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!

A brownie for you!

Thanks! Wrightwood906 (talk) 02:12, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sweetheart Cup Company

Please explain why the article says "This article or section may have been copied and pasted from a source, possibly in violation of Wikipedia's copyright policy. Please remedy this by editing this article to remove any non-free copyrighted content and attributing free content correctly, or flagging the content for deletion. (February 2012)"

Some portions of the article came from answers.com. Do I need to add this under references or footnotes? Las1385 (talk) 03:30, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ideally, you should rewrite those passages in your own words. The formatting was such that the text gave the appearance that it was copied from Sweetheart's/Solo's website. It also needs overhauled for tone; it reads more like promotional material from the company than a neutral encyclopedia article. —C.Fred (talk) 03:34, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll work on modifying the sections from answers.com, but it is my understanding that this material is available for this kind of use under a GNU license without copyright infringement. I'm not sure what you meant by the formatting? Do you mean the headings? Nothing came from Sweetheart's/Solo's website, just answers.com, modified and corrected based upon my personal knowledge and input from family members. I am a member of the Shapiro family and my family knows more than anyone else about Sweetheart's history. As for the tone, can you give an example of where the style seems too promotional? Las1385 (talk) 03:48, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

please quit deleting my page

u obviously dont know a thing about NINJAS and there originAaron reidhead (talk) 09:00, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apology about Shramana article

Please accept my apologies for having been rude on the Shramana talk page. Am very sorry sir. Unfortunately, since Venkatesh kept deleting despite the ongoing discussion, i assumed i too needed to be aggressive. Sadly, i saw this message User_talk:Sitush#Saibaba_Venkatesh after responding aggressively to you here Talk:Shramana#Reply_to_IndianChronicles.

I read this discussion Talk:Shamanism just now. Sorry i was not aware this topic was discussed on wiki earlier either.

Researchers have varying opinions about the terms Shramana and Shaman, apparently since research on migration patterns and linguistics (ie., similarities shared by linguistic groups), is still ongoing. The current similarity is brought out more in terms of identical roles played by a sramana and a shaman, in what came to constitute the underlying "tradition" in emerging/dominant religions/cultures.

However, this is an emerging (new) topic of research. I have no idea about wiki policies on emerging topics. These are the primary books i had referred to:
1) Religion and Anthropology, by Brian Morris (anthropologist) [Its a fascinating read]
2) Syncretism of Buddhism and Shamanism in Korea, by Hyun-key Kim Hogarth
3) The Madness of the Saints: Ecstatic Religion in Bengal, by June McDaniel
4) Sramana-Shaman: etymology of the word Shaman, by S. M. Shirokogoroff and ND Mironov.
5) Shamanism: critical concepts in sociology, by Andrei Znamenski
6) Mongolian studies, Volume 7, Published for the Mongolia Society by Research Center for Language and Semiotic Studies, Indiana University, 1981.

Thanks. --= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 13:34, 13 February 2012 (UTC)Mayasutra[reply]

List of iCarly episodes

Regarding this edit, the episode is sourced to a fan site, http://miranda-cosgrove.us/?p=771, so it's not a reliable source. --AussieLegend (talk) 13:59, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you could highlight that in your edit summary if you remove the episode entirely, or explain that on the talk page, I would appreciate it—and it will make it a lot easier to remove it as unverified if (when?) it gets readded. —C.Fred (talk) 14:01, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I noted that when I first removed it in this edit. I also notified the editor on his talk page,[1], after I had warned him about inaccurate edit summaries,[2] and before I asked him to discuss his edits on the article's talk page, which I did at the same time I was warning him about edit-warring.[3] That didn't stop him restoring it, and I doubt it will again. He's been quite troublesome and has already been blocked for it. --AussieLegend (talk) 14:12, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mea culpa. It had scrolled down the edit history far enough that I missed it. —C.Fred (talk) 14:13, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, he's been a busy boy. Refuses to discuss, just reverts. --AussieLegend (talk) 14:15, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can't tell if it's just one or more than one, based on today's edit history. —C.Fred (talk) 14:17, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He's made 7 reverts in less than 24 hours. --AussieLegend (talk) 15:15, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brodie mcallister

Hello! I tagged the article as G4 as it was recently deleted A7, the editor then recreated the page. If the article is salvagable, great... but I just wanted to explain my G4. Thanks! --Tgeairn (talk) 01:32, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CSD G4 only applies if the article was deleted by discussion: WP:Articles for deletion (AfD) or, if it's a very old article, VfD. It does not apply in cases of speedy deletion or proposed deletion. —C.Fred (talk) 01:37, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AH! I should have known that, and now I do. Thank you, it all makes sense now. Happy Editing! --Tgeairn (talk) 01:39, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ontario Nature

Hi,

I'm trying to update the content for Ontario Nature in Wikipedia. I'm new to Wikipedia, but work for Ontario Nature and would like to make the content current and accurate. I'm going to include references, so you can check accuracy.

Please let me know if there's anything else I should be doing to make this work.

Thanks,

John — Preceding unsigned comment added by Onjohn (talk • contribs) 21:44, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Am disturbed that Wiki pages have been taken over...

I am concerned that the very good standing that Wiki gets by default almost, certainly did by me until I clued up, is open to abuse of the subtle, evil kind. I have studied cancer and various alternative therapies. All relevant Wiki entries to all that I have studied seem to be written and controlled by very biased and deceptive authors. I am saddened that this is possible with such an amazing resource as Wiki provides. I suspect the NCI, the FDA, big pharma and such organizations as are financially benefiting from there own cancer treatments. This is serious corruption and is leading to the unnecesary death of hundreds of thousands of cancer sufferers. Wikipedia should not be used, abused this way and should take its own measures not to be used or abuse for such financial gains of unscrupulous organisations, even if it means limited info on the subject. At least minimal info that is informative only and not biased or judgemental should be allowed. The bots can't distinguish the subtle lies and deciet and influence by omission or comission in such language as has been used in these biased and misleading articles.