User talk:WeatherFug

March 2008
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. scetoaux (talk) (My contributions.) 00:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC) Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living persons. --Justpassin (talk) 21:57, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Employment website
Hi, I was wondering why you have reverted my edit on the "New Trends" section of the Employment website yet again. I have been building this wiki and have contributed most of the major information to it. Currently, I'm looking for new sources to add to it some more, but are finding them pretty scarce. Specifically, the ultimate goal of the New Trends section is to show how this new model hasn't taken off at all. Neither of these two boards are notable on their own, but the fact that both have been going for almost a year now and neither has dented the business of the major boards is. I think that's important to show that not one, but two companies have tried this "pay the user" model to little avail. That's my conclusion at least and need some third party sources to verify it before I can edit in that conclusion. I do agree that the Broad vs. Niche section was too attractive for link spams, and will leave that off. But please leave the New Trends section as is until I can build up this article further. Startstop123 (talk) 13:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Pearlman article
Your edits were brought to our attention by a representative of the man they were attacking. He pointed out that in many cases the information stated isn't supported by the sources, or is supported by dead links. I also fail to see the relevance ... if you want to write about that guy, start an article about him. So, it's in violation of the biographies of living persons policy ... similar behavior at a newspaper would result in a libel suit that the newspaper would lose.

I will be reverting your changes as a BLP violation, and putting a notice about this on the BLP noticeboard for other admins to take heed of. If you revert them again, you will be blocked and the article will be protected. Daniel Case (talk) 14:24, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I do not feel at liberty to go into details about how we were contacted regarding this, or who by, at the moment. Suffice it to say that HelloAnnyong's response to your post at Talk:Les Henderson covers it, and I would add a referral to WP:COATRACK for my own part. The quality of the sourcing of your edits, poor as it is, is a moot point next to the fact that we just do not include negative information about living people in articles about other subjects, unless they have their own wiki articles. You seem to have tried and failed in the past to create an article about this guy ... that should have settled the issue. To continue as you have done is to willfully flout a policy that I have the authority to use the long, hard end of the mop on you to make sure it is compliance with you if need be. Capeesh? Also, is this the only account you've ever used? Daniel Case (talk) 22:10, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

For reasons of clarity and better oversight here is a copy of my questions to admin Daniel Chase on his talk page:

[quote]I see you removed the part about Ayman Difrawi on Lou_Pearlman. I do not consider this editing appropriate, and reverted the changes. Difrawi was Pearlman's main man in his controversial talent scouting businesses. They were Difrawi's brain childs and he was in fact running the show. Pretty well-sourced graf's too, imho. If you intend to repeat your actions, please be damn specific about them. Thank you. Regards --WeatherFug (talk) 07:33, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Few Questions. Apparently the names Ayman Ahmed el Difrawi aka Alec Defrawy and other aliases are demanded to be completely removed from Wikipedia, and legal pressure is employed by Difrawi's lawyer? Could you please provide detailed specifications about all concerns, so I can address them one by one? Have mr Defrawri's legal threats been addressed directly to you, or to the appropriate Wikipedia department? Thank you, kind regards --WeatherFug (talk) 21:58, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[/quote]

--WeatherFug (talk) 23:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

'''For reasons of clarity and better oversight here is also a copy of mentioned text from Talk:Les Henderson ''' I have removed material from that does not comply with our policy on the biographies of living persons. Biographical material must always be referenced from reliable sources, especially negative material. Negative material that does not comply with that must be immediately removed. Note that the removal does not imply that the information is either true or false.

Please do not reinsert this material unless you can provide reliable citations, and can ensure it is written in a neutral tone. Please review the relevant policies before editing in this regard. Editors should note that failure to follow this policy may result in the removal of editing privileges.--Scott Mac (Doc) 15:21, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Dear Scott, I reverted your edits to last stable version by admin HelloAnnyong. I think you're being a bit drastic. Could you please provide detailed specifications about all your concerns, so I can address them one by one? Thank you. --WeatherFug (talk) 21:28, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Kay, let me deal with this before it gets out of hand. First, I am not an admin. Next: Scott's edits were more than acceptable, so I've reverted your removal of them. Finally, that reference that starts with "Some reputable third party references" is utterly ridiculous. Including that many references to prove the point seems to be synthesis of sources. Just because the site is listed on a page that's a list of links does not back up the claim "widely acknowledged." In fact, the term "widely acknowledged" seems to be a WP:PEACOCK term, which begs the question, "by who." I'm going to heavily chop down that reference. &mdash;  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 21:43, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I've now given this page a scrubbing. I cleaned up all the references and did some work on the text. It's still not great, but at least it doesn't suffer as many problems. I'll be keeping an eye on this page from now on. &mdash;  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 04:35, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

--WeatherFug (talk) 23:52, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Les Henderson
An article that you have been involved in editing, Les Henderson, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/Les Henderson (2nd nomination). Thank you.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Munchkin77 (talk) 14:58, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I was sure about the real why, and it was just confirmed. Ever considered DDOSing wikipedia, too? LOL --WeatherFug (talk) 05:35, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

RipOff Report
I am curious as to why you removed my addition of facts backed by a declaration sealed by US district court to the the non-removal policy section of this page. Though the citing was a "Press Release" the release contained the actual scanned attachment of the sealed declaration. Is there a better way to position this material fact? Let me know as this is significant. dericksc (talk) 13:59, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Second time you've undone this and I'm not sure what isn't credible about a document sealed by a US District Court and available to the public. Please respond as I am curious to your thoughts here.

WeatherFug, I did finally see your comment about active litigation. This is where I think our misunderstanding is. The case in which this declaration has been submitted is active. However, the material facts declared come from a case which has settled and serves as a citation on this page (21). I'm going to make the argument that we can't cite that case to validate one part of this page but disallow material facts from it on another part just because the validation of the material fact were entered into pending litigation on a completely non-related case. Thoughts?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.76.191.187 (talk) 20:15, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

April 2011
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Bobby Schilling, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. NYyankees51 (talk) 16:55, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 16
Hi. When you recently edited AOHell, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Social engineering (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 18:42, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

May 2012
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on WOT Services, Ltd.. 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. Please be particularly aware, 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 engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.  Spinning Spark  11:37, 12 May 2012 (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.

Harrasment of IP editor
In this post and earlier in the thread you have said a lot more than "if you please". No reasonable person is going to read that thread as anything other than an attempt to force the editor to register. Demanding that an editor register before you will agree to engage is not acceptable. You are entitled not to engage with whomsoever you please. If that's what you want, then just don't engage and leave it at that. But if that results in changes to the article you don't like, before you consider reverting them bear in mind that my notice on the talk page to block anyone edit warring still stands. Sniping at the IP with phrases like "people who obfuscate their movements on Wikipedia" and "it feels kind of sneaky and I don't like that" only add to the sense of harassment and are certainly a major failure to assume good faith.  Spinning Spark  19:10, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, understood, and I will try to engage, even though I keep finding the not wanting to register suspect. Thank you for your attention, best regards WeatherFug (talk) 19:20, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

IOR
I am not doing any vandalism, go check their reputation on websites that is not their and you can confirm what i wrote. Stop removing my modification. Would you mind answering or should i report you to wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.117.126.71 (talk) 07:44, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

WOT Services
I don't know why you have brought the edit warring at WOT Services to my attention when you are doing half the edit warring yourself. If this comes to blocks you would be top of the list so please stop it now and start discussing properly by opening a thread on the article talk page.  Spinning Spark  23:42, 6 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I have undone your reinstatemnet of material on an IP's talk page. We do not insist that users keep communications (although archiving is recommended).  If warnings are deleted we generally AGF that the user has read and taken note of the warning until shown otherwise.  If you want to post a message to the user, by all means do so with a new post.  Spinning  Spark  08:38, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Third Opinion for WOT services.
Thank you for asking for a third opinion for your impass over WOT services with a Nepalese IP editor. I would have been happy to have made my opinion a formal third opinion, but since I understand you feel burnt by IP-only editors, I posted my opinion as an informal third opinion, and hope a named editor comes by to give a formal opinion. 173.206.128.57 (talk) 21:30, 16 DecCortes Wesley Randellember 2014 (UTC)

Cortes Wesley Randell
Can you provide some information on your association with Cortes Wesley Randell and to why you only want to publish derogatory information about his past and not include biographical information or a description of more recent events? Is it possible to produce some sort of balanced presentation that does include the mistakes of the past as well as the good works of the present?


 * WeatherFug, you seem to be fixated on maintaining this bio in a state of absolute negative slant, as well as apparently denying anyone the ability to expand it to include additional biographical information. Describing the subject as a "con man" and so on is not particularly constructive or helpful. The version I reverted to is more balanced, so please work within that. I care less about the COI (wherever that is coming from) than about having a wholly negative bio around. I suggest you read WP:BLP in its entirety if you haven't already, and if you have concerns please post to WP:BLPN to get additional opinions. Wikipedia is not the place to immortalize your gripes against someone, if that is indeed the case. § FreeRangeFrog croak 17:58, 25 March 2015 (UTC)


 * @FreeRangeFrog . While fully understanding and even sharing your concerns about the quality of the article, I feel your reversion is not appropriate.
 * I can't find a single trace on the Internet about the referenced Washington Post article. Only a few of the described content-details can also be found in reliable published sources.
 * Section 'early career' was obviously written by the subject. Some allegations about him as a published author were debunked and removed by User:Nagle. The subject appears to be untrustworthy, aiming to whitewash his past and should not be allowed to contribute to the article in any way.
 * About the description 'con man', I'd say he appears to be a classic example of one and he used to be quite good at it, too. Perhaps con artist is an even better description. He may be highly estimated for his abilities as a salesman (which should be mentioned of course), but his notability stems primarily from the criminal and unethical use of these talents. IMO therefor the article should be short, with the emphasis on the shady side of his career.
 * I have no gripes against the man, just interested in anything connected to Lou Pearlman and in contributing according to Wikipedia guidelines. I intend writing better articles one of these days (Student Marketing page first) and in time I will invite you a.o. to comment on it in a sandbox. Regards, WeatherFug (talk) 19:22, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * If some of that information is weakly sourced or cannot be verified then it should be removed. I'll leave it to you to do so if you think it's merited. My problem was not so much with that, but with the idea that we have an article that characterizes the subject as a "con man" and so on. Not to invoke Godwin, but even Hitler's bio is written neutrally. So what we need is that, neutrality in tone. § FreeRangeFrog croak 20:09, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:51, 24 November 2015 (UTC)