Fred Bauder

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)

Picture of the day

Roosilawaty (born Surayi Pendidikan; April 15, 1936 – February 25, 2009) was an Indonesian actress and dancer. She appeared in her first films in 1956, in Tiga Dara as a dancer and in the lead role in Tjatut. This was the beginning of a successful career, and she continued to appear in Indonesian films until 1963. She retired from acting and, after a period as a florist, subsequently founded Les Sphinx Promotion, an agency for artistic talent, in 1972. This photograph shows Roosilawaty c. 1960.Photograph credit: Tati Studios; restored by Chris Woodrich

---

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)

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)

Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update

RfA candidate	S	O	N	S %	Status	Ending (UTC)	Time left	Dups?	Report
EggRoll97	69	22	8	76	Open	15:07, 19 April 2025	3 days, 16 hours	no	report
LaundryPizza03	67	71	23	49	Open	03:18, 17 April 2025	1 day, 5 hours	no	report

Material has been removed here and placed in User talk:Fred Bauder/Notes, User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 1, User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 2, User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 3, User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 4, User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 5, User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 6, User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 7, User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 8, User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 9, User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 10, User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 11, User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 12, User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 13, User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 14, User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 15, User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 16, User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 17, User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 18, User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 19, User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 20, User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 21, User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 22, User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 23, User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 24, User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 25, User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 26, User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 27 User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 28 User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 29 User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 30 User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 31 User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 32 User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 33 User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 34 User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 35 User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 36 User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 37 User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 38 User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 39 User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 40 User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 41 User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 42 User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 43 User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 44 User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 45 User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 46 User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 47 User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 48 User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 49 User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 50.

Concerning your involvement in the Paranormal Requests for arbitration

Are you an active arbitrator in the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Paranormal case? If so, I have noticed that you have requested evidence concerning some of the conduct issues of specific editors on the workshop page. I wanted to inform you (encase you did not know) that all of the evidence concerning the disruptive edits of some of the users involved in the arbitration can be found here Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Paranormal/Evidence. Specifically the evidence presented by ScienceApologist, LuckyLouie, Minderbinder and Simoes is very clear and concise proving their case. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 22:10, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:(c)2006aaevp-concerns with wikipedia small.jpg

This image needs to be properly tagged; I would suggest {{Non-free fair use in|Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Paranormal}}. Uniform identification of non-free content is useful for the maintenance of Wikipedia, ensuring that reusers know what content is free and not, and required by the WMF's policies. Kotepho 22:15, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Evolution

Hi. I am trying to get into the evolution article that it is both fact and fiction. I have 2 sources that it is and I can find more. I have started a thread on the evolution talk page. I am wondering if you can give your oppinion there. Peace:)--James, La gloria è a dio 03:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Check User

Can you run a check user on the following editors to the Child sexual abuse article? Their edits & style seem very related: User:Kinda) User:Nandaba Naota User:Voice of Britain If you would respond on my talk page, I'd appreciate it. Thanks. DPeterson^talk 00:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for checking on this. I appreciate it. Since VoB is blocked, what can I do about Nandaba Naota? DPeterson^talk 02:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Never mind...I see he is now blocked. DPeterson^talk 02:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:(c)2006aaevp-concerns with wikipedia small.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:(c)2006aaevp-concerns with wikipedia small.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 20:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

You've wiped out my user pages and discussion pages. Why?

Can you point me to the rule I am breaking. As I understand it - I am free to discuss whatever I like on my user page. I have not edited any Waldorf pages, nor have I come here as a sockpuppet. I have lived by the ruling of the ArbCom. The ruling did not extend to my user page. Please explain this action. --Pete K 20:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't accept your explanation Fred. My user page is not an article page. I'm not banned from my user page. I'm not banned from discussing Waldorf either. I'm banned from Waldorf articles. If you wish to extend the ban - you should take action to do that - but this would, in my view, require action within the Wikipedia community and not some unilateral decision on your part. --Pete K 01:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Fred, you are acting unilaterally here. If the ban applied to my user pages, it would have said so. --Pete K 20:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

RfC opened on my conduct in Weiss dispute

Fred, I've just opened an RfC on myself for my conduct in the dispute concerning the Gary Weiss article. The RfC is located here and I welcome your comments or questions. CLA 21:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Heh

I tried to make myself clear before the desysoping with this, don't know what else you need to hear. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Any status update? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 02:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:(c)2006aaevp-concerns with wikipedia small.jpg

Is this image needed anymore? If not, would you kindly arrange the image to be deleted, since it is a fair use image that isn't used in an article. Thanks. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 02:34, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Zero/Zeq

Hi, what a shame. Alithien 07:17, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Night Gyr status

Howdy! It's been upwards of 24 hours since the emergency desysopping. It was predicated on a misunderstanding, and you yourself mentioned early on that the bit would be returned to the gent shortly. Definitive clarification one way or the other would probably be appropriate. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 00:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Under discussion. I think there is a question of general bad judgment. Fred Bauder 00:48, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll second the "general bad judgment" aspect, but if a mistaken emergency desysoping is the catalyst for an eventual arbcom decision, there's a 'fruit of the poison tree' situation possible. I'm not advocating process wonkery, but a normal (if abbreviated) proceeding might be worth considering. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 01:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see how any evidence was illegally obtained. Fred Bauder 01:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Whoa, I wasn't trying to say it was, it was a metaphor, and apparently a failed one. Mkay, I'll rephrase. If the eventual legit decision is predicated on a mistake, then it just lends fuel to the cabal nonsense. Either way, I'd request that the arbcom include the accused at some point before making a final decision. That's what my suggestion was, apologies for any misunderstanding. BTW, don't desysop me. :D - CHAIRBOY (☎) 01:40, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, a request for arbitration would need to be filed and accepted. Perhaps Night Gyr will appeal. Fred Bauder 01:48, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah, well, your choice of words seems to answer most of the questions folks have as to which direction the discussions are heading, at least. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 04:22, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Appeal what? There was a mistake about my intentions, things have been clarified, I've offered to provide any additional comment you need to resolve this. I'm getting a little annoyed that even though there doesn't seem to be anyone still calling for me to lose my bit once they understand the full situation, I haven't even gotten a status report. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 05:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

How long are you guys going to furrow your brows over this? :) Even now the text which Night Gyr was going to "leak" to the press (except that he wasn't, the whole thing being a misunderstanding) is publicly available on Wikipedia itself.[1] Haukur 10:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm generally the last person in the world who would ever complain about "due process" on Wikipedia, but I don't think it's at all a good idea to keep an "emergency desysopping" around due to unrelated concerns. If there's no emergency, I see no reason to rush. If there are legitimate concerns over someone's suitability for adminship, why not just let someone bring a case to arbcom, same as we'd normally do? Friday (talk) 15:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Using Skepticalinvestigations.org as an example of a skeptical website in RfA/Paranormal

Hi Fred. http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org is not what I would consider to be a pro-skepticism website, despite its name. Its principal focus seems to be on attacking those that it considers to be pseudoskeptics, who attack claims of the paranormal. For example, it names amongst its associates and advisors Brian Josephson, who describes himself as "slightly psychic", and Gary Schwartz, who has declared his belief in the powers of Uri Geller and John Edward, amongst others. Regards, — BillC ^talk 02:16, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Redflag

Redflag refers to page content whose nature means that it requires a higher standard of WP:V/WP:RS. In this context, it means "an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary proof". Conversely, an abuse of redflag is "an absurd claim being treated as an extraordinary claim" for the purpose of WP:V/WP:RS.

For example, it would be redflag to say that "mainstream science accepted UFO abductions as fact", and you would be perfectly entitled to demand one, if not more, peer reviewed entry from a mainstream scientific journals in order to prove that the statement is both accurate and credible. However, it would be an abuse of redflag to demand the same standard of proof to WP:V/WP:RS the statement "Mr X says that he was abducted by an alien" which in reality requires only proof that he made such a claim, but not proof that the claim is credible.

I hope that this clears things up.

perfectblue 07:00, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

"Exceptional claims require exceptional sources." Such claims are said to be "red flags". People call that section of WP:RS "Red Flag" because of the shortcut WP:REDFLAG to it. A direct link to the section may help: [2] - LuckyLouie 19:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Removal of Private Eye Article

Hi, just wondering why you felt it necessary to remove the Private Eye article text which I had entered in the Giovanni di Stefano talk page? I can understand about copyright infringement, but surely stating that the material was copyrighted to the magazine is enough? If you are not aware of the history of Private Eye, they are regularly themselves sued, leading some to claim that the editor Ian Hislop is the most sued man in British legal history. I highly doubt that they would attempt to sue Wikipedia for including the article; I suspect they would not really care one jot. Have you ever read the magazine in question? Sorry if I seem confrontational, I'm just a bit annoyed. Seeing the article would help editors to improve the page by dealing with what it saw as flaws in Wikipedia's coverage of di Stefano. Many thanks. Shrub of power 13:00, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your response, and sorry for the delayed nature of mine. It's Private Eye not Public Eye. No worries! Shrub of power 21:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipe-tan as Lolicon

FYI, [3], [4], and [5]. What's next? Wikipe-tan engaged in a graphic sexual act to accompany the inadequately illustrated pornography page? -Jmh123 21:30, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Tell me

You tell me what to think [6] Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 06:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)