User talk:C.Fred

Please add new threads to the bottom of the page. Note that all threads older than 7 days will be archived.

Bandit edwards

Hey i just wanted to know why "Bandit edwards" was deleted? Is this a personal decision? Everything there was factual. Could you give me a valid reason as to why you deleted my content please? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rob burl (talk • contribs) 12 Jun 2007.

You're right, the subject is not human. Does that make it ok to disregard the fact he/it ever existed? I'm sure if you search "Tiger" you'll find ample evidence of it's existence on these very pages. How can the content be verifiable when it's only known to a few choice people? Please explain to me how i can create a Wikipedia article in memoriam of a loved one. Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rob burl (talk • contribs) 12 Jun 2007.

accounts

Please note i'm on my account now. My little sister has the other account with which she created the article entitled "Bandit edwards." This is not an avoidance technique. I dont think either of us were banned at any point. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rob burl (talk • contribs) 12 Jun 2007.

Well, appreciate your thoughts.

Well, no problem then. I appreciate your thoughts on the subject. My apologies for inconviencing you in your work. Best of luck with everything that life throws at you my friend. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rob burl (talk • contribs) 12 Jun 2007.

Re: Speedy deletion tags

Sorry if I wasn't clear enough, I still don't understand this part of Wikipedia, but thanks for your help, I really appreciate it. Funk Junkie 20:56, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Wow, you sure did whip me into shape. It's extra threatening when you put "you will be blocked" in bold. As if I didn't already know that I'm going to get blocked. Good thing I've already registered a lot more of those darn SOCK PUPPETS for after this whole mess is over. Trust me, I am going to make your life as a Wikipedia administrator miserable. You can thank User:Metros. See, now if he just worshipped La Toya like the rest of us, all problems would be solved. Rhythmnation2004 00:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Violadamore

Could we please discuss why you deleted my article? Thank you —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Violadamore (talk • contribs) 02:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC).

I deleted the article because the strongest claim of notability was a guest appearance on the Oprah show, and because no independent sources were provided to back up the claim. —C.Fred (talk) 02:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC) (as posted at User talk:Violadamore)

First, allow me to remove a shred of doubt that is probably clinging to the back of your mind, I am not Phil McCrea. I would say that his most notable contribution was being the president of the NABT. I thought that this article, given that the National Association of Biology Teachers article is considered to be a stub, and needs help. I agree, being on the oprah show is not worthy of a Wiki article, but i feel that he has done more than that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Violadamore (talk • contribs) 02:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC).

Presidency of NABT was second on my list of possible claims of notability. It's the one that gave me the most hesitation. Had there been a source to support that, the article would have gone to proposed deletion or AfD instead of being speedily deleted. Have you got a source for it? —C.Fred (talk) 02:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Here's one source that Lists Phil multiple times. However, seeing as this is the promotional brocure for their conference this year, he is not the president, only the 'local arrangements chair' Brocure

Here is a page to an article he wrote while pres. article

Here is a publication from his school congratulating him on his title Congrats

Lastly, here is another brocure from the NABT listing him as a past president past pres.

Clearly, the man is still vrey active in the NABT and perhaps that deserves more attention in my article, but he should not be speedily deleted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Violadamore (talk • contribs) 02:40, 18 June 2007 (UTC).

Yep, that works for me. Bear with me here. While you're at it, you can write up a fair use rationale for the Oprah screenshot. Otherwise, that needs to come out of the article. —C.Fred (talk) 02:45, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Could you explain how and what I do to add credability or whatever to the picture? I'm new to the whole Wiki images thing —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Violadamore (talk • contribs) 02:50, 18 June 2007 (UTC).

Also, thanks with the formatting help on the page, I was wondering how you get it all justified like that —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Violadamore (talk • contribs) 02:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC).

First, congratulations! You are the first person who has requested and presented a case for restoration of an article I have deleted. I have placed it under the better title of Phil McCrea. I have also added an intro to the article stating his "fame" and made a few other additions, including adding references to support that he's a president of NABT.

Second, any time a non-free image is used on Wikipedia, a fair use rationale needs to be provided. As a general rule of thumb, you can't use nonfree images—of which TV screenshots are included—in articles about living people. Because the image was a screenshot of him appearing on Oprah, and because that's discussed in the article, we may be able to skirt the issue here. However, the rationale needs to state, in your own words, that 1) The image is used to complement discussion in the article and enhance it, 2) no free image is available as an alternative, 3) the image is low-resolution, to prevent unexpected downstream use 4) using the image won't financially hurt the copyright holder.

Finally, as a housekeeping note, don't forget to sign your comments on Talk pages with ~~~~ at the end of your comment. That adds your name and the date/time.

Happy editing! —C.Fred (talk) 03:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

One last thing, I swear. Where do I say all this about the picture? Thanks so much for your help and everything you have done to help my little project come along. Uh, Let's try this signature Violadamore 03:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, good point! The fair use rationale for the picture goes on the image page itself—in this case, Image:PhilMcCreaOprah.jpg. That way, anybody who stumbles onto the image knows the story behind it and its status. All images need a copyright tag: in this case, I've added {{Non-free television screenshot}} to indicate what the image is. Below that, you just start a section with the rationale. —C.Fred (talk) 03:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Pine Glenn Cove/Glorifying Prose

Fred, You tagged the page with "needs sources" tag, yet you removed what I view as a reliable source--the Deseret News. You may wish to visit deseretnews.com . This is arguably Utah's number 1 daily. Please consider reverting this source. Much of the wording now used in the article comes from Deseret News. Further, I disagree with the removal of the recollections. It is based on these very facts, sentiments, and "prose" that awards a place into the national historic register. Pine Glenn Cove was granted this standing in large based on the value of Odlum's contribution and is in a way a tribute to his memory.

I agree with your comment on the adjectives. Consider restoring the deletion, or make a suggestion on improving the phrasing of the deleted material. Afterall, people are looking for information, and I suggest providing it to them. Especially when it's relevant, "verifiable," and pertinent to the historic matter of an encyclopedic entry. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sgetmanenko (talk • contribs) 06:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC).

Fred,

Instead of being helpful you are being uncooperative. I have contacted the Deseret News and inquired about using their text and giving them proper credit. In citing them I followed their recommended pattern. You, on the other hand, only talk up big rhetoric and do nothing to help anybody here. Chill out, tough guy, and instead of throwing around accusations of plagiarism restore the reference that gave credit to Deseret News. There are plenty of newspaper and other media citations on wikipedia and so far I haven't seen you delete them. That ought to keep you busy for a while. And last of all swallow your pride and act with some dignity and professionalism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sgetmanenko (talk • contribs).

Fair enough. I think I will live with the article which doesn't include the memoirs. What about removing "needs sources" tag? There is nothing too controversial in the article. Nothing that really needs additional "third party" verifications. Basic time line and description of the property. All of this was verified by the National Historic Register before admitting Pine Glenn Cove into the Register. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sgetmanenko (talk • contribs) 23:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC).

Agoura High Edit War

Sorry about that I didn't know about the 3 revert rule. The guy was acting like a vandal and had had previous warnings from others. I thought I was acting via protacall. Thanks for the heads up.Angielaj 04:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Sleeman Centre

Thanks for the page history repair at Sleeman Centre and Sleeman Centre (Brisbane). I'm still looking for that page I would have otherwise submitted that request for the task you completed. Flibirigit 00:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: Prod, speedy deletion, and non-article namespace

Excellent! My sincere apologies; I wasn't aware of that template. Thanks for WP:IAR'ing and seeing what I was trying to accomplish! Jouster  (whisper) 02:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Longview Baptist Temple

It seemed in the discussion page that deletion was based on notability, but I'm quite sure that 4500 member (based not only on newspaper articles, but also on listings for United States megachurches) church would be notable. On top of that, a semipopular book and thriving online discussion sets it above a common establishment, not to mention that much of the discussion is based on quite a bit of notoriety. I would seem that the fact that there are Wikipedia users looking for an article, multiple users have attempted to write an entry and discussions are taking place as far away as Canada, that there is more to the deletion than notability. What needs to be done? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BURNyA (talk • contribs) 03:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC).

Medical Spa / Day Spa

I am trying to figure out why a link I added to Medical Spa is removed when the link just above my entry was nothing different. Unless there is a reason to leave the other that I don't know about, it would seem both should stay or go, rather than this apparent prejudicial approach. Additionally, I am more than willing to discuss what it would take to contribute valuable content to both articles (I have plenty of appropriate material), but I'm not going to spend a second on it when it can all be deleted with a click (and the link deletions are an indication of how easy it is). I'm glad I tested the waters before spending valuable time contributing to a community that shoots first and asks questions later. Alliedhealth 17:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. While I must commend you for attempting to adhere no further than an angstrom from policy, all you ended up doing was to discourage me from contributing in the future, for fear of wasting my time. While I would have enjoyed contributing a plethora of information to both articles, the value of doing so has been permanently exterminated. Oh, and obviously you have little understanding of these industries. The crippling impact of lawsuits on the health and beauty industries have made the topic of significant interest to both practitioners and clients - a topic that, to be included in the WP, will now have to be supplied by someone else (who somehow has all this valuable knowledge without also having some sort of 'conflict of interest'). And a final note: 'repeatedly adding links' = 'twice?' and 'multiple' = 'two?'. Wow! 'Nuff said. I'll spend years laughing at your time twiddling with these WP articles for the rest of your exciting life. No wonder there's so much vandalism and inaccuracy. Haughty admins are spending all their time on truly vacuous frivolity. Enjoy. Alliedhealth 22:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Nope. Directly from WP's policy page User_pages: "You are welcome to include a link to your personal home page, although you should not surround it with any promotional language." Which I did. And it was deleted. Thanks WP. I'm gone for good. You either lie about the policies, or wield the sword in disregard of the policies. One or the other. Alliedhealth 17:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

81.68.92.38: Please help us out.

My message to Stephen obviously made no difference in the case of the List of Celebrity Deatchmatch Episodes being vandalized. I sincerely hope that you will strip this vandal of all editing priveliges; that way he may never ruin another article for the rest of his accursed days. Please think of the benefits the article would reap in the permanent blockage of this vandal. This is a battle in which we can win, but the battle has been raging on for much too long. I expect your answer soon. Link 486 20:18, 24 June 2007 (UTC)