User talk:Fred Bauder: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 03:13, 19 April 2007

I maintain a fork of Wikipedia at http://wikinfo.org, alternative address, http://internet-encyclopedia.org/. It is hosted by ibiblio.org. Fred Bauder 18:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fred_Bauder (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Barnstar

		The Minor Barnstar
		For of few words are made great men. It is the minor actions, the small subtleties, that can show the greatest valor, the deepest insight, the discerning thought. Thank you : ) Jc37 03:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Defender of the Wiki

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		I award you this Defender of the Wiki barnstar in recognition of your three years of continuous meritorious service on the Arbitration Committee. (Sorry that it's a bit late) Eluchil404 11:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update
No current discussions. Recent RfAs, recent RfBs: (successful, unsuccessful)

Alkalada

I'm informing You since You've had experience with this guy before...

See User_talk:Alkalada. If I remember, You blocked him for much lesser violations. :)))

BTW he is a meat-puppet of an indefinitely blocked user continually evading his ban - User:Hahahihihoho (nth by now, User:Thunderman was one of many]]). --PaxEquilibrium 16:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Fred. PaxEquilibrium means Alkalada is a sockpuppet, not meatpuppet, of Hahahihihoho. If you recollect, I had originally blocked Hahahihihoho indefinitely, he appealed to ArbCom and promised to edit constructively, and you unblocked him (with no objection from me—actually I had advised him to appeal) for a second chance. I see you have now yet again blocked him for a month. Wouldn't you say this is getting a little ridiculous? See how many times he's been let loose for another bout of disruption, which must be very trying for other editors of these articles, and how quickly you've always had to re-block. I was all for the second chance (in spite of the editor never having edited constructively), but it looks to me like he has used up his second chance, third chance, and fourth chance. Regards, Bishonen | talk 18:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Help with sockpupettry

Hi Fred, I need your help. REDVERS, one of the Administrators that is working with the Fellowship of Friends page, left me the following message:

Hi, Mario. On the talk page of Fellowship of Friends, I offered Wikipedia's best way for how to resolve these disputes (basically WP:RS); sadly, this was basically ignored and very obvious sockpuppetry was resorted to instead, by people who held the high ground in the dispute.

I wrote to REDVERS but he didn't reply to me. Do you know how can I find out who the sock pupeteers are based on this and this? Thanks a lot! Mario Fantoni 18:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I got it

I am slow on the uptake, Fred...hence my choice in username. Thanks. For the record, I don't really care what they say about me anymore, and indeed I did overreact to their provocations. I'm not an "internet" guy...not well versed in the usenet days at all and only contibute online here on wiki, so I was unprepared to know how to deal with trolling. It has been an education.--MONGO 18:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for a quick comment

There is a discussion that would benefit greatly from a brief comment by someone familiar with core policies. Particularly, there is debate over whether Wikipedia has an established "no censorship" policy that prohibits editors from excluding offensive images from an article. WP:NOT#CENSOR and the rejected Wikipedia:Censorship seem relevant. Thanks! Gnixon 00:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Much obliged for the quick response. Gnixon 01:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I'm imposing too much on your available time, but I wonder if you could comment on the possibility of allowing editors to self-censor against offensive images. I'm imagining cookies that would mask any image with a certain content tag. For example, if I select the "no penises" option, images with the "penis" tag wouldn't display when I view articles. Does that idea violate any established policy? Thanks, Gnixon 05:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Problem article

Hi Fred. Could you give Scientology Finance a look? Thanks. Steve Dufour 05:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

external links and blocking warnings

Since you answered my question whether or not I could be blocked for adding that link to the debate at Wikipedia talk:Attack sites, I'd like to extend the question for some more "predictability of legal decisions". I put this comment to a user talk page, and was given a "final warning". I replied here. So, are all links to WR on user talk pages forbidden? Is it forbidden to "link by proxy" (to a Google search, in this case)? May I or may I not suggest to someone to try a Google search with the keywords "aware of the following faults"? I'd appreciate further clarification. —Alde Baer ~~user:Kncyu38~~ 14:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Impostor account

Hi fred. I edit under User:SiobhanHansa but sign as Siobhan Hansa. It's recently been brought to my attention that there is an account User:Siobhan Hansa who made some nasty edits. You blocked the account back in January. I've never edited under it and don't want users who see it to associate it with me. Is there anything I can do about it? Thanks -- Siobhan Hansa 15:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! -- Siobhan Hansa 16:52, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Photograph Dispute on the B-36 Article Page

This particular issue goes awhile back. I've done the suggested advice and let the situation cool down before I attempt to resolve this situation.

This is the problem, the user Rogerd has been trying to put his personal photograph on the B-36 article. He does not hide the fact that he took it since it is featured on his personal photograph gallery http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rogerd/photo_gallery

I feel very strongly that he is bias towards his photograph versus the official U.S. Air Force photograph taken of the same aircraft, which in my opinion, is of better quality and is not crooked. In addition, this photograph does not show any museum spectators and does not obsecure the aircraft from view and shows more of the aircraft http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:060315-F-1234P-001.jpg

I feel that I was unfairly overwhelmed by his inner circle of users on Wiki and the dispute is still unresolved in my opinion.

-Signaleer 18:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New Evidence posted on Falun Gong arbitration page

I'd appreciate it if you could take a moment to read a brief addition to my evidence posted here: [1] It concerns a recent series of blanking edits done on the Epoch Times page by a pro-Falun Gong editor who is using an anoyomous account. --Tomananda 19:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brandt

Whoops, I was only trying to help but I wont revert myself, I'll do what you ask. I am glad to hear you are negotiating and wish you the very best with that. Regards, SqueakBox 21:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heads up

You might want to take a look at this thread. WjBscribe 01:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cookies?!?!?

Fine so suddenly everything Brandt's done doesn't amount to anything. The legal threats, stalking, harassment all forgotten. But giving him a plate of cookies. Thanks for the kick in the teeth to everyone he's affected... Can't quite believe it 03:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah you didn't add the cookies- just commented on them, sorry. Still I'm not coping well with the apparent celebrations of his unblock and you seemed to be approving the gesture... Can't quite believe it 03:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 85: / Line 85: @@
 ==Cookies?!?!?==
 Fine so suddenly everything Brandt's done doesn't amount to anything. The legal threats, stalking, harassment all forgotten. But giving him a plate of cookies. Thanks for the kick in the teeth to everyone he's affected... [[User:Can't quite believe it|Can&#39;t quite believe it]] 03:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
+:Ah you didn't add the cookies- just commented on them, sorry. Still I'm not coping well with the apparent celebrations of his unblock and you seemed to be approving the gesture... [[User:Can't quite believe it|Can&#39;t quite believe it]] 03:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)