User talk:C.Fred

Welcome to my talk page. Please sign and date your comment (by adding ~~~~ at the end) to assist the bot that archives this page. Please add a new thread to the bottom of the page if you wish to leave me a new message. If you're following up on a previous message, keep your comment in that same place: If you leave me a message here, I will reply here and {{Mention}} you here or leave a {{Talkback}} template on your talk page, unless you indicate that you are watching my page or no talkback message is necessary. If you are responding to a message I left on your talk page, please reply there so the discussion stays in one place. Please {{Mention}} me in the message there or leave a {{Talkback}} template here so I know about the message, unless I indicate that no talkback is necessary in my message. If you are commenting here on a message or warning I left there, don't be surprised if I move the discussion back to your talk page. This page is set for automatic archiving every 7 days. I will remove talkback messages as acknowledgment that I have read the related reply, and I reserve the right to summarily remove any uncivil comments or frivolous warnings. Thank you, and happy editing!

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

I'm not quite sure about this edit, C.Fred--the joint looks clean, and I'm sure we could both use that treatment. Drmies (talk) 00:20, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! C.Fred,

I am actually working on making this page better, I see that you are reversing my edits. Can you allow me finish work on it? Ajatontiriajabale (talk) 11:32, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand now. Thank you. I have adjusted it. Ajatontiriajabale (talk) 12:16, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reversion to the deletion of text by User:Mcdafold. Could I just point-out that this was the 4th time that this person has deleted this portion of text recently and is thus "edit warring". They seem to take no notice of editors advice and warnings. Regards, David J Johnson (talk) 20:45, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@David J Johnson The other two reverts were on the 12th, so it's not a 3RR brightline violation, but it is edit warring. —C.Fred (talk) 21:14, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Happy First Edit Day! Hi C.Fred! On behalf of the Birthday Committee, I'd like to wish you a very happy anniversary of the day you made your first edit and became a Wikipedian! The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:38, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2024).

Administrator changes

• Asilvering
• Significa liberdade

• Good Olfactory
• Hesperian
• I JethroBT
• TommyBoy
• Woody

CheckUser changes

• Barkeep49
• Izno

• Doug Weller
• Spicy

Guideline and policy news

• Administrator elections are a proposed new process for selecting administrators, offering an alternative to requests for adminship (RfA). The first trial election will take place in October 2024, with candidate sign-up from October 8 to 14, a discussion phase from October 22 to 24, and SecurePoll voting from October 25 to 31. For questions or to help out, please visit the talk page at Wikipedia talk:Administrator elections.
• Following a discussion, the speedy deletion reason "File pages without a corresponding file" has been moved from criterion G8 to F2. This does not change what can be speedily deleted.
• A request for comment is open to discuss whether there is a consensus to have an administrator recall process.

Arbitration

• The arbitration case Historical elections has been closed.
• An arbitration case regarding Backlash to diversity and inclusion has been opened.
• Editors are invited to nominate themselves to serve on the 2024 Arbitration Committee Electoral Commission until 23:59 October 8, 2024 (UTC).

Miscellaneous

• If you are interested in stopping spammers, please put MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist and MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist on your watchlist, and help out when you can.

Hello Fred, could you please review the recent edits on the page? A newbie has added a category based on a list from a notable book. Despite this, two editors are actively removing the category, seemingly in full WP:IDONTLIKEIT mode. Additionally, one of them is referencing an old sanction from several months ago in their diff, hoping that this will justify their actions. In my book, that's personal attack. Could you protect the page and intervene as you see appropriate? I have no desire to get into an edit war with these individuals.Thank you. — Sadko (words are wind) 20:05, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sadko, who was blocked three years ago for POV pushing https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&oldid=1013108504#Request_concerning_Sadko he was accidentally released because the administrator forgot about him https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Guerillero/Archives/2024/July. I reviewed his edits so you know.154.205.128.71 (talk) 21:00, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And the IP stalker is here, nice. Another diff which requires your attentios, alongside the mentioned IP. Thanks in advance. — Sadko (words are wind) 21:51, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, but did not know the sanction was lifted (as did not recently admin Joy), and as saw you were actively editing/participating in discussions on talk pages, I wrote in the edit summary to take it to the talk page (because of the fact the edits were controversial and better to be discussed rather than having edit war). There was no "IDONTLIKEIT" nor "hoping... justify their actions" or personal attacks on my behalf (and most probably User:Silverije as well). So easily making up direct aspersions on others with lack of WP:FAITH based on a short and neutral edit summary (at least mine), while doing controversial edits (or reverts, for example and way of discussion at Serbia/Talk:Serbia#Recent changes with User:TylerBurden and User:Iaof2017), going here to an administrator seeking some help instead of simply adressing the content dispute at the article's talk page, calling (Serbian Wikipedia) user Hadjnix a "newbie" (although his fourth account in three years)..., soon after the ban was lifted (without any proper discussion, but seemingly later negative reception), does not seem you understand very well why you were topic banned in the first place, and if anything requires attention - is your behavior, if is like this, are on a way making editing environment of Balkan topics uncomfortable again. Looking on a positive side, Sadko made a lot and good edits, and everyone makes mistakes, if is really willing to do things "differently" and "thoroughly reviewed Wikipedia's policies and guidelines" as claimed, then that would be great. A comment and advice about/to Sadko by admins who were active in his request for topic ban years ago would be welcomed by the editor's community as well, @Joy, Peacemaker67, Bishonen, Vanamonde93, Ymblanter, Drmies, and Guerillero: regards.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 01:25, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Miki Filigranski about halfway through that dense paragraph I lost track of the sentences, and I don't know why you are pinging me and a bunch of others. Drmies (talk) 01:58, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • As stated, you and other pinged admins were active during final result concerning Sadko's indefinite topic ban from ARBEE in 2021, and few months ago it was lifted without any discussion (see admin Joy's commentary), and seemingly unnoticed to many. The ban was one among many which had significant importance to the editor's community related to the Balkans. Some commentary about it, and attention/advice on current Sadko's behavior, is required and would be welcomed by the editors. --Miki Filigranski (talk) 02:14, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]