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
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 arctic2012 ( talk · contribs)
Thank you, arctic2012 ( talk · contribs)
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)
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)
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)
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. OlYeller Talktome 20:05, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Timeshift has removed the link to http://bobday.com.au from this article seven times in the last few days:
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:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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)
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 Wikipedia: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)
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 Wikipedia: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)
Dear Fred Bauder, I have translated in french the paragraphe Foreign_relations_of_Tibet#The_trade_delegation_of_1947. If I am correct, you contributed in writing it [11]. 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)
[12] Anthony ( talk) 17:22, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
If it was confirmed that accounts are sockpuppets, why aren't the socks blocked? (I am watching this page, so please reply here.) — Timneu22 · talk 10:14, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
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)
Hi, i was wondering about the link to Wikia.com: http://en.wikipedia.org/?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)
On 21 October 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Atlantic Wind Connection, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
The DYK project ( nominate) 00:05, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Many thanks for dealing with the revisions of Eugenia B. Thomas K-8 Center. Chzz ► 16:49, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
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)
You were involved in an arbitration a couple years ago. [ [13]] A nearly identical behavior and dispute has arisen. [ [14]] I was wondering if you could pop in there and try to clearly define the scope and purpose of Wikipedia to Kehrli [ [15]] 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)
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: I left you a message here: User_talk:Kehrli#Kehrli_new_POV_dispute —Preceding undated comment added 19:14, 2 November 2010 (UTC).
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)
Hi Fred, this thread may be of interest to you. Regards! Franamax ( talk) 23:05, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
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)
Both businesses share the same address, and both proprietors have the same first name. Will Beback talk 09:09, 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. [17] 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.( Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Community_sanction/Archive12#Proposal_to_ban_User:LegitimateAndEvenCompelling_from_library-related_topics) 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)
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)
You have mail. Them From Space 12:15, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Should this [19] 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)
on this, if you please. jps ( talk) 07:51, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Hello Fred. See WP:AN3#User:Hgilbert reported by User:Masteryorlando (Result: ). 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)
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)
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 Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot ( talk) 00:49, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
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 Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia: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 {{hang on}}
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)
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)
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)
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 Wikipedia: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)
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)
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
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)
See my page for reply.
Regards Peter S Strempel | Talk 20:56, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
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 Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot ( talk) 19:14, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
[20] heh. 75.57.242.120 ( talk) 22:23, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
:| TelCo NaSp Ve :| 10:04, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Please attend to it quickly. It's been almost a week. bahamut0013 words deeds 20:08, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
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)
Hello Fred Bauder. Roland0469 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 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)
VQuakr ( talk) 16:12, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! Drmies ( talk) 01:22, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
I have appealed your AE decision and you may reply here. TFD ( talk) 01:24, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
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)
Hey Fred, you gave an initial third opinion at User_talk:Colonies_Chris#Update_on_Lists_of_state_leader_by_years.3F. 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)
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)
-- ♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:53, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
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 Wikipedia:DIGWUREN#Log of blocks and bans 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)
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 [21] and placed on notice on October 14, 2010, see Wikipedia:DIGWUREN#List_of_editors_placed_on_notice -- 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)
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)
-- ♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 13:50, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
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)
-- ♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 18:12, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi Fred. I noticed that you blocked 69.126.238.184 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) 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)
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)
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| talk 19:06, 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)
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. [22] 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)
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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia:Revision deletion? Thanks, Drmies ( talk) 17:49, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
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)
I just read this and could not find any discussion 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)
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)
Hi Fred, as you were one of the drafting arbitrators in the Sathya Sai Baba 2 case, please note Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Wikisunn. -- JN 466 13:49, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
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)
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 Wikipedia:TROUBLES#Log of blocks, bans, and probations 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)
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)
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)
Thanks for the oversight. That stuff was getting way out of hand, and Santilli has a reputation for filing frivolous lawsuits. [23] 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 [24]) 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)
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)
-- ♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 08:31, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Crazymonkey1123 (Jacob) T or M/ Sign mine 21:41, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
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— Nat Krause( Talk!· What have I done?) 20:45, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
JohnLloydScharf (
talk) 02:31, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
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)
Yworo ( talk) 01:44, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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 here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Cerejota ( talk) 05:33, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Hey I did it wrong, tell me how so I can fix it ;) Cerejota ( talk) 23:12, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
On 25 August 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Laurence Alma-Tadema, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that English novelist, poet and dramatist Laurence Alma-Tadema (pictured) explained the meaning of happiness to Americans on her 1907–08 U.S. tour? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Laurence Alma-Tadema.You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Casliber ( talk · contribs) 00:03, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Just wanted to say: Thanks for cleaning Kepler College. Marvellous job. An arborsculpture for you:
-- Phleer ( talk) 03:33, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
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)
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.
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)
Re this and Ticket#2011090610015598, please see your e-mail inbox. Regards, AGK [ • 19:59, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
New Orleans Wikimedia Hackathon | ||
---|---|---|
Hi, Fred Bauder. I'd like to invite you to come to the
New Orleans Hackathon 2011. We're getting together folks like you -- template, script, tool, extension, and gadget writers -- to participate, give feedback, test, and hack with us.
At the event, MediaWiki developers and Wikimedia operations engineers will be working on Wikimedia's gadgets/extensions/tools support, authorization/authentication strategy, dev-ops virtualization, and general training and hacking. And we'll improve and discuss the Wikimedia Labs projects infrastructure and other stuff that makes it easier for anyone to supercharge Wikimedia with awesomeness. The event is open to anyone who wants to come and contribute, and is an opportunity to spend time with senior MediaWiki developers & ops engineers, write beautiful code, and learn about the latest developments. We'll write code together, discuss the software, and hold little workshops. If you can make it to New Orleans, Louisiana, USA, 14-16 October 2011, we'd love to have you. Please add your name to the attendees list. Thanks! Sumanah ( talk) 20:23, 24 August 2011 (UTC) (Volunteer Development Coordinator, Wikimedia Foundation) |
Sumanah ( talk) 15:28, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Sorry to involve you in this, but as senior editor you may be able to help me to understand the following: in the Water-fuelled car ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 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
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
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 arctic2012 ( talk · contribs)
Thank you, arctic2012 ( talk · contribs)
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)
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)
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)
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. OlYeller Talktome 20:05, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Timeshift has removed the link to http://bobday.com.au from this article seven times in the last few days:
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:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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)
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 Wikipedia: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)
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 Wikipedia: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)
Dear Fred Bauder, I have translated in french the paragraphe Foreign_relations_of_Tibet#The_trade_delegation_of_1947. If I am correct, you contributed in writing it [11]. 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)
[12] Anthony ( talk) 17:22, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
If it was confirmed that accounts are sockpuppets, why aren't the socks blocked? (I am watching this page, so please reply here.) — Timneu22 · talk 10:14, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
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)
Hi, i was wondering about the link to Wikia.com: http://en.wikipedia.org/?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)
On 21 October 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Atlantic Wind Connection, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
The DYK project ( nominate) 00:05, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Many thanks for dealing with the revisions of Eugenia B. Thomas K-8 Center. Chzz ► 16:49, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
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)
You were involved in an arbitration a couple years ago. [ [13]] A nearly identical behavior and dispute has arisen. [ [14]] I was wondering if you could pop in there and try to clearly define the scope and purpose of Wikipedia to Kehrli [ [15]] 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)
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: I left you a message here: User_talk:Kehrli#Kehrli_new_POV_dispute —Preceding undated comment added 19:14, 2 November 2010 (UTC).
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)
Hi Fred, this thread may be of interest to you. Regards! Franamax ( talk) 23:05, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
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)
Both businesses share the same address, and both proprietors have the same first name. Will Beback talk 09:09, 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. [17] 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.( Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Community_sanction/Archive12#Proposal_to_ban_User:LegitimateAndEvenCompelling_from_library-related_topics) 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)
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)
You have mail. Them From Space 12:15, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Should this [19] 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)
on this, if you please. jps ( talk) 07:51, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Hello Fred. See WP:AN3#User:Hgilbert reported by User:Masteryorlando (Result: ). 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)
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)
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 Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot ( talk) 00:49, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
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 Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia: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 {{hang on}}
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)
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)
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)
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 Wikipedia: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)
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)
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
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)
See my page for reply.
Regards Peter S Strempel | Talk 20:56, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
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 Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot ( talk) 19:14, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
[20] heh. 75.57.242.120 ( talk) 22:23, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
:| TelCo NaSp Ve :| 10:04, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Please attend to it quickly. It's been almost a week. bahamut0013 words deeds 20:08, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
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)
Hello Fred Bauder. Roland0469 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 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)
VQuakr ( talk) 16:12, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! Drmies ( talk) 01:22, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
I have appealed your AE decision and you may reply here. TFD ( talk) 01:24, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
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)
Hey Fred, you gave an initial third opinion at User_talk:Colonies_Chris#Update_on_Lists_of_state_leader_by_years.3F. 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)
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)
-- ♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:53, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
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 Wikipedia:DIGWUREN#Log of blocks and bans 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)
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 [21] and placed on notice on October 14, 2010, see Wikipedia:DIGWUREN#List_of_editors_placed_on_notice -- 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)
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)
-- ♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 13:50, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
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)
-- ♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 18:12, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi Fred. I noticed that you blocked 69.126.238.184 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) 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)
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)
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| talk 19:06, 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)
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. [22] 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)
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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia:Revision deletion? Thanks, Drmies ( talk) 17:49, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
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)
I just read this and could not find any discussion 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)
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)
Hi Fred, as you were one of the drafting arbitrators in the Sathya Sai Baba 2 case, please note Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Wikisunn. -- JN 466 13:49, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
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)
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 Wikipedia:TROUBLES#Log of blocks, bans, and probations 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)
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)
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)
Thanks for the oversight. That stuff was getting way out of hand, and Santilli has a reputation for filing frivolous lawsuits. [23] 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 [24]) 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)
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)
-- ♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 08:31, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Crazymonkey1123 (Jacob) T or M/ Sign mine 21:41, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
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— Nat Krause( Talk!· What have I done?) 20:45, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
JohnLloydScharf (
talk) 02:31, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
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)
Yworo ( talk) 01:44, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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 here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Cerejota ( talk) 05:33, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Hey I did it wrong, tell me how so I can fix it ;) Cerejota ( talk) 23:12, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
On 25 August 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Laurence Alma-Tadema, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that English novelist, poet and dramatist Laurence Alma-Tadema (pictured) explained the meaning of happiness to Americans on her 1907–08 U.S. tour? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Laurence Alma-Tadema.You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Casliber ( talk · contribs) 00:03, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Just wanted to say: Thanks for cleaning Kepler College. Marvellous job. An arborsculpture for you:
-- Phleer ( talk) 03:33, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
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)
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.
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)
Re this and Ticket#2011090610015598, please see your e-mail inbox. Regards, AGK [ • 19:59, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
New Orleans Wikimedia Hackathon | ||
---|---|---|
Hi, Fred Bauder. I'd like to invite you to come to the
New Orleans Hackathon 2011. We're getting together folks like you -- template, script, tool, extension, and gadget writers -- to participate, give feedback, test, and hack with us.
At the event, MediaWiki developers and Wikimedia operations engineers will be working on Wikimedia's gadgets/extensions/tools support, authorization/authentication strategy, dev-ops virtualization, and general training and hacking. And we'll improve and discuss the Wikimedia Labs projects infrastructure and other stuff that makes it easier for anyone to supercharge Wikimedia with awesomeness. The event is open to anyone who wants to come and contribute, and is an opportunity to spend time with senior MediaWiki developers & ops engineers, write beautiful code, and learn about the latest developments. We'll write code together, discuss the software, and hold little workshops. If you can make it to New Orleans, Louisiana, USA, 14-16 October 2011, we'd love to have you. Please add your name to the attendees list. Thanks! Sumanah ( talk) 20:23, 24 August 2011 (UTC) (Volunteer Development Coordinator, Wikimedia Foundation) |
Sumanah ( talk) 15:28, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Sorry to involve you in this, but as senior editor you may be able to help me to understand the following: in the Water-fuelled car ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 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