User talk:C.Fred

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 .

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 leave me a message here, I will reply here and 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, I encourage you to reply there. Please leave a {{Talkback}} template here so I know about the message, unless I indicate that no talkback is necessary in my message.
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.

Thank you, and happy editing!

"Blank" in popular culture

Are you aware of any "_____ in popular culture" articles that have been singled out as being of particularly good quality? For the most part, at least in my experience, such articles are generally a mess of un- or poorly-referenced material, trivia, and speculation. But, this is not necessarily so in all cases. Has any such article ever made it to FA or GA status? I ask not out of mere curiosity, but because I am working on such an article, and I am looking for some good examples to use as a guide. Any help you can offer would be greatly appreciated. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 05:13, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Latif Yahia - please lock and revert

Hi, I see you've been doing some oversight of the Latif Yahia page. I request then, can you please either Protect an ACCURATE version, or speedily delete it? It seems all my work as sussing out and citing evidence is being deleted and then obscured by a "random IP account" and some AMA2010 (nonexistent) account. My work was all cited, and expressed the facts, but even my additions of words "alleged" and "claims" are being deleted.

Judging by what I've found, it looks like the person himself is editing his page (and all pages pertaining to the things he claims) to try and spread misinformation and create 'facts', to give legitimacy to his tales. This Latif Yahia character wrote a book with fantastical claims which was interesting enough to get a movie made. Though producers are quoted as not caring whether the story is true or not, but WIKI needs to actually care though- perpetrating these allegatons as Factual when there is lots of evidence contradicting this claim -yet no evidence supporting it- is deplorable. (and potentially illegal, though Hussein is now dead)

Even though I'm not convinced this Yahia guy even deserves a wiki page (as a hoaxster?), I prefer page protection, indefinitely, as it seems the author of the book is trying to promote himself and his story as fact; and I'm guessing if the page is deleted, it would get put back up by another "random IP user". Plus, the story of this deceit IS fact, and documented, and should be told :)

Thanks! Trickietrickie (talk) 09:55, 06 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

-Update-

Looked into the recent 'edits to the page': it appears 'someone' is creating accounts ("AMA2010", "TVNEWSTALK11")which sound legit, then using those accounts to edit information. This page really needs to get reverted back to my edit (ie: undone changed by these couple accounts, and Protected--to battle this slew of misinformation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trickietrickie (talk • contribs) 10:15, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

-Second Update-

I erased request for speedy delete, in favor of cleaning up, then locking the page. Informed admin: Fastily about this as well- but as you seem to have experience with this page, I am keeping you most informed: Users: "81.83.157.57", "AMA2010", "2.49.216.202", and "TVNEWS11" appear to be created for the sole purpose of spreading misinformation about this person, erasing CITED information about the topic (ie: my research), and promoting a book and movie about the claims (ahem personal gain, if this person is, or works for Mr. Yahia). I tried to undo some of the 'fake user' edits, but it got to be tedious, and I figure you admins can do it easier anyways. Thanks!

So, my Request:

Roll page back, or at least undo/revert the changes made by these 4 'accounts' (Users: "81.83.157.57", "AMA2010", "2.49.216.202", and "TVNEWS11"), recovering my research and work on the controversial nature of the credibility of this character, then please LOCK the page. Looking back at the page history, there have been waay too many unsubstantiated claims, too many edits by IP-users, and too much misinformation documented only by press releases reporting on a movie or novel, both of which are unsubstantiated, and trying to push that as fact/reality. Basically, it is my opinion that this con-artist is making a mockery of wikipedia, reinventing his claims as 'truths'.

The whole reason I have an account here is because I was so outraged when I looked up this information, then did my own research -and found wikipedia to have dropped the ball on this. As in, been manipulated and compromised. This is actually kind of annoying, as this entity seems to be dishonestly editing the Uday Hussein page, the Political Decoy page, and inserting his book link to the official "Devil's Double" movie page.

Thank you! :)

Trickietrickie (talk) 11:36, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a case where both sides needs to follow the neutrality guidelines. I agree there was too much puff for the films; I've pared that back. I also don't see any sources that have disproven Yahia's claims. The only source I see calls out reporters for not vetting it, not that he's actually vetted it and found it wanting. If that's buried further in the Guardian article, feel free to point me to the text passage where it happens.

I don't think the situation warrants protection yet; I think it warrants discussion on the talk page by both sides of the issue. Only if there is stubborn editing without discussion or clear abuse of multiple accounts will the page be locked. —C.Fred (talk) 14:23, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thanks for the response. If you review my work, I have followed neutrality guidelines- and never presented information which was not uncited, and never presented allegation as fact. Unfortunately, this page keeps being systematically scrubbed by dubious accounts -as you can see it was just scrubbed again, today. You Claim it doesn't warrant protection yet, but please take the time to look through the page history, and see that there have been over 500 revisions made to this page in 2 years, most of these by IP accounts. And many of them to remove the very information I put up Last month. Thus there is a very long history of abuse, scrubbbing and removal of Substantiated, CITED material. All these removals done without notation. If this is not a classic case of a page needing to be protected, please tell me what is!

This seems to be a case where one of the 'sides' (Likely Mr. Yehia himself) is trying to push a profit-making self-aggrandising commercial agenda. Also some nonsensical personal blog message to journalists keeps getting inserted (very petty and unprofessional) which leads me to believe this account is being edited by Yahia himself. In my defense, I provided information and documentation of all additions I made to this page, which were all subsequently erased by these 4 seemingly fraudulent accounts. (as you would see in my edits.) Erased with NO notes, nor justifications.

In an article that keep being removed by these 'fake accounts', investigative reporter Ed Caesar from the UK got curious and went to lengths to fact-check and attempt to corroborate the fantastical claims by this person (Yahia). And we know that per Wiki guidelines, fantastical claims must be corroborated by fantastic documentation. What the reporter uncovered was actually, many testaments to the contrary. (Caesar, Ed. "The Double Dealer". The Sunday Times. Retrieved 6 January 2012.)

Thus, even though the burden of proof is supposedly on the claimant, *I* will corroborate *my* claim.

What resulted was (i'll try to keep it short):

interviews with 2 named people within Hussein's inner circle, who are on record saying Uday never used doubles, and Latif had been formerly arrested for trying to impersonate Uday Hussein.
interview with a compound guard working for the family for much of the Hussein regime, also claiming Uday never used doubles.
uncovering of 1990 documentation (a letter addressed to Hussein) of arrest of Latif for impersonation of Hussein.
interview with Bob Baer, CIA overseer of that region at that time, who is on record saying he personally knew of every asset in the region, and neither he nor his staff had any knowledge of Latif whatsoever, and to their knowledge Uday did not use doubles. This also flies in the face of Latif's claim that the CIA helped him escape.
interview with Hussein personal Doctor/Surgeon who worked at hospital over times claimed by Latif, recorded saying he never performed alleged surgery nor ever heard of this being performed.
interview with Irish ex-wife (lesser importance) who is recorded as saying Latif used a false name and made up persona when they met and started dating.

This evidence is overwhelming in the contrary, that these claims by Latif are fantastical. Yet in my edit, I left both sides up and only reported on the doubt cast, with edits, and an "Allegations of Fabrication" section. I believe this keeps the Neutrality. Yet this is being repeatedly SCRUBBED by one of these questionable Accounts. With no notes added.

This page needs to be locked as it's my conviction that it is being used as a personal PR campaign by named entity to scrub reality and attempt to profit. When these couple accounts are not being used ("AMA2010" and "TVNEWS11") IP accounts are created to edit content. Please address this.

thank you! -forgive the non-use of talkback templates. I have not yet figured out how all of that wiki stuff works... Trickietrickie (talk) 19:01, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a paragraph to the Life section of the article based on Caesar's story. I think that's the better place to handle it than the Film section. However, I have just warned TVNEWS11 for deleting the material without explanation. —C.Fred (talk) 19:25, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to my world. :) If TVNEWS11 doesn't change it, there will be a random IP user created to edit the content. Note- The rebuttal to information was not supposed to be in the film section, the film section only added that the film itself rekindled interest in the topic (which is evidenced by the authors which have written about the alleged hoax directly due to the film. And specific criticism of the press/media for not substantiating these claims before covering them as fact. Unfortunately, the film section was the only section I was able to retrieve. I am currently re-editing the page to reinstate a section highlighting this alleged hoax. Called "Allegations of Fabrication". Which I am about to add.

thanks for looking more deeply into this Trickietrickie (talk) 20:24, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

whew.. I have finally finished, hopefully accurately editing this entry to address need for verifiable sourcing of claims and and showing the opposing side of the argument. I also edited weasel words and re-edited intro to reflect unsubstantiated claims. Added subsection 1.1 regarding the allegations he made all this up.

Unfortunately The life section still reads like it's from a movie script, and I have trouble accepting news articles reporting on his own claims about himself as "verified sourcing".

Question: does this person even warrant a wiki biography page? As famous for a one-time incident, which is alleged and unsubstantiated, would it be more pertinent to link name to movie? Or possibly famous rather, for the claims themselves- and getting the media to report as fact, without verfication... but, does that deserve a wiki bio? I'm not fully convinced.

That said, thank you for your assistance in helping me learn more about the wiki system and the rules. And taking the time to look more deeply into this troubling account of a possible attempt to scrub history. :):)

Please keep an eye on this, as I suspect very soon more attempts will be made to scrub this page, and erase valid SOURCED material.

Trickietrickie (talk) 21:42, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Latif Yahia page: Your fave guy is at it again

This account TVNEWS11 is again going through and systematically obfuscating intelligence, erasing cited material, making changes with no notes and adding unsubstantiated claims, ad-hominem attacks, et al. (defensive arguing on the actual page itself!) Again NO effort is being made whatsoever to use the discussions.

This is completely unprofessional and ridiculous. Please handle this. A blanket undo of TVNEWS11 would be great, rollback would be nice. With some form of semi-protected page. A block for this repeated perpetrator would be even nicer.

yours in annoyance, Trickietrickie (talk) 00:58, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are not ad-hominem attacks vandalism? Are not unsubstantiated claims on a living-person bio vandalism? Is not erasure of properly CITED information vandalism? Is the repeated scrubbing of a page to reflect only one claim with no real corroboration not vandalism? Have you not read the articles I have cited? (Especially Ed Caesar's). Wiki is being made a mockery of, please do your part to put an end to this.

Trickietrickie (talk) 01:44, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Smarties

Thanks for clarifying that. 98.71.248.24 (talk) 14:43, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All-American Boys Chorus proposed deletion

The rule for challeging a proposed deletion is: "You may remove this message if you improve the article or otherwise object to deletion for any reason" Necrothesp didn't improve the article nor mention mention any reason! He should only tell his disagreement on the article's Talk page. WIkipedia has rules. Let's abide by them. 87.67.128.56 (talk)

He did mention a reason: "can't see any good reason to delete it." Weak as it may be, that's a sufficient reason to oppose the proposed deletion. The instructions at WP:Proposed deletion note that the editor who removes the proposed deletion tag is encouraged to explain his objections, but he's not required to.

If you had an account, I would suggest that you nominate the article for deletion. However, only registered accounts may create the discussion pages within the WP:Articles for deletion process. —C.Fred (talk) 15:01, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Weak", that's an understatement ! Well, I supposed Necrothesp never had to write an essay... Anyway, thanks for your reply and suggestion. 87.67.128.56 (talk) 15:14, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And see your talk page; I've specifically invited you and Necrothesp to join the discussion I've started at Talk:All-American Boys Chorus. —C.Fred (talk) 16:19, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I beg to differ.

You shouldn't be deleting hard work. Student Government officials are noteable and have been used in other Secondary School websites. Go look around to any YRDSB School page. Now please stop. --Voldemorto (talk) 04:16, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More and more Latif Yahia

Hello. I noticed you'd blocked User:TVNEWS11 and also warned User:AMA2010 over edits at Latif Yahia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). I just wanted to let you know it's come to another 3 reverts; I'm at 2 and can't do much about the blanking for now. AMA2010 has also, in my opinion, vandalized Talk:Latif Yahia with non-responsive copies of swaths of text. AMA2010 seems to be the same user as TVNEWS11, so another user and I have posted at WP:Sockpuppet investigations/TVNEWS11; feel free to chime in if you care to. Just a friendly note, in case you weren't fed up already :) Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 06:50, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it's been handled for now. Please disregard above. And thank you for helping out with TVNEWS. JFHJr (㊟) 16:25, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The correct question is "Are you trying to get it to not be tagged as an orphan?"

That's what i'm trying, please help me, I don't know why the article tagged as an orphan...