it if you ask me to on my talk page, however I will also list it at WP:MfD.

If any of your talk page watchers (those in good standing) fell I have got this wrong, then please fell free to revert. Mt king  (edits)  07:54, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I have restored some portion of the contents of the userpage as she expresses her intention is to declare a conflict of interest. That seems valid. The rest of it is WP:SOAP so i kept it removed. If you have any problem with this, Lori, let me know. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 06:53, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I fully support what Metal.lunchbox has done. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:46, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Likewise Mt  king  (edits)  11:36, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Your draft article User:Lorifredrics/Howard Fredrics
As the admin who closed Articles for deletion/Howard Fredrics, I was asked by to advise you about your draft article at User:Lorifredrics/Howard Fredrics. That was on 28 July, and I apologise profusely for the delay in doing this - it slipped off my to-do list somehow and I have only been reminded because his message is about to scroll off my talk page.


 * Process: as a version of the article has been deleted at a deletion discussion, and as you have an evident conflict of interest, you should not post the article directly. The right course is to develop it in your user space, as you are doing, and when ready apply at WP:Deletion review. The protocol requires you to consult me first, and I should like to be notified, but if I am slow to respond I will not object if you go there without waiting for a response from me.


 * Content: the hurdle the article has to overcome is to establish WP:Notability, see also WP:Notability (people) and the standard for academics at Notability (academics).


 * Kingston: if it seems that he does not, independently of the Kingston controversy, meet the notability standard, you may think that it should be considered too. You have evidently the problem that your topic ban prevents you from mentioning it in the draft article. It would, I suppose, be within the terms of the ban for you to add on the article talk page a mention of it, and ask in your DRV request whether an uninvolved editor would consider adding it to the article; but it must by now be clear to you that the Wikipedia community is unwilling to let Wikipedia be used as a weapon in your dispute with Kingston, so that any such mention would need to be very carefully worded if it is not to do more harm than good.

In my opinion, the article is unlikely to be accepted, and my personal advice is to let the matter drop, but if you want to proceed that is the way to go about it. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 21:35, 11 August 2011 (UTC)