User talk:FredD

Hello. You recently copied a section of Fromia indica to Fromia elegans without giving attribution. CC BY-SA allows you to copy material only if you provide attribution. On Wikipedia, that means giving the original article, preferrably with a date or permanent link. I placed a template on the talk page to take care of it this time, but please note this in the future, because it avoids copyright violation.

As for the redirect, I did not create it, but am, (or was,) thinking about splitting the section in Fromia indica there when I finish researching it. I don't think it is good enough for more than a small stub, yet. If you would like to talk on either talk page and provide sources, that would be great! Cheers! —PC-XT+ 03:50, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello, and thanks for your kind message. I didn't know there was need to attribute such a short section : I'v never heard of it in the other Wikipedia's I contribute to. Is everything fixed now ? About the species, as long as there are two different species given by WoRMS and other reference databases, it is better ton consider that they are different species, and cite the papers that put it into question. Usually, at least in the French Wikipedia (but also in most universities and museums), we follow WoRMS for the "official" echinoderm taxonomy (as well as for most other marine living forms), and make redirects only for species considered as synonyms by WoRMS. You can find some other sources I used on the French version of the article (though in French for most of them...). Cheers, FredD (talk) 04:09, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

No problem. The section is short, and actually unfinished, so it doesn't really matter much. The redirect had been created because it was in the WoRMS synonym list, which usually means a redirect is appropriate. I am still learning how to read WoRMS, and was unsure about turning the redirect into an article at that point, so I was developing one section in the first article, to probably split over the redirect once I had enough for another section or two. In normal articles, this is common practice, but species articles basically have inherent notability from WoRMS, so I understand your desire to make it an article now. I'd like to get better information on Hayashi, 1938 and Marsh, 1977 and make actual citations for them. I'd also like to include more about the animal itself, or even specimens involved, from the sources already cited, and others, as well. —PC-XT+ 06:33, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello again ! I just left a message to Christopher Mah, he'll tell us. Cheers ! FredD (talk) 07:14, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! That is appreciated! —PC-XT+ 19:19, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I got Christopher's answer : "Hi Fred, My memory is that is that it is accepted but someone has probably said " is possibly or probably a synonym" or otherwise cast doubt but without any evidence. I will check next week... but it is still accepted...". So I think it deserves its own article, with mention of the taxonomic concern. Kind regards, FredD (talk) 04:21, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Ok, that's what we'll do, then. Thanks for asking him! Cheers! —PC-XT+ 08:52, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Other Wikipedias seem divided on the issue. nl:Fromia elegans but sv:Fromia elegans. I've been interrupted from research, (possibly for a while,) but this source is supposed to have something relevant, though I haven't read it to find the page, yet. I think it is the source mentioned by WoRMS and sv:Fromia elegans. I think the confusion is that Fromia elegans H. L. Clark, 1921 is accepted as a species, but Fromia elegans Engel, 1938 is not. —PC-XT+ 21:13, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

There is no true debate about sv and nl wikipedias, as both are written by robots... They will update from WikiData according to what we do in fr and en. FredD (talk) 03:29, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Ah, that makes sense. I found the page of that PDF, (which basically said the same thing as another source I had already,) and updated the articles to better disambiguate the two descriptions of F. elegans. Thanks for the help and experience! Cheers! —PC-XT+ 05:25, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I think you have found the knot ! I have made up the French version thanks to your bibliography-mining. If we have any specimen at the Museum in Paris, maybe I will try to take some pictures when I'm back there. Thanks for your research ! FredD (talk) 05:50, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

The French article is good. I like how you mentioned the Torres Strait. That may be a good addition here, as well. I have a French source that I haven't added to an article. I will probably use English sources, instead, but I thought I'd mention this one in case it has something useful for a French article. (It describes 6 arms on Fromia indica, because the specimen was apparently dividing when found, but it's mainly talking about other seastars.) A picture of F. elegans would be great, if you can get one! Happy editing! —PC-XT+ 06:35, 20 August 2014 (UTC) 07:05, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Please beware that only taxonomic levels below genus (genus+species+subspecies) are in cursive. Higher taxonomic levels, such as families, are never in cursive (WP:MOS and ICZN). Regards, 62.107.215.58 (talk) 13:54, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello. I actually know how the zoological code works, and I try to teach it to my students every year. But thank you for correcting some old contributions where copying and paste had apparently carried errors... Normally you will find none on the French version of all these echinoderm articles. Congrats for your vigilance and cheers, FredD (talk) 19:00, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello! Thanks for helping expand Echinoderm articles on English Wikipedia. When creating Stomopneustes variolaris, it appears you have incorporated some elements from the French Wikipedia version, without attributing sources. While the French version has some references, it's important to attribute all content, even should a non-English article be entirely lacking in references, to reduce the risk of errors in translation or perpetuating incorrect, unattributed information. Cheers. --Animalparty-- (talk) 21:58, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

It's fixed, thanks. FredD (talk) 19:44, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

		The Photographer's Barnstar
		I just had the pleasure of looking over Marine wildlife of Baa Atoll and saw that you had uploaded all the pictures I checked and that you had taken many of the pictures yourself. Thank you for the beautiful pictures and the identifications. Keep up the good work and keep having fun.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  01:46, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, it's a pleasure ! You may also like some similar pages I did in French, such as Biodiversité marine des lagons de la Réunion or Nudibranches de Méditerranée... All the best, FredD (talk) 08:16, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:52, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tetraodontidae, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tetrodon. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:59, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page.

Hello, I would like to create the page Agay (a place in France, which already has an article in many languages). However, it appears that this entry had been created and deleted several times, I don't know why. The page I plan to create is proper and legitimate (the first draft will be a translation of the German page), so may I ask an admin to authorize its creation ? Thanks a lot !

--FredD (talk) 10:08, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

It was salted because of the word "gay" embedded in it. Some people are rather juvenile. Anyway, I've unprotected it so you should be able to create it. Looks very pretty, btw (I looked at the French version). Let me know if you have problems.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:24, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi Bbb23, thanks a lot ! I started a stub but quite often the code is not the same as in the french version of wiki, so please don't hesitate to proof-read my work ! Thanks and cheers, FredD (talk) 22:24, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

It's a bit more than a stub. I made a few simple copy edits to the beginning. The most important things you can do are (1) provide more sources (too much material is unsourced) and (2) tone down the article (too much of it sounds like advertising - articles must be encyclopedic) - sections like "Worth seeing" probably shouldn't be included at all. Good luck.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:59, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks ! I removed this section and some other potentially promotional things. Best regards, FredD (talk) 07:53, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Black French people, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Dravidian and Melanesian.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:57, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi there, I reverted your recent changes to Metaverse because I felt that you had editorialized the sources too heavily - for example, I don't think it's appropriate to describe Horizon as "bug-ridden" in WP:WIKIVOICE. There's some good content here and lots of new french language sources which I really appreciate you bringing to English Wikipedia, I'd love it if you were willing to take another shot at summarizing sources more closely and attributing contentious claims about backlash and investor enthusiasm. BrigadierG (talk) 15:43, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi BrigadierG, thanks for your message. Yes, I needed someont to review my edits : I found that the French page had expanded much more than the English one and just translated the content and sources, but of course it would be way better with mostly English-speaking sources for the english-speaking article : feel free to review it and fix what needs to (rather than just revert). Also, don't heitate to fix the language : I had it AI-translated, reason why it may sometimes sound too familiar. Thanks and regards, FredD (talk) 21:22, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello User:FredD,

I hope this message finds you well. I noticed some of your contributions in areas linked to philosophy of nature and marine biology. Wikipedia fully supports the use of pseudonyms to protect editors' privacy, and this is completely respected.

That said, even when editing anonymously or under a pseudonym, the conflict of interest guidelines (WP:COI) and the recommendations on self-citation (WP:SELFCITE) apply to every editor. When an editor has real-world expertise or connections in the topics they are editing, it is especially important to be particularly rigorous.

For example, adding a reference to one of your own academic papers published only a few days earlier directly into the body of an article falls under these guidelines. Such additions should be kept minimal and, whenever possible, proposed first on the article's talk page so that other neutral editors can review them for balance and neutrality.

Your contributions to the project are appreciated, and I believe following this practice closely helps maintain the high standards of reliability and neutrality that make Wikipedia a trusted resource for everyone.

Would you be open to discussing this if you have any questions? I'm happy to clarify the guidelines or help with the proper process.

Thank you for your understanding and for the work you put into the encyclopedia.

Best regards, Boznaej Boznaej (talk) 16:00, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi Boznaej, can you be more specific ? I've been contributing for >20 years so you can easily see in my record that I'm not really here for auto-promotion. Sometimes I can happen to cite some of my own work, but only when relevant - and always only peer-reviewed science in open access. I have also seen that in several occasions, other contributors cited my work, but I don't know them (I contribute from France, and mostly on the French version).

Cheers, FredD (talk) 20:15, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi FredD,

Thank you for your quick reply and for sharing details about your long editing history. It's clear you have contributed significantly to the project over 20+ years, and I assume good faith.

To be more specific as requested:

I have observed several instances where references to your own peer-reviewed academic papers were added directly into the body of closely related Wikipedia articles, sometimes very soon after publication. For example:

• Your 2020 paper was inserted less than a week after its publication. It was cited directly in the lead/introduction section of the article and appears as the first of the three references in the bibliography section.

• A 2022 taxonomic revision was added directly to the corresponding species page.

• A 2017 paper concerning the geographic distribution of a species was added to its article.

While these publications appear to be relevant and from reputable peer-reviewed sources, Wikipedia's guidelines on WP:COI and WP:SELFCITE recommend that self-citations be proposed first on the article's talk page (via the {{edit COI}}

template). This helps ensure neutral review for due weight and balance. Direct additions so close to the publication date can sometimes give the appearance of self-promotion, even when editing under a pseudonym.

Would you be willing to follow this recommended procedure for any future self-citations? I am happy to discuss the guidelines further or assist with a talk-page proposal if you like.

Thank you again for your work on the encyclopedia.

Best regards, Boznaej (talk) 21:31, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Dear Boznaej,

I was not aware of this template, but I think it is a very good idea. Actually, I even mentioned this kind of issue in a recent interview. I will keep it in mind, even if I don't know when the next occasion will be ! Thanks, FredD (talk) 22:20, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi FredD,

Thank you for your quick and very kind reply — I really appreciate you taking the time to respond so openly.

First of all, I’d like to highlight how much your contributions over the past 20+ years have enriched the project. Your work has brought real value to countless articles, and the encyclopedia is clearly better because of it.

I also read your recent interview on TheMetaNews and was particularly moved by your quote: “Si je meurs demain, ma plus grande contribution aura été sur Wikipédia.” I truly hope that the perspective of experiencing the wisdom of Solon remains very far off for you. May you continue to contribute and enjoy Wikipedia for many years to come!

Your answer is perfectly in line with the spirit of WP:COI: you acknowledge the template, recognise its usefulness, and say you will keep the principle in mind for future edits. That’s exactly the collaborative and constructive attitude the community values.

I also hope this same good practice template and the recommended process for self-citations is — or will soon be — available and actively encouraged on all language versions of Wikipedia, not just the English one. It would be a real step forward for the whole movement.

Thank you again for your positive approach and for all the work you’ve put into the encyclopedia.

Best regards, Boznaej (talk) 15:19, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Dear Boznaej, thanks for your kind words and your help. I wish you great contributions on Wikipedia ! Best regards, FredD (talk) 15:49, 7 April 2026 (UTC)