User talk:C.Fred

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Reversion of Utah Historical State Flag Image[edit]

Regarding the question of the ratio of 5:8 vs. 3:5, the long-standing dimensions of the Historical State Flag are 5:8. The new 'Beehive Flag', which is now the primary State Flag is a 3:5 ratio. The UT State Code does not specify this, but these are the actual ratios used which are commercially produced. The previous versions of this page never cited the ratio.

Please revert your edit.

Respectfully, Trace Trace.estes (talk) 21:47, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

April 28, 2024[edit]

I would recommend that you thoroughly check the original "sources" on the List of Kenan & Kel episodes page. My edits were made with completely good intentions and good faith, as literally every source online about the show cites the airdates I provided as being the original airdates for the episodes. Also, some episodes are listed completely out of order and do not match up with the order in which the episodes originally aired on television. It would be nice if I were able to freely provide my knowledge of this show without all of my work being constantly reverted. SLSmith96 (talk) 02:38, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SLSmith96 I did check the sources. For instance, the source cited for the airdate of "The Tainting of the Screw" supports the October 25 airdate. Not only did you change the airdate, but you failed to cite any source to support your change. Accordingly, your edit violates WP:Verifiability. —C.Fred (talk) 10:19, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – May 2024[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2024).

Administrator changes

readded Nyttend
removed

Bureaucrat changes

removed Nihonjoe

CheckUser changes

readded Joe Roe

Oversight changes

removed GeneralNotability

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • Partial action blocks are now in effect on the English Wikipedia. This means that administrators have the ability to restrict users from certain actions, including uploading files, moving pages and files, creating new pages, and sending thanks. T280531

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:25, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Removals by User: Kautilya3[edit]

Hi, could you please kindly check if these removals, by user: Kautilya3, fall under the category of vandalism? I find these removals really disruptive but I am not interested in edit war.

Thank you. - MainBody (talk) 11:46, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Imam al-Quduri[edit]

Here is the reference that he was a Maturidi.

https://www.masjidsalahudin.com/630/ Muslim Bonaparte (talk) 14:51, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Muslim Bonaparte I don't see anything in the translated text that says he was a Maturidi (unless it was mangled in the automated translation). Further, how does this particular mosque meet the definition of a reliable source? —C.Fred (talk) 15:55, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting edits on Snell's law[edit]

I saw you reverted my edits in the article on Snell's law. After I've made my edits (a week or so) I noticed to my surprise that an edit war broke out by people of whom I had previously no knowledge of. Although it's not entirely clear to my as to why my edits have been reverted, I'm perfectly willing to engage in a discussion about it on the talk page. However, for some reason I have been accused by two people now of being one of the people who engaged in this edit war, even though I had nothing to do with this. Moreover, the users who are accusing me of "evading my block" (even though I never had one), are now completely unwilling to engage in a discussion on the talk page. In short: what the hell is going on here? GoneWithThePuffery (talk) 17:03, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GoneWithThePuffery Your edits were far enough back in history that I hadn't looked at them. As for the sockpuppetry, I don't see your prior comments about Snell's law, particularly the four sources comment that you alluded to. —C.Fred (talk) 19:32, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@C.Fred, my prior comments about Snell's law? What are you talking about? I only made an edit, nothing controversial, substantiated by proper sources and suddenly I'm treated as if I did something wrong. The comments about those four sources alluded to: "not reflecting the sources". As many of those sources are redundant. Why is this related to "sockpuppetry"?
So again my question: I made an edit in good faith, with proper sources and I have two people who are unwilling to engage in a discussion and even accusing me of "evading a block". Once more: what the hell is going on here? GoneWithThePuffery (talk) 19:40, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@GoneWithThePuffery I misread your comment. I thought you had previously mentioned the four-citation issue; instead, I see you're adding it to your previous comments. —C.Fred (talk) 20:34, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@C.Fred I'm asking something completely different, but you keep talking about some comment that is not relevant for this matter. I made a perfectly legitimate substantiated edit a while ago and you reverted it back. Why? On top of that, I'm now being accused by two muppets of something I didn't do. Why are you participating in this nonsense? GoneWithThePuffery (talk) 20:46, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@GoneWithThePuffery I am participating because of the edit war; I took the administrative action of rolling back to the pre–edit war, status quo ante version. As to your edits, I did not revert them; they must have been reverted some time between March 26 (when you made the edit) and May 11 (the version I rolled back to). As for the conduct of the other editors, mind your own comments to make sure you don't stray into personal attacks, but if they're persistently making such accusations, please provide me a diff of their comments to help me find and evaluate it. —C.Fred (talk) 01:55, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
After checking the logs, I don't see where your edit has been reverted at all. It's still intact. —C.Fred (talk) 02:01, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@C.Fred: Please note that this editor has edited the article while being logged out, which they confessed themselves. I have no problem with discussing the matter at Talk:Snell' law if they bring another rationale than "to put four (!) sources behind one claim looks quite ridiculous" ... Best.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 12:34, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I already raised my point, but you had the audacity to start crying on my talk page over uncivil behavior, even when you're the one who started the uncivil behavior. GoneWithThePuffery (talk) 17:09, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No it's not. You have reverted everything. I can see it because if I revert your last edit on that page I have the exact page after my changes.
A personal attack? What are you talking about? These people are objectively muppets. They are accusing me with no evidence at all of something I didn't do. There's no assumption of good faith and no use of civil behavior BY THEM in the first place. GoneWithThePuffery (talk) 17:08, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@GoneWithThePuffery The bulk of my revert is to revert changes made by Casteiswrong. I'm afraid I don't understand your statement about having the exact page after your changes; are you implying that you made the changes attributed to Casteiswrong? If not, please specify exactly which edits you're claiming as yours. —C.Fred (talk) 19:34, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"The law was eventually named after the Dutch mathematician and astronomer Willebrord Snellius (1580–1626), who discovered the law of refraction and wrote down its mathematical form.[1] Even though the Persian scientist Ibn Sahl never explicitly stated the sine law, it has been argued by Roshdi Rashed that Ibn Sahl was the first to discover the law at Baghdad court in 984.[2][3][4][5] In the manuscript On Burning Mirrors and Lenses, Sahl used the law to derive lens shapes that focus light with no geometric aberration.[6]"
And:
"Thomas Harriot claimed to know the law in 1602,[7] but did not publish his results as he claimed ill health prevented him from putting it explicitly into a form suitable for publication (although he had corresponded with Kepler on the subject)."
....are the edits I made at that page. They are not made by Casteiswrong, since he is (as far as I know) completely against including anything from Rashed (he simply denies Ibn Sahl having knowledge of the law of refraction). I'm not against that at all. I'm merely of the opinion that the only person who analyzed these works by Ibn Sahl in their original form is Rashed. So all the other secondary and tertiary sources are referring to Rashed. In that light, it's necessary in my view to explicitly refer to him. (Not in the least considering the fact that I know Rashed's views are somewhat controversial.)
Apart from these edits I merely deleted 3 of the 4 sources (per WP:OVERCITE), because they were referring to the same point (they are completely redundant...). GoneWithThePuffery (talk) 22:38, 14 May 2024 (UTC) GoneWithThePuffery (talk) 22:38, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To add one more thing: I did initially removed "Ibn Sahl law", because I couldn't find sources that are explicitly referring to the law of refraction as such (usually it's either the law of refraction, Snell's law or the Descartes-Snell law). However, it turns out that there were indeed some sources that referred to that, and ever since I'm fine with it (I just think that four of the same kind of sources is an overcitation...). GoneWithThePuffery (talk) 22:54, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@GoneWithThePuffery Found it, and the sequence around it is telling. The edit was made by an IP on 7 May and reverted by Hu on 11 May. Thony C restored it, and Hu removed it again. The reasonable conclusion, based on behaviour, is that the IP and Thony C are the same individual. At that point, a new account, Casteiswrong, picks up the edit warring. It's not unreasonable to assume that the IP and Caste are the same person. Jump ahead to 14 May, and right after Caste is blocked, you jump into the fray. My point is this: there are enough dots that it's not unreasonable to connect you to the other two accounts. It may have been an incorrect accusation, but that doesn't mean it was a bad faith accusation.
Now, I'm going to be blunt. You're probably aware that your actions are under discussion at WP:AN. Anything short of your best behaviour toward other editors is likely to get you shown the door for some period of time. But it sounds like you know the material and can contribute to the article (and probably others). Limit your discussions at Talk:Snell's law to only the content of the article—what sources say, what the article says, whether the sources cited repeat the same information and might be redundant. Stay calm and stay focused on just the content. Even if you feel like you get insulted, stay calm. That's a professional technique I've learned as a sports official: the more unhinged a coach gets in an argument, the calmer we stay. That way, it's obvious by their actions which of the two parties is the rational one. —C.Fred (talk) 00:56, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Further, while "sockpuppet" has a specific meaning on Wikipedia—and Wikaviani has been advised to make sure there is evidence before throwing that accusation around—"muppet" has no such meaning. Thus, we're left with the dictionary meaning of an "incompetent, foolish, or stupid person"—which is a clear personal attack. —C.Fred (talk) 19:37, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with this. Accusing people of "evading a block" is an attack on the sincerity of my edits. Also Wikaviani comments with regard to me not being here "to build an encyclopedia", even though I took the time to add and reread sources to complement the sentences, is personal. The same can be said about Hu741f4, who also accused me of being someone else, and who arrogantly said I didn't improve the article. It's unbelievable since this guy probably didn't even read what I had written (he keeps referring to a previous discussion where I had no part in...).
The situation is now quite absurd. You have two people who are dictating really everything that's going on in that article, and at the moment they are completely unwilling to engage in a discussion. This Hu741f4 guy is merely calling my edits "disruptive", which is probably his way of saying that he doesn't agree with it. GoneWithThePuffery (talk) 22:46, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Martin, Martin (2013). Elements of Classical Physics. Elsevier. p. 39. ISBN 1483148602.
  2. ^ Smith, A. Mark (2015). From Sight to Light: The Passage from Ancient to Modern Optics. University of Chicago Press. p. 393. ISBN 978-0-226-17476-1.
  3. ^ Papadopoulos, Athanase (2017). "Roshdi Rashed, Historian of Greek and Arabic Mathematics". HAL Open Science. p. 12. hal-01653436.
  4. ^ Mourad Zghal; Hamid-Eddine Bouali; Zohra Ben Lakhdar; Habib Hamam. "The first steps for learning optics: Ibn Sahl's, Al-Haytham's and Young's works on refraction as typical examples" (PDF). R. Rashed credited Ibn Sahl with discovering the law of refraction [23], usually called Snell's law and also Snell and Descartes' law.
  5. ^ Smith, A. Mark (2015). From Sight to Light: The Passage from Ancient to Modern Optics. University of Chicago Press. p. 178. ISBN 978-0-226-17476-1.
  6. ^ Rashed, Roshdi (1990). "A pioneer in anaclastics: Ibn Sahl on burning mirrors and lenses". Isis. 81 (3): 464–491. doi:10.1086/355456. S2CID 144361526.[disputed – discuss][clarification needed]
  7. ^ Kwan, A.; Dudley, J.; Lantz, E. (2002). "Who really discovered Snell's law?". Physics World. 15 (4): 64. doi:10.1088/2058-7058/15/4/44.

IP editor talk page abuse[edit]

The editor behind 64.114.197.204 continues to post random article-like content on their talk page, in defiance of your last warning. Just thought you should be aware. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 17:55, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Saba Moeel[edit]

Hi C. Fred. I would like to contest my name being used without my consent on Kool A.D's page. I do not wish to be associated with that person, and would like mention of me and my child removed. Will it be possible to mention whatever details of his personal life in vague terms, without attaching my name to his. Thank you for your message. 2601:644:500:A380:2917:E31E:B00F:B58D (talk) 04:53, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are two issues here. First, there's no way I can determine that you are that person, so I have to assume your request is from a random user on the internet. You would have to contact the Volunteer Response Team by email to credential yourself. Even then, they might not take action on the content.
The other option would be to start a discussion at the biographies of living people noticeboard about inclusion of the name. The problem there is that the discussion would draw more attention to the name and a possible Streisand effect about its omission. —C.Fred (talk) 11:56, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:C.Fred&oldid=1223959103"