Talk:Frankie Sullivan

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Untitled

"He loves his daughter Kristen." Uhhh, what the hell is that? 91.152.179.219 02:24, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Photo needed!

Photo needed! Gringo300 (talk) 02:48, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Frankie Sullivan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131112104340/http://technorati.com/entertainment/music/article/survivor-2012-a-conversation-with-frankie1/page-2/ to http://technorati.com/entertainment/music/article/survivor-2012-a-conversation-with-frankie1/page-2/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:37, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looking good

I may add his autograph. Lightburst (talk) 16:16, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Signature image in infobox

The signature of Frankie Sullivan has remained in the infobox of this article for quite a while and I think that it improves the article to have the signature in it, much like other articles have signatures in the infoboxes. Recently, the image was removed with the edit summary "removing image from commons", which I reverted because the extent of the rationale for deletion provided on Commons was that the image was no longer in use. This seems quite circular to me, so I reverted the removal. After another round of reverts, I think it's best to discuss this on the talk page while the article remains at its stable version (i.e. the one with the signature) rather than to keep reverting back and forth.

@Lightburst: Can you explain why you've removed this image from the article? I don't find persuasive the explanation that the file should be removed owing to it being doomed to deletion at Commons, especially given that the Commons deletion request explicitly was made on the basis of the file not being in use in any article. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 14:38, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See below, copied from RTH talk page. Lightburst (talk) 15:53, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Signature image

Do you have a valid reason for constantly reverting my edit on an article that you have never even edited? The image of the sigg is unattributed and I have since had reason to question it's authenticity. Unless you know otherwise you should allow it to be deleted. Lightburst (talk) 14:36, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted you twice, each time noting why I did so in the edit summary. If you would like to know how I encountered the file, it was through the image's deletion request at Commons; I found the rationale to be quite strange for a signature of a famous musician and I tried to figure out why it was unused. That it was nominated just minutes after deleting it from the EnWiki article on the basis that the photo was going to be deleted at Commons frankly didn't make a lot of sense to me, so I restored it to the article and challenged the DR. The second time I reverted you was because you made unsupported claims about attribution for a file you say is public domain, which I found to be confusing given that public domain files that are below the threshold of originality do not actually require attribution.

Your authenticity argument is new, and plausibly a valid reason to delete the image, but the remainder of the discussion on that note should take place at the DR (with respect to the image's suitability for Commons) or the article talk page (with respect to the image's suitability for the article). — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 14:59, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Images are always tricky and since neither I nor Wikipedia has anyway to authenticate this signature we have no WP:V. So reinstating it in the article is inappropriate. I encourage you to revert your edit reinstating the image and we can see if wikipedia wants to have an image that cannot be verified in any way. (I am cutting and pasting this to the file's talk page) Lightburst (talk) 15:53, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As I noted on my talk page, original images are explicitly allowed on Wikipedia. And the source gives a credible explanation for where this signature came from (i.e. a Letter from the person describing a guitar that he sold). As I noted on Commons, there are plenty of reasons why one can change their mind on the authenticity of a signature, but I have yet to hear any reason as to why you've changed your mind on the authenticity of the signature. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 16:01, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I won't be continuing this discussion with you. It is clear you have other motivations. My motivation is to get things right and make the project better. There is plenty to do without fighting about signature that may not be the subject's signature. I am operating in good faith here, but sadly I do not believe that you are. Lightburst (talk) 16:10, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please strike your personal attack; I don't have ulterior motivations here and I really don't appreciate the casting of aspersions here. Frankly I'm being quite transparent with my reasoning, both here and on Commons, but I still have yet to hear any explanation for how you came to conclude that this was inauthentic. Especially given the existence of substantially similar signatures attributed to Sullivan online, I think that this is a perfectly reasonable request for explanation to make. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 16:30, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]