Hello, I'm FlightTime Phone. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, In Through the Out Door, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. - FlightTime Phone ( open channel) 17:47, 4 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Hi, I'm using a source that is already in the article - the Dave Lewis book "Led Zeppelin: A Celebration". It's in the list of sources at the bottom. The author is the one who states that the album went to #1 in the countries I added. Interestingly, he does not list Canada as one of those countries but I assume that's from another source maybe? So I didn't remove it.

Hi Fred Zepelin! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Lectonar ( talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:01, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Hey! So about your edit summary on Meidiawest*Con; It's not entirely true. ALthough it may as well be, looking through your edit I only found 2 sources in that entire section you removed, and they both appear to be unreliable primary sources. So I haven't undone your edit since it makes a lot of sense. THe majority of the section was unsourced except for the very end. ― Blaze The Wolf ^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 15:48, 7 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Yes, and I also noticed that the very end, the part that was sourced? That is also repeated in the History section, and I left it there.

Alright cool. Also, please remember to sign on talk pages with ~~~~. ― Blaze The Wolf ^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 15:59, 7 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Thank you !!!! Fred Zepelin ( talk) 16:24, 7 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Hello, I'm CuriousGolden. I noticed that you recently removed content from Donavon Warren without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. — curiousGolden ^{call me maybe?} 14:36, 5 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Yes please see your talk page where I addressed this. Fred Zepelin ( talk) 16:09, 5 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Thanks for nabbing this we at Anti spam are grateful whenever UPE is nabbed. Keep up the good Job. Celestina007 ( talk) 19:32, 10 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Thanks. I stumbled onto that because of another editor, really - Kuru spotted his paid editing on the movie Wheels and I kind of started exploring from that point. Fred Zepelin ( talk) 19:43, 10 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Kuru, Celestina007 - I nominated the Wheels (2014 film) article for deletion because I think the evidence is overwhelming that it was created by either a paid editor or the producer himself, it's not notable as zero reliable sources have reported on it, and the latest heavy editing to it was done by the Ugochukwu75 account. So I think the article was there purely as a promotional tool for the producer/writer/director of the movie. Fred Zepelin ( talk) 22:34, 10 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Kuru, Celestina007, Fred Zepelin - Hello all. I received an email from Wikipedia after all of these years regarding a deletion, I had a brain injury and Wiki was just too challenging for me. But now I am back and honestly, I am excited about getting back into it. Hopefully, I can handle it. I really got discouraged last time. Thank you Fred Zepelin for your time on cleaning it up. It seems like some of the sources were out of date and deleted. Some I don't understand, but I am learning. I have referenced articles from AFI, IndieWire, Turner Classic Movies and Movie Insider. It also appears like there is a lot going on with this page. Really any help or mentorship would be greatly appriciated. I am going to get to work on some other pages in the meantime. Thank you for all your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Film Fanatical10069 ( talk • contribs) 01:58, 11 November 2021 (UTC) reply

I don't know why you're even bothering. It's so painfully obvious that you're the same editor I burst out laughing when I read this. Appreciate the overdone politeness, though. I suppose that's the smarter tactic to take if you're still trying to collect your money for your paid editing gigs. Fred Zepelin ( talk) 03:42, 11 November 2021 (UTC) reply

You provided sufficient behavioural evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ugochukwu75 to justify a checkuser. But the checkuser result was "unrelated". If you still think that the user you reported is a sockpuppet, then try comparing editing styles, ways of wording things, mistakes that they both make in their English, etc. If you can find similarities between the user you suspect and Ugochukwu75/Binaza then provide diffs showing that both the suspected user and Ugochukwu75/Binaza behave the same way. The place to put this evidence is the SPI.-- Toddy1 (talk) 17:58, 11 November 2021 (UTC) reply

@ Toddy1: I did add all that evidence in the SPI. In the comments. Is it in the wrong place? Fred Zepelin ( talk) 19:25, 11 November 2021 (UTC) reply

@ Toddy1: Just read this comment from @ Celestina007:, they sum it up for me, and it's put better than I could put it. Fred Zepelin ( talk) 19:28, 11 November 2021 (UTC) reply

It is in the right place.

What I was trying to say was:

• more behavioural evidence would be useful (and tried to describe what kinds I think are worth looking for).
• that if you can find more behavioural evidence, it goes in the SPI.

Do you have a diff showing Film Fanatical10069 referring to his/her sister?

-- Toddy1 (talk) 19:31, 11 November 2021 (UTC) reply

@ Toddy1: Here and here. I personally think that's small evidence in the face of the mountain of evidence elsewhere. Keep in mind - there is no sister. When Ugochukwu75 was first caught socking with the Bianaza account, he didn't mention a sister. That came later, when he admitted to socking AND paid editing. And by the way, the paid editing is what embroiled me here in the first place. The newly-awakened sleeper is desperately trying to save the Wheels article, a non-notable film, the same way Ugochukwu75 was. He voted Keep in the original deletion discussion in 2017 (along with another dormant sock account, Кость Лінивець)... and ask yourself why. And why this amazing timing. And why, despite him being able to create articles with tons of publicity/promo references back in 2015 on his first day editing, he's now pretending to be new at everything. Fred Zepelin ( talk) 19:57, 11 November 2021 (UTC) reply

@ Toddy1: Check these diffs out:

Film Fanatic: "Thank you for your long and detailed explanation. It seems well thought out and I appreciate your time."

Ugochukwu75: "Thank you so much for taking your time to give a detailed explanation."

Just more behavioral evidence. That only took me 5 minutes. I'm sure I'll find more. Fred Zepelin ( talk) 20:32, 11 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Good catch. Well done.-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:03, 11 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Hi Fred. This is what a sockpuppet of Ugochukwu75 looks like. Cheers, -- SVT Cobra 05:35, 22 January 2022 (UTC) reply

SVT, that's a nice catch. I think it's worth me taking a deep dive into that account's interests and perusing the histories. I said all along that the Ugochukwu75 master likely had more than just 3 accounts running. Wouldn't surprise me if it was hundreds of them. Fred Zepelin ( talk) 14:19, 22 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Nah, Ugochukwu75 is unsophisticated. This one was created the day after the original account was blocked. But sure, if you have the time to check for promotional editing in their history, by all means, go ahead. I removed stuff from Joe Carraro and one other article. -- SVT Cobra 14:36, 22 January 2022 (UTC) reply

SVTCobra, Great job there, I know how tough it is to put together a convincing SPI report thanks for the nab SVT. Thank you too Fred. Celestina007 ( talk) 19:58, 22 January 2022 (UTC) reply

The alternate to consider here (and I'm just asking you to look at it as a possibility, because I think it's the truth) is that the same guy is running all of these accounts, and he's latched onto the Film Fanatical one, as one that is the only chance of ever recreating the Wheels and Donavon Warren articles. If he creates a new account and tries to do the same, it would be painfully obvious that it's a sockpuppet. But because at least one established editor has expressed doubt that the FF account is a sock, that's his opening. And just for old-times' sake, take a look at the FF earliest contributions. That was not a new editor in 2017 and it's not a guy who had a brain injury for 4 years either. Fred Zepelin ( talk) 18:57, 10 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Hi Fred Zepelin! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Images which include an advertisement for the photographer watermarked on them, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please create a new thread. See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{ bots|deny=Muninnbot}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). Muninnbot ( talk) 19:00, 13 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Hi Fred Zepelin! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Should 2 really long obituaries be included in a biography article, word-for-word?, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please create a new thread. See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{ bots|deny=Muninnbot}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). Muninnbot ( talk) 19:00, 23 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Hi Fred. Just wanted to point out that the edits you reverted included an identical Philanthropy section and the removal of birth year as from older versions. In other words, User:Pp7575 was restoring work by User:Ugochukwu75 and sock User:Binaza. This could mean one of two things: 1) it is a new sock of Ugochuku or 2) Carraro has hired a new paid editor and is giving them specific instructions for what to put in the article. Cheers, SVT Cobra 18:10, 18 July 2022 (UTC) reply

I thought the same two things. Option #1 seems the far more likely of the two. Fred Zepelin ( talk) 19:32, 18 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Please be careful what you label as vandalism. While this certainly violates MOS:ALLEGE, it certainly does not meet the definition of Vandalism. – MJL  ‐Talk‐ ^☖ 16:51, 12 August 2022 (UTC) reply

I could see how you could argue that it's a gray area - he was found guilty of that charge, so it wasn't "alleged". In this case, it was a single edit by a newly-formed account, so to me, a hit-n-run like that, when it's demonstrably false, and likely a POV violation, is pretty much vandalism. I guess next time I'll just leave the summary as is so as not to cause controversy about edit summary remarks, lord knows what could happen as a result! Fred Zepelin ( talk) 18:30, 12 August 2022 (UTC) reply

I mean if you think that an edit is a POV pushing from an WP:SPA, then just say it's not WP:NPOV. It avoids WP:BITEy behavoir, etc. – MJL  ‐Talk‐ ^☖ 02:12, 15 August 2022 (UTC) reply

I suppose NPOV would be more accurate. Fred Zepelin ( talk) 14:34, 20 August 2022 (UTC) reply

The discussion at Talk:Ballpark is later than the one at the wiki project. More importantly, the [[baseball]] [[stadium]] linking is the worst possible way to link as it doesn't link to the specific article at all, nor does it complain with WP:SEAOFBLUE. Please stop reverting to a poorer form based on an outdated discussion. oknazevad ( talk) 21:19, 27 November 2022 (UTC) reply

That discussion is not discussing what to call MLB stadiums. Completely different topic. Fred Zepelin ( talk) 21:19, 27 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Please justify not linking major league ballparks to the ballpark article. oknazevad ( talk) 21:21, 27 November 2022 (UTC) reply

I don't have to. That decision was made here. In fact, one of the participants said it's fine to use ballpark later on in the body of the article, but that "stadium" should be used in the lead! Please explain why you really really want the lead sentence changed to your preferred version. Fred Zepelin ( talk) 21:27, 27 November 2022 (UTC) reply

I moved this to WT:BASEBALL. Fred Zepelin ( talk) 21:33, 27 November 2022 (UTC) reply

...after seeing this: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dictations. Thanks for asking them that question--and don't be bashful raising that point on a board or an admin's page next time you see something like it. If you look at how those accounts operated you'll see a pattern, easily. Thanks, Drmies ( talk) 21:50, 14 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Holy crap. That's an army of socks. I do not envy the administrative work cleaning that up. Fred Zepelin ( talk) 23:57, 14 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Hello, I'm Leonidlednev. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Harlan Crow seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. That does not belong in the lead: see the article's talk page Leonidlednev ( T | C ) 18:52, 10 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Perhaps you should've looked at the talk page before you reverted. Are you related to the IP addresses that posted there? Fred Zepelin ( talk) 18:56, 10 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Hi Fred. You invited me to leave a message on your talk page if I think you made a mistake so here goes.

If you're going to be petty and follow me around wikipedia looking for stuff to undo, please take a look at the sources first at least. There was an error on the 'crime in SF' page that I fixed - it was reporting on crime in January through June only but describing it as yearly rates, thereby undercounting by half. This is obvious if you open the source that was linked previously and the one I changed it to. Hi! ( talk) 07:56, 2 May 2023 (UTC) reply

You have described yourself doing WP:OR. Fred Zepelin ( talk) 21:57, 2 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Some biased guy is removing the "accuracy" section from Sound of Freedom (film) 2603:6081:5C00:F109:B8D2:D353:93E5:1AFB ( talk) 16:31, 4 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Hi Fred Zepelin, you are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Sound of Freedom (film) § Reaching a consensus on the "Accuracy" section. ~ ToBeFree ( talk) 18:31, 5 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Hey Fred, Thank you for contributing to the Wikipedia community. However I noted you added information not focused on the film but rather the actors and based on characters. This is not the correct place for this information but should rather be in the corresponding actors/persons pages. Otherwise information on actor/director/based on characters would be on EVERY films page they are every in.

For example in films which OJ Simpson acted there is not a section on that films page talking about how OJ Simpson was convicted in civil court as a murder. Please discuss on Sound of Freedoms talk page if you would like to talk further. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpeterson101 ( talk • contribs) 03:20, 11 July 2023 (UTC) I advise you to report {u|Jpeterson101} for inappropriate behavior. There is already a RFC on the page and the consensus is clear that the section was valid and applicable, but he ignored that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.206.167.225 ( talk) 16:02, 11 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Jim Caviezel, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A " bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. ( Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) ( talk) 02:30, 12 July 2023 (UTC) reply

I have requested unprotection of the page at [1]. I understand you were well meaning but there are good sources that should be examined, especially to respond to the fingers-in-ears people in the discussion who keep insisting that RS do not say what they clearly say about Caviezel's connecting the movie directly to QAnon conspiracy theories and using the conspiracy theories to promote the movie.

Example: "On Thursday, Caviezel told conservative podcast host Steve Bannon he had a message for Trump about the screening of "Sound of Freedom," a QAnon-linked movie scheduled to be screened at the former president's Bedminster golf club on July 19. The film suggests global elites are involved in a massive sex-traffic conspiracy... "I believe Donald Trump was selected by God Almighty, and I'm talking about the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit God," he said. Caviezel also talked about a QAnon theory that claims liberal elites — often in Hollywood – drink the blood of infants to obtain their adrenochrome. "That's why the devil wants to kill him, wants to hurt them," he insisted. "It's always been this way since Pharaoh and then to Herod and now but more than ever and enslaving them and doing many, many things including organ harvesting and adrenochroming. And I will say that until I'm, you know, I'm dead." " https://www.rawstory.com/actor-pushes-qanon-theory-of-infant-blood-drinking-while-promoting-film-screening-for-donald-trump/ 73.115.150.77 ( talk) 18:24, 14 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Don't follow me around and WP:HOUND me, as you did on Operation Underground Railroad. Final warning. Red Slapper ( talk) 01:20, 19 July 2023 (UTC) reply

oooo, "final warning"!!! Scary threat, making me so scared. But seriously, if you think someone editing Sound of Freedom wouldn't naturally have a look at Operation Underground Railroad, go ahead and boomerang yourself with an admin. Please. I'm asking you to. Fred Zepelin ( talk) 23:42, 19 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Man, you've grown way, way too obsessed with this movie. Seriously take a break, you're not doing yourself any favors with these weird meltdowns. It's just a movie. 162.222.63.62 ( talk) 15:12, 21 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Sorry you got blocked, Slapper. But editing my talk page from IPs isn't going to help you. Fred Zepelin ( talk) 15:12, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply

I see you reverted the removal of the word "however". MOS:EDITORIAL tells us to avoid the word normally, and in this instance I agree it was editorial/argumentative. I also removed some more - which were also clumsy writing. Doug Weller talk 07:57, 19 July 2023 (UTC) reply

@ Doug Weller: I'm fine with the removal of "however". On a related topic, Operation Underground Railroad, where the film gets its "based on a true story cred", I added some information that ran across and a very pro-Tim-Ballard editor is insisting on removing it. Wouldn't mind if you took a look and gave your opinion on that, thanks. Fred Zepelin ( talk) 23:45, 19 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Not doing that, sorry. I've spent too much time on this. Nor have I spent enough time to really understand the issues and don't want to. I'm trying hard to get back to editing articles involving pseudoarchaeology in the time I have left, see my talk page on that. BUT - you really have to dial it back. Calling editors liars is unacceptable, as is "mistruths". Saying they are wrong and explaining why is what you need to do. Good faith, remember? And I don't think RedSlapper was trying to smear you but defend me as I'd been advising him earlier. Doug Weller talk 08:08, 20 July 2023 (UTC) reply

@ Doug Weller: no worries, thanks anyway. I get ticked off a little when I see an army of QAnon-defending accounts rush to defend a QAnon movie by deleting all the reliable sources that point out the connections to QAnon. But that's my problem, I get it. Fred Zepelin ( talk) 20:28, 20 July 2023 (UTC) reply

I can understand that. It's off my watchlist now. Doug Weller talk 13:19, 21 July 2023 (UTC) reply

How many fucking times have you restored this https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Sound_of_Freedom_(film)&diff=prev&oldid=1167704020 now in the Sound of Freedom (film) article now and how many times have you been reverted for it based on talk page consensus?? Please stop it. Every source says there are now mentions of this conspiracy theory in the film -- FMSky ( talk) 10:44, 29 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Wikipedia:Civility Fred Zepelin ( talk) 20:00, 31 July 2023 (UTC) reply

This user has turned the O.U.R. article, and some other related ones, into a battlefield. He has been fighting for weeks against every edit that included the Rolling Stones and Vice as sources, and now that his own RfC discussion is going against his opinion that they are unreliable he is flooding the discussion with redundant replies trying to disqualify anyone who disagrees with him. And that's not to mention the angry messages on people's talk pages and relatively uncivil edit descriptions he has made against you and others. It also looks like he edit warred in What Is a Woman? according to this notice, where he also wrote this angry edit summary after getting repeatedly reverted there and being called a POV-pusher. The more I look into his history the worse it gets.

It looks like this has been going on for months now. I have much less background into the history of this article and FMSky's activity in it than you do, I'm only looking at this now that the RfC has been opened, but I think this incident needs to be reported. Looking at his edit history whose political contributions consist mostly of edits that make Right-Wing figures look better or otherwise promote his own political points (look at this), it really looks like this user is trying to get Wikipedia to reflect his personal opinions. SparklyNights 16:53, 7 September 2023 (UTC) reply

@ SparklyNights: Well, I already made my opinion known at the O.U.R. RfC. The only thing I can suggest to you is to put the article on your watchlist, and any others that you think have POV pushing. Be careful not to edit war, but asking for others to weigh in, especially if other editors have run across FMSky's reverts, I think is okay. Feel free to tag me anywhere you think is appropriate. I probably don't have time to look at every single edit they make, but I don't mind giving sharing my experience dealing with FMSky with an admin, so if you feel like admin attention is needed, ask one of them. Fred Zepelin ( talk) 22:21, 27 September 2023 (UTC) reply

@ SparklyNights: Looks like he's been topic banned from transgender topics and also from anything related to Tim Ballard, so that should take care of it. Fred Zepelin ( talk) 16:49, 28 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Hello, My name is Anoghena Okoyomoh from Nigeria, I wanted to contribute on Wikipedia about emerging artists in Africa and so far I've been able to effect corrections on Wikipedia articles whose subject that boarders on Nigerian history and facts; I took an interest in Yinka Ash an emerging fashion designer because he began an incubation programme for young artist, so when I saw his Wikipedia page as bare I decided to expand on information. However, it seems I did it wrong, cause the article was flagged as likely a publicity hoax or I was paid to do the edits. I know I messed up, so I'm kindly asking how I can avoid the mistakes I made. I would really really really appreciate it, I know you're probably busy, but I would appreciate it. Thank you. Anoghena Okoyomoh ( talk) 09:12, 29 November 2023 (UTC) reply

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{ subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Abishe ( talk) 14:47, 1 January 2024 (UTC) reply

The redirect Golden State Party has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 26 § Golden State Party until a consensus is reached. Crendrik ( talk) 14:57, 26 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Accusing other editors engaging in good faith of being "white supremacist apologists" [2] is unwise. I would retract that and focus on content, not contributors. Marquardtika ( talk) 22:02, 26 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Well, I didn't call him a white supremacist. I pointed out that he's trying to soften the image of a white supremacist politician by scrubbing that article of sourced information that ties him to white supremacist ideals - which the editor, was, in fact, doing. "Apologist" is just a one-word way to say all of that. Fred Zepelin ( talk) 22:04, 26 February 2024 (UTC) reply

I agree with Marquardtika, I think it best to clean the slate with a strike and or apology. Focus on the arguments at hand and not the editor or their presumed motivation. That is the best way to build consensus. DN ( talk) 22:28, 26 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Continue taking a step back from talk on the Kent article for a bit. I will see if there is a way to find an amicable resolution. Cheers. DN ( talk) 01:16, 19 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Hello Fred, I'm not necessarily saying your most recent revert wasn't constructive as I hadn't even read the talk page yet, however I noticed that you had apparently first followed me around and did the same to multiple of my recent contributions. I hereby ask you to stop. Biohistorian15 ( talk) 16:58, 1 April 2024 (UTC) reply

I hereby direct you to never post a message to my talk page again, as this contribution of yours is a blatant distortion of what's going on. You've had an account since 2018, but just showed up recently after 6 years of inactivity to start making edits at a furious pace, and your POV edits have been reverted by more editors than just me. So don't go crying about hounding in your edit summaries; what's far more likely is that multiple editors have noticed your POV edits, looked at your contributions, and seen some serious problems in the pattern. Fred Zepelin ( talk) 19:35, 1 April 2024 (UTC) reply

I had like 5 of my posts reverted before, I believe. Besides, that "get of my talk page!" stuff is a - soft - violation of wiki policy too. Just to let you know. Biohistorian15 ( talk) 06:32, 2 April 2024 (UTC) reply

I'm going to AGF and assume you haven't read WP:USERTALKSTOP. You should read that now and take this as your second and final warning. Next time, you'll be blocked by an administrator for ignoring my request. Take any discussions you have about content to the article talk pages themselves. Fred Zepelin ( talk) 18:00, 2 April 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Biohistorian15 is following the appropriate process recommended in WP:RUCD here by bringing it up first to the talk page. It's in appropriate to respond to the first complaint with WP:USERTALKSTOP Tonymetz 💬 22:40, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Tonymetz 💬, I can't believe this is my first directive to you to WP:USERTALKSTOP, but I guess it is. Do not post text to my talk page again. You won't need a second warning, I'm sure, given the high level of advanced Wikipedia knowledge you displayed from the minute you created your (current) account. Fred Zepelin ( talk) 17:15, 5 April 2024 (UTC) reply

( talk page stalker) Fred Z, no, that's not your first request for Tonymetz to stay off your page. This was the first (that I know of), a month ago. I happened to notice it, and also to notice Tony had restored some removed posts to this page of yours, and have warned him accordingly. Bishonen | tålk 18:43, 5 April 2024 (UTC). reply

I now note you have removed sourced info from this article, on a whim. The claim that the sources do not exist is frankly moronic -- you can find the articles in pdf at Arcanum library, which is on-and-off paywalled, and they also may have html versions, though such links tend to rot. (The links could be refreshed to the archived version, but the fact that they were printed is enough of a verification. Removing them without even checking for archived versions is inane and destructive.) I am an editor in good standing, and I will ask you once not to engage in this sort of borderline vandalism. Dahn ( talk) 12:03, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Hi Fred. Since it has been repeatedly asserted that you "probably don't even" speak/know Romanian, I just wanted to ask you directly if you are fluent in that language. As for the ANI discussion, it should stay open until an admin has a chance to see the more recent developments--the two involved admins (El_C and Waggers) haven't edited WP at all since they last commented, so patience is key. Thanks. Grandpallama ( talk) 20:16, 18 April 2024 (UTC) reply

I do speak Romanian, although the Google Translate function is better at translating Romanian to English than I am, especially for higher-level encyclopedic text. I would put my ability somewhere near the ability of an average 14-year-old living in Romania. I have to say, I don't think that's relevant when we're talking about the English wikipedia. Original research is original research, even if it's relying on dubious translations from sources. Fred Zepelin ( talk) 20:19, 18 April 2024 (UTC) reply