Jump to content

User talk:Frank/Archive 10

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11

Unusual editing

I know it's not your interest but a set of unusual edits from a well-respected editor has got me worried. Can you look into: this? Bzuk (talk) 23:10, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm...looks like there's been discussion on his talk page and he's saying it's not vandalism...are you still concerned?  Frank  |  talk  16:24, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
It looks like the contretemps has settled down and another admin has taken on a guiding role in resolving future conflict. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:38, 9 May 2011 (UTC).

You rejection of Speedy deletion of Islamization of Jerusalem under Jordanian occupation

Please see the link to the SPI case at talk. Link to relevant section at Talk here. Do I need to re-submit the SD request? --Frederico1234 (talk) 18:15, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right. I have since edited the article with a null edit / comment to reflect having found the SPI. Bottom line in my opinion, weaselly as it may seem, is that I think AfD is more appropriate anyway. If the ban had happened last week, that's one thing; this article and ban are both more than 6 months old. Doesn't make them right, but these rules aren't meant to be used as blunt instruments, either.  Frank  |  talk  18:18, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Ok. I'll take it to AFD then. I just spent an hour preparing this case, so I might as well waste another 24 hours. --Frederico1234 (talk) 18:25, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

RfA

Hi Frank. I haven't seen you chime in here yet. I feel your input would be valuable, even if you were not to agree with the many suggestions. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:43, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for contacting me, though I'm not sure I can contribute meaningfully. I am of the opinion that there's very little wrong with RfA that isn't wrong with society in general...and that no amount of cyber-discussion will fix it. I am also of the opinion that the proverbial sky is not falling regarding number of admins or number of active admins. We have lots of smart and dedicated people doing smart things and being very dedicated to combating the problems that crop up here, and the reality I see is that no problems would be solved by having more admins. Failing to see the problem, I'm not sure I can contribute to the conversation.
Incidentally, I think your own RfA is a pretty good example of how RfA is actually working more or less as it should. I recall you being pretty cynical about RfA long before you stood yourself, and not at all sure you'd be granted the bit, and yet it worked out in the end. Finally - to add another comment to the list of comments I'm not making...RfA is unlikely to change until RfB is changed...and if there is anything that is going to be harder than reforming RfA, it's got to be reforming RfB. Again - I don't necessarily see there's a problem to solve, but if there is, I don't think it can be solved without something rather radical. I don't presume to have an idea of what that would look like, other than to say it probably shouldn't be led by Jimbo.  Frank  |  talk  13:37, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments and it's nice to get some other perspective. I'm not saying my own RfA will go down in history, but in the final analysis, in many respects it was one of the most unusual ones I have come across. I agree that any new system should not be forced by a papal bull, but it would be nice to get some feedback from up there. We do have a page on the project for discussing radical solutions too, but it's not the most lively department. Do feel free to put your oar in if ever you feel inclined. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:47, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Frank. You have new messages at Kudpung's talk page.
Message added 02:57, 12 May 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

ACC

Frank thank you for applying to access the account creation tool. I have approved your request so welcome to the team. You may now access the tool here. Before you do so, please read the tool's guide thoroughly to familiarize yourself with the process.

You may also want to join #wikipedia-en-accounts on IRC where a bot informs us when new account requests come in and to get any advice on requests as well as the mailing list. Please note that we have implemented a policy of zero tolerance on mishandled requests, and that failure to assess correctly will result in suspension. I would like to emphasize that it is not a race to complete a request, and each one should be handled diligently and thoroughly.

Don't hesitate to get in touch with me if you have any questions. Thank you for participating in the account creation process. Again welcome!
Mlpearc powwow 17:42, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks - per Wikipedia:Request_an_account/Guide#CheckUsers, can you (or someone else) enable the checkuser bit on that interface? I am going to notify others of this request by pointing them here. I am trying to investigate requests based on note at WT:SPI#Request for checkuser review at ACC. I am unlikely to use ACC other than for CU work; is there some flag to set that indicates it will probably be a little-used account for actual creation?  Frank  |  talk  17:55, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
PS: A response here from anyone who is able to enable will be appreciated, in order to save someone else doing extra work.  Frank  |  talk  17:56, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Frank, I have given you the tool Admin. bit and Stwalkerster has enabled the CU bit in the database. Welcome aboard, we can always use CheckUsers. The team monitors this IRC channel.#wikipedia-en-accounts connect
Mlpearc powwow 18:22, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Got it, thanks all.  Frank  |  talk  18:25, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Your edit of Madoff

Hi Frank,

Along those same lines, I reverted your most recent good faith edits at Bernie Madoff because they were simply links to pictures, which are not references. We could have a different discussion about whether the level of detail which names each individual craft is really necessary for the article, but in any case, just linking to pictures is not how we cite information. (Those pictures are copyrighted material and not suited for use on Wikipedia anyway.)  Frank  |  talk  21:28, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I forgot to mention that one reason for mentioning them all was the fact that they all were named with Bull in it .... and the fraud artist didn't mean BS.

And why mention all his real estate? And why NOT mention the five luxury cars? (Nobody needs five.) I do agree however the article is perhaps too detailed for an encyclopedic essay. But then again, WP claims not to be an encyclopedia.

Anyway. I defer to your greater experience as editor here at WP.

Greetings Gatorinvancouver (talk) 22:44, 1 June 2011 (UTC)


Sorry I am confused and keep on posting on the wrong pages.

Obviously it precedes the above message.

This is what I wanted to send to you and accidentally sent to Kraxler. (And have been trying ever to correct since.)


I must have spent an hour to get the editing right. (I haven't done any serious editing in many months, so I'm a bit rusty and never was very good to begin with.)

They weren't meant to be sources, they were meant to be illustrations and I do think it speaks for itself to have so many boats and cars. At the very least, no feeling whatsoever for the value of money. And THAT is not up to me to tell readers at WP.

As to copyright: They are linked and the owners obviously want that (possibly because of ad revenue). Methinks I have seen links to pics on Wikipedia before.

But so be it. Live and learn. I won't waste my time on pictures anymore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gatorinvancouver (talk • contribs) 22:50, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

These questions are best discussed at Talk:Bernard Madoff. And you can reply at your own talk page; when I posted there, it added your talk page to my watchlist, so I am likely to see your reply there. It is best to keep conversations together.  Frank  |  talk  22:59, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Holden Thorp

Nice article, but don't forget you need to review another DYK article... Prioryman (talk) 18:05, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I haven't done a DYK in a while. What is my responsibility in this? (Pointer is fine.) Thanks!  Frank  |  talk  18:10, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
DYK has changed a bit - contributors are now asked to review a submitted article after submitting one of their own for consideration. Anyway, you've done everything that was needed and I've signed off your article. Thanks! Prioryman (talk) 22:50, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
I have to say - the "nice article" compliment is as rewarding as the DYK itself will be. I worked all day on that one...it was a bit of an undertaking starting at 1250 bytes. Thanks again.  Frank  |  talk  02:31, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Bill Bradley

The editor of Harper's magazine created a documentary about prominent individuals in America. Included was an interview with Bill Bradley and mention of his association with The Bilderburg Group approximately 57 minutes into the film. If this isn't a primary source, I would certainly consider it a secondary source. What is your criteria for determining the legitimacy of an assertion in a documentary? Especially given the reputation that Mr. Lampham, the editor of Harper's magazine, must uphold?

I'm not asking you to watch the film... you can note in the film's wiki entry that Mr. Bradley was indeed interviewed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.100.13.251 (talk) 03:03, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I consider an interview with an individual to be a primary source and as such not especially useful here, except generally as supporting source for other referenced information. (It looks like your understanding of primary and secondary sources doesn't mesh with policy here.) Is for determining legitimacy, video is also generally frowned upon as a source here, but it's really not a matter of legitimacy. It's quite possible he appeared in the film. It's just that we need independent sources to confirm it. (Even so - is it really notable that he appeared in the film?) Furthermore, you seem to be drawing a conclusion - that he's a member of a group - based on the film. That's a higher bar than just "he appeared in the film". I think you could list his appearance in the film using this as a source. To draw any conclusion from that is another matter.  Frank  |  talk  03:18, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Shannon1488

I'm checking this one right now too...want to compare notes?  Frank  |  talk  00:28, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm on IRC right now if you want to pop in. Hersfold (t/a/c) 00:29, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Never having done so, I now find I need an invite for it (which makes sense). I'll leave it to you. Short answer is I find 3 definite and 1 likely same as those 3. Others...not so much.  Frank  |  talk  00:37, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
I don't have a dang clue. I've listed what I think is confirmed on the case but I'd appreciate a second look. Would you mind leaving some comments? Hersfold (t/a/c) 01:21, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

SPI - Shannon1488

Hi Frank, thanks for your work and comments at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Shannon1488 which, as you say, is a bit of a mess. A "two pipe" problem, as Sherlock might have said!

Could you possibly confirm that you have checked KoyilandySultan, please? As one of the late arrivals to the party, and given that I initially inserted it in the wrong place, I would not be at all surprised if that user had been overlooked. Life would be easier for you if people like me were a little more clueful regarding SPI page formats etc. - Sitush (talk) 02:15, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Done.  Frank  |  talk  02:19, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Thank you muchly. - Sitush (talk) 06:45, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

DYK Nom

Hi Frank, I took a look at your nomination for Victoria Fyodorova, Jackson Tate, Zoya Fyodorova, and The Admiral's Daughter and I have a question before I review it. Could you see the nominations page? Thanks. Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:26, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Victoria Fyodorova, Jackson Tate, Zoya Fyodorova, The Admiral's Daughter

Hello! Your submission of 4 articles at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Sharktopus talk 00:01, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Bangalore Restaurant Week

Hi Frank! I had created a Wiki for Bangalore Restaurant Week, which got deleted as it didn't meet the requirements of moderators. I got to know that you are one of the Wiki moderators would be be able to help me get the contents of that deleted article. Please help. Varunr (talk) 11:13, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Done; see User talk:Varunr/BRW and User:Varunr/BRW.  Frank  |  talk  11:29, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Jackie Robinson's #42 on the Yankees page

Hi Frank. User:Mistermurdock has been deleting Jackie Robinson's number from New York Yankees article, on the premise that it is a "list of retired Yankees" and that "Robinson was not a yankee." While I undid his edit, arguing that Robinson's number is in Monument Park (therefore retired), User:Mistermurdock reciprocated the same action to my edit. I cannot help but notice the fact that Robinson's #42 is listed as retired on all 30 MLB teams' pages. What should I do? I do not want this to descend into another edit war (as I have already seen him do it on Billy Martin's page). Thanks! Bloom6132 (talk) 13:22, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Userfy request

Can you userfy Perfectly Legal: The Covert Campaign to Rig Our Tax System to Benefit the Super Rich – and Cheat Everyone Else to me? AaronSw (talk) 16:40, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Done; see User:AaronSw/Perfectly Legal. I removed the categories that would only apply to main-space articles.  Frank  |  talk  17:15, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Hathaway

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, articles should not be moved, as you did to Anne Hathaway, without good reason. They need to have a name that is both accurate and intuitive. Wikipedia has some guidelines in place to help with this. Generally, a page should only be moved to a new title if the current name doesn't follow these guidelines. Also, if a page move is being discussed, consensus needs to be reached before anybody moves the page. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. A recent discussion established that there was no primary meaning, this should not have been overturned without further discussion. PatGallacher (talk) 00:04, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Are you serious? Anne Hathaway (the actress) gets 16x the page views of Anne Hathaway (the wife of Shakespeare).  Frank  |  talk  00:08, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you move a page maliciously, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Page hits are not necessarily decisive. This move is against consensus, taken at a previous move request, if you disagree raise a further move request. PatGallacher (talk) 00:11, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a citation from a reliable source that this page move is malicious? Until you do, please tone it down. I'm not going to be blocked for using common sense.  Frank  |  talk  00:14, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I have opened a discussion of this move at Talk:Anne Hathaway (actress).  Frank  |  talk  02:25, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

The postman only rings once

Hello, Frank. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

- Dank (push to talk) 13:51, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Templates make me a sad panda

I'm sure you had pure intentions when you posted this, and it's definitely true that people have NfD'd articles I've started without notifying me before (so thanks for letting me know), but I really strongly agree with WP:DTR, and I have to say every time someone hits me with a one of those templates, it's like I'm getting a collections letter, court summons, or parking ticket -- and I didn't do anything wrong! If, like one of the other editors suggested, you go back to a previous version closer to what I originally wrote it's like a completely different article.

Why do I have do get a robo-message on my talk page scolding/threatening me for something I didn't do? Even if I did do something completely horrible, am I really so much less of a human that people can't be bothered to do more than robo-defame me? It's really so much beneath everyone to have a discussion like we're not all computers?

That's all. I know you'll probably disagree, and a good case can be made for the other side, and you can call me overly sensitive or say that I'm playing the victim or whatever, but just know before you publicly humiliate someone via template again, there are those of us who find it offensive, counter-productive and passive-aggressive. Again, I know that probably wasn't your intention, so I'm telling you now. -- Scarpy (talk) 04:49, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how WP:DTR applies, since the resulting message did not mention vandalism, did not scold, threaten, defame, or humiliate you, and did not accuse you of violating any policy. In fact, you did create the article, so you might be an interested party. The purpose of the template is to alert you to the very discussion you are asking to have, "like we're not all computers", as you say. I suggest that if the template offends you, perhaps you could work on developing consensus to change its wording.  Frank  |  talk  06:11, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
And, of course, you are welcome to comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Niteflirt.  Frank  |  talk  16:05, 29 August 2011 (UTC)--
Of course it scolded, threatened, defamed, humiliated, and accused me of violating several policies. Have you seen this yet? People get that the one of the main reasons why editors leave is because the Wikipedia community is so uncongenial, to put it lightly. You should stop being so defensive, and listen to people when they talk to you. I was trying to give you friendly feedback, and your response so far has been nothing but smug and dismissive -- or, hey, keep it up and watch the number of active editors dwindle. I don't care, editing Wikipedia isn't worth the effort largely because of things like this. -- Scarpy (talk) 09:59, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
DTR is irrelevant here, XfD notices are courtesy notices and as the original creator/substantial contributor to the article it was Frank's obligation to notify you of the nomination. He did nothing wrong and was only following policy. The fact you took offence to such a generic and generalised template is astonishing really. You aren't the first of established users who've been notified of a deletion, so instead of complaining why don't you move on and do something productive, like improving the article in question so that it doesn't get deleted. —James (Talk • Contribs) • 9:24pm • 11:24, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Scarpy has a problem with any templates, and has repeatably claimed or implied that WP:DTR is a guideline instead of an essay.[1] He also completely ignores the counterarguments in WP:TR.
In my opinion, one of the reasons he has a problem with templates is because of his habit of being uncivil.[2] [3] [4] and engaging in tendentious editing - at one point going so far as to vandalize another editor's userpage after consensus went against him, apologizing only when facing ANI action. [5] Or you can simply look at the conversation above, where he calls a polite an reasonable reply "smug and dismissive."
Another issue is the fact that user warning templates have been carefully designed to be models of civility, with input from many users on the precise wording. This does not allow Scarpy to drag the person who placed the template into a drawn out argument about the exact wording chosen (he attempts to do this even with templates, as evidenced by his claiming above that a perfectly polite notice (not warning) template is "scolding/threatening".)
The best way to deal with this pattern of behavior is to remain clam and dispassionate, keep asking him politely to be WP:CIVIL, don't take the bait, and avoid getting sucked into the drama. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:25, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Quite sensible, and thanks to both of you for noticing and taking the time to reply.  Frank  |  talk  17:50, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ieodoiskorean

Just dropped by to note that I moved your and I comments as I meant them to be in the case below, and yep, I know CU data is only a factor. I just thought it would have been default to give some information on those users and their connections because it was relevant, it helps us factor into account any holes in the behavior. -- DQ (t) (e) 01:57, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Yep, I didn't mean to imply you didn't...rather I was sort of lamenting that I couldn't do more. DUCK is there for a reason; I like to be able to confirm but of course it's not always possible. Doesn't mean something sneaky isn't going on...  Frank  |  talk  03:01, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Oh ya it was a side comment, this was just more a note about moving your comments. Like i've noted on my userpage, There is always something funky where WP:DUCK can be applied. :P Happy editing, -- DQ (t) (e) 03:08, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Frank. You have new messages at Feedback's talk page.
Message added 07:58, 12 September 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

FYI Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:58, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Your DYK nom for Harry Powers

Hi Frank, I've reviewed your nomination at Template:Did you know nominations/Harry Powers and there are some issues. Could you see my comments and reply there? Thanks. Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:15, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Query re DYK suitability of T Peter Brody

Hi. I am sorry to bother you. Would you be able to venture a quick opinion on the suitability of T Peter Brody (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for nomination as a DYK please? I used the DYKCheck tool which reports that the article has not been expanded 5x since creation. It would be my opinion that, as the article was only moved to main space on the 12 October, it would qualify for DYK at least until 17 October --Senra (Talk) 22:55, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty busy right now, and my two most recent contributions to T:TDYK have not been so well received. However, I don't think you'll have an issue. It's pretty clear the article was moved to mainspace on the 12th.  Frank  |  talk  04:28, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. Your time is much appreciated --Senra (Talk) 09:50, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Follow-up on an SPI

Hi Frank - Further to a rather lengthy discussion/request on my talk page, I've reviewed an SPI check you did earlier this month, and I've made some rather extensive comments there which you might find of interest. While I concur with your technical analysis, I've suggested some alternative ways of managing the accounts involved, given the background. I recognize that you were not involved in the decisions on how to address the various accounts, but I did want to give you the courtesy of advising you that I've reviewed the situation. Thanks, as always, for your work in this area. Risker (talk) 15:09, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

HI

hi how are you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.227.49.150 (talk) 21:59, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Fine, and you? Do I (or should I) know you?  Frank  |  talk  01:29, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

In regards to User:Syjytg

Frank,

I would like to raise my concerns about this user's recent actions. I am coming to you because of your past dealings with him.

As a member who caught Syjytg's vandalism, tendentious editing, and sockpuppeteering in the past, I would like to say, for the record, that I was disappointed at the decision to lift his indef block 2 years ago. I believe this user has shown that he is incorrigible, and recent edits made by him is proof of my assertion. Please refer to Syjytg's talk and contrib page for his recent return to tendentious editing.

Given the user's history, especially in the area of sockpuppeteering, I am planning to make a recommendation that the indef block be reinstituted, with extreme prejudice. I will be making this recommendation shortly, and of course, you are welcome to participate in the discussion. Kiteinthewind Leave a message! 16:16, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I have looked at the recent edits, and while I agree there is not a lot of collegiality being shown, I don't see that it's blockworthy at this point.  Frank  |  talk  11:55, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

ANI Discussion on Syjytg

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding User:Syjytg's recent actions.. The thread is User:Syjytg's return to Disruptive Editing. Thank you. —Kiteinthewind Leave a message! 16:30, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Sigh

I made a mistake and have gotten enough crap about it. I am not an administrator (and have no desire to be one) so there is no danger of any tools getting misused. I don't make a habit of biting newbies, and I have seen IPs used for good purposes and very bad purposes. I reacted poorly and it's done. Can we just drop this already? I would like to collapse that section, but I'd probably get crap for that too. Doc talk 18:07, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I was just discussing; I rather think some other folks ought to have chimed in with that point as well. I wasn't meaning to criticize you but rather to bring up another point of view. Sorry if my comment appeared bitey as well...wasn't my intention.  Frank  |  talk  18:11, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
No biggie: I did after all open the thread for discussion (D'oh!). It's embarrassing sometimes when you thought you were right and it's pointed out that you actually weren't. I was treating the IP more like a named one-off account (which would be a bit different) instead of realizing what was possibly going on. Cheers :> Doc talk 18:34, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

FYI

Regarding Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SchmuckyTheCat/Archive, I don't know if you are familiar with the history of User:Beyond My Ken (BMK), but this is not his first account, and the problem he is complaining about is a problem that he has personally caused; his behavior has disrupted multiple articles for many years. I realize that you performed a checkuser in good faith and took his claims at face value, but if you had done a bit more research on BMK and the nature of his claim, I don't think you would have performed the check in the first place. I suppose there is really no way for you to know the background of every user that requests a CU, but this particular case had no merit. To the best of my knowledge, there is no connection between User:SchmuckyTheCat, User:Curb Chain, and User:Dalit Llama, and these are only three of dozens of users who have asked BMK to stop making disruptive layout edits. The user knows this, so I really don't understand why he requested a check in the first place. Viriditas (talk) 23:58, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I like to think - and I understand this is somewhat a theory - that running a CU is independent of whoever requested it. If the case has enough merit for me to feel comfortable, I will run it. I'm always a little disappointed when the result is either inconclusive or negative, but I hold myself responsible for those misses, not the requestor. That doesn't absolve requestors of responsibility to act in good faith, but if a check turns up empty, the responsibility lies with me. Sometimes I come up short.  Frank  |  talk  22:47, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) BMK is an editor in good standing, and there is no requirement to do a "bit more research" on CU request filers who are in such a position. Viriditas: we've agreed and disagreed on differing things. We really should agree that addressing this in this fashion is not the best way to resolve whatever issues you have with BMK. RfC/U is... thataway :> Doc talk 09:56, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

DYK: Reward dependence

Hi! I submitted a hook for an article I expanded (actually rewrote the entire article, so it's more or less new) on Nov 18th. It hasn't been reviewed yet. Would you be able to review it for me and let me know if the hook is ok? I expanded this article as part of the Association for Psychological Science (APS) Wikipedia initiative and I am a Psychology Graduate Student at UCLA working on this article for a grade in a Social Psychology class. It would be very helpful if you could review my hook for me and approve it, if it is ok, for the DYK page. We get extra points for our article submission if our DYK goes through (Yes, I am shamelessly asking you to review my article, for this very reason. Although, I have been excited about rewriting this article to provide the right information to the public who will read this). Thanks for your help in advance. Vishakavijayakumar (talk) 04:21, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I see this was featured at DYK earlier this week; I apologize for not getting back to you sooner on this but I've been quite busy with other things.  Frank  |  talk  03:13, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Season's tidings!

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 04:21, 25 December 2011 (UTC).

Thanks, and best wishes to you and yours as well.  Frank  |  talk  16:27, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Georgina Skalidi

Hi you recently deleted one of my articles for Georgina Skalidi can i you send back the article because i dont have a copy and i will change it to make it comply with the rules I am new user and did it by accident. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lanz5000 (talk • contribs) 14:21, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Since the page consisted of about 90% copyright violation, I don't think I can do that in good conscience. The majority of the material is derived from here and here, which should enable you to re-create it. If you want to work on a new article at User:Lanz5000/Georgina Skalidi, I can add back the infobox and other intricate components. Having said that, however, it's not at all clear that she is notable enough for inclusion; see WP:GNG for details.  Frank  |  talk  15:01, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok seriously i am just trying to add somebody on the Wikipedia site, i know what are my references, but even for other famous profiles i can easily find all the sources of the articles which are copy pasted word by word or even with same material and other words. Facts are facts! Anyway, what shall i do, shall i write a new one or you do not support up and coming people, it is to my belief that every body can be part of free encyclopedia... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lanz5000 (talk • contribs) 16:05, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I understand that's your belief, but that is not necessarily in line with Wikipedia policy. Please see WP:NOTABILITY. In particular, the phrase "up and coming" should be a clue that perhaps the subject does not yet meet guidelines for inclusion. You might also see Category:AfD debates (Biographical) for current articles under discussion regarding whether or not the subjects should remain as part of the encyclopedia. That might give you an idea of what the community thinks in general on the topic, and where the relevant guidelines are, and that might help you decide for yourself if it is worth pursuing this article.  Frank  |  talk  16:11, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok in Greece she is established i should do it in Greek then. Thanks for your not at all full of use answer — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lanz5000 (talk • contribs) 16:46, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the policies on Greek Wikipedia, but that seems a good place to start. And again - I'm not saying she does not meet criteria here...but I do think it might be tough to establish at this point. You're welcome to try, although not with copyrighted material.  Frank  |  talk  17:02, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

AN/I

There is a report at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive828#Block review/unblock proposal, in which you might have an interest. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:48, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Srikanth Reddy

Hi, In 2009, the page concerning Srikanth Reddy was removed. I think he is sufficiently important to have a page; the standard seems to be "Published authors are kept as notable if they have received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work, or if their work is likely to be very widely read." In support of inclusion of the page, I note that: He has two books published by a major publisher (the Univ. of California Press); he has won several fellowships (including one from the Mellon Foundation); he won the Asian American Literary prize in 2005 (and seems to be one of only a small number of winners without a wiki page); he was featured in a Dec 2011 NPR story about the best poetry of the year. Would you consider reinstating it? Jsw1 (talk) 18:48, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I deleted Srikanth Reddy in October 2009 because it lacked any assertion of notability of the subject of the article. Simply being a published author is not an assertion of notability, and indeed being published isn't sufficient to deem an author notable enough for inclusion (see WP:AUTHOR). What you've written above doesn't automatically convince me he is notable, but...I am only one member of the community. Perhaps the Asian American Literary Award is helpful in this effort, although by my count, fully 13 of the 46 winners on the list are red links, so that's well more than "a small number of winners without a wiki page" and well more than 25% of those winners. Still - it may be that a case can be made. I think the best course of action is WP:AFC, where you can get input from a number of folks - and possibly help if it looks like the subject is notable.  Frank  |  talk  19:23, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited Mel Ming, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page WQED (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 10:53, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you

The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
Thanks so much for sorting out the Template:Employment problem. Voceditenore (talk) 06:45, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
No worries; it is nice to get to ANI and find an "incident" that is discrete and seemingly (at least at the time) uncontroversial to fix. Let's see if there's yet an improvement to be made with this template (see below).  Frank  |  talk  14:26, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I responded to him as well. I'm sorry that he thought I had assumed bad faith in his part. Could you do me favour and look at his/her version of the template and tell me what you see? I know things behave differently in different browsers etc. But could it be that different? Best, Voceditenore (talk) 15:09, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
I see what looks like a sidebar down the right side of the page. (I tried it in several browsers on 3 operating systems.) I don't see the problem you refer to but of course that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.  Frank  |  talk  15:26, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Wow! That's amazing. Maybe it's because I use IE7? I just now tried removing the chunk of code to the left of {{Sidebar and it looks fine in the preview (a normal sidebar). Needless to say I'm not going to monkey with it, though. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 15:35, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
I tried in IE8 on Windows 7 and didn't see the issue you saw. Not sure if IE7 is the reason for the issue or not.  Frank  |  talk  15:45, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Frank. You have new messages at ClaretAsh's talk page.
Message added 13:32, 19 January 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

ClaretAsh 13:32, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

"new" template

Hello, forgive me for butting in, but there is an internal attribution problem with a suggestion you made. In this comment, you stated "...I think a good approach to this would be to create a new template and transclude it on some pages, removing the {{employment}} template...." Well, that implies the whole new template was the idea of the new editor, but Wikipedia's licensing requires that attribution be given to the original author(s). So, that is not an optimal idea. Better would be to make a new template on a user subpage, then when consensus is reached, cut&paste it onto the original template (unless other users have edited it, then do a simple history merge), then have a bot quickly run through the affected pages and move the original template to the proper placement on the page. Sorry to eavesdrop, but I was in this situation awhile back (before I went all IP) and this is how we did it. I post here because you are an admin and I didn't think this was appropriate to butt in the other conversation since this was strictly technical. Rgrds. (Dynamic IP, so when I log off - I'm gone...) --64.85.217.4 (talk) 17:34, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't see the issue you are referring to. If we have a new template and replace the old one with the new, there is no question of attribution for something that no longer exists on the page. I don't object to merging, but I actually think that having two different means of navigation among a fairly large group of related pages is a good thing, so I think having two templates improves the encyclopedia anyway.  Frank  |  talk  17:37, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
I don't see the issue either. The attribution is in the page history, if it's just changed. All the previous versions and authors are available. If it's to be a separate new template on a separate page, simply say based on the old one with a link either on the talk page or in the edit summary. That's enough for attribution. I can see the value of both horizontal and vertical versions. Vertical versions can sometimes interefere with page layout and image placement, particularly in short articles. Voceditenore (talk) 17:51, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Attribution in an edit summary is acceptable, too, but not optimal. That requires the old template to never be deleted, which can be easily overlooked. However, if both a footer and a sidebar are maintained, then attribution in an edit summary is sufficient. I was not aware both templates were going to be preserved. Since everyone is aware, no harm no foul.... --64.85.217.4 (talk) 18:19, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Oh, certainly - I never intended that the existing template would have been deleted. Removed, perhaps, from transclusion onto some pages, but not deleted. Of course, if it never appears on any page, that is about as good as deleting it. But, I still don't see there would be any attribution problem...if it doesn't appear on a page, its revisions don't need to be attributed anyway.  Frank  |  talk  18:23, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Checkuser Request

Would you mind running a Checkuser on the following accounts: User:Wcdemanager, User:184.13.167.19, and User:184.13.157.72? The first two have vandalized the WCDE article in the past 4 hours, the last one vandalized the page back on the 19th. The IPs are registered to cities near the school that owns the station. I am pretty certain the account will come back to one of the IPs. There has been alot of vandalism on the WCDE page in the past year and I have an active RPP request open at the moment because of it. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:15, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Elen of the Roads is looking into things. Thanks anyway. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:39, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

User Darkness shines

Dear Frank,

The above user has been using foul language as usual since he is not getting his way with an unblock last time he forced an unblock by harassing people and accusing them of "picking on him" these diffs shows just how ridiculous he is [6] and [7] he is now asking for another unblock I suggest his block is extended he must learn his childish ranting will not get him anywhere regards looking at his block log he seems to be more trouble than good to be honest.86.176.204.213 (talk) 09:11, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Those diffs occurred before I declined the first unblock request, and I chose to ignore them as they were clearly a reaction to being blocked. There was no need to add fuel to the fire by saying "plus you used a bad word" - the block and my decline were based on edit-warring, nothing else. In addition, with somewhere around 800 active administrators, there is no need for me to respond to a second unblock request, as I've now become "involved" by declining the first one. (Yes, I saw the second one.) Since another admin has now replied, no further action is required from me (or anyone) at this point.  Frank  |  talk  13:08, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
I came over to ask you about the copyright situation on the Rape during the Bangladesh Liberation War‎. I should like to know if the list of town names is also copyrighted as is? If it gets restored will the town names also need to be removed or moved around? I posted in this section to let you know that the IP who posted here is Nangparbat my own personal stalker. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:04, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
I removed an edit on that page, not for copyvio but because it just didn't represent the source (which is also questionable), and then commented on the talk page later. Is there something more you think needs to be done? Regarding the "stalker" accusation, I have no comment. Frank  |  talk  16:57, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Not at the moment, but if it gets put back in is there still a copyvio problem with the text? If so and it is restored will it be OK to ask you to remove it? Darkness Shines (talk) 17:00, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
I have stated repeatedly that I do not think the question of copyright is the primary or even secondary problem with the edit. Furthermore, I'm not the copyright guru that some others around here are. Even if the list were shortened considerably, removing any possibly copyright problem, I think it's inappropriate to draw the conclusion that was drawn and to consider the source a reliable source. So I'm really unconcerned with copyvio. As to your request, it is inappropriate to try to fix (or plan a fix for) an edit that hasn't occurred yet. I have made my position known on the talk page of the article, and I am highly confident that my position is well-supported by policy and precedent around here. Ultimately, though, this is still a community and sometimes things happen in ways (and at speeds) you may not be comfortable with. Rape during the Bangladesh Liberation War is on my watch list; honestly I'm not going to pay special attention to it, but it's on the list with 2000 other pages.  Frank  |  talk  17:10, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Rename

Frank, thanks for checking my account, however, I still change my username. I tried this one, see this link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Changing_username/Simple#Codyluva_.E2.86.92_tnhg948328949f9ijrbre8834444 but still, waiting here. Hope you could give me some advice. Thanks, thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cherryrakistadotcom (talk • contribs) 21:58, 26 January 2012

I think you just need to give it a little time.  Frank  |  talk  03:10, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
After a gentle nudge, this has now been taken care of.  Frank  |  talk  21:57, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Your edit

I disagree with your edit here, because American intervention ended as soon as Gaddafi died. Do you mind self-reverting? Pass a Method talk 14:19, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

The section does not make that claim, and indeed I'm not sure there are reliable sources to support it, but I could be wrong. Nevertheless, while I think the edit is appropriate as is, I wouldn't revert if you changed it back. (Ideally, I'd like to see a conversation started on the talk page in that case, though.) Perhaps you already know...anything that looks like edit warring on Barack Obama is swiftly challenged (I suspect that is why you asked me to consider a self-revert)...so be prepared.  Frank  |  talk  15:02, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

MSU Interview

Dear Frank,


My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, were it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.


So a few things about the interviews:

  • Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
  • Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
  • All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
  • All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
  • The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.


Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 19:22, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Bette Midler

Hello I saw that you changed the photo back to the grammys one from 1990 the only problem is I feel that photo is a bit dated and would appreciate if you could possibly update the photo to a new one of Bette

Thank You — Preceding unsigned comment added by Betteisdivine (talk • contribs) 14:06, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Your edit removed a picture. If there is a newer one available that you'd like added to the article, please let me know what it is and I can take a look. (Unfortunately, I just protected the article because of disruptive editing by a couple of IPs who aren't listening to policies regarding reliable sources and verifiability, so you won't be able to edit the article either for a while.)  Frank  |  talk  14:11, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

The Muppets

Hello, Frank! I am here to inquire your advice and/or assistance on an important matter. I was brought here under the suggestion of Baseball Bugs who said you could be helpful in this problem. The problem stems as far back as December 2011, when an IP hopper vandalized The Muppets article and other Muppet related articles, by removing all the instances that mentioned Disney and replacing them with Jim Henson Company links. We were able to stop him (we raised the protection level on that page temporarily and he was blocked from editing) and the articles were left quiet.

However recently, two Muppet articles were vandalized by a new IP user, who I've determined from the nature of his actions (edit summaries) is the same persistent user as before; "Kermit" (name used to identify him on talk pages). Thus, I have had to revert the edits and leave two messages on Kermit's talk page.

I hope you can either guide me to the appropriate steps and/or help me to prevent Kermit from vandalizing said articles again. Thank you, ~ Jedi94 (talk) 21:54, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

The user [seems to have given up for the moment; let's see how it shapes up from here.  Frank  |  talk  00:52, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

ACC backlog

If you have a moment, it would be appreciated, I know this is not your regular cup of tea but if you can help thanx Mlpearc (powwow) 21:31, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry - was unavailable for a few days. I will try to take a look.  Frank  |  talk  14:52, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

ConfirmAccount extension

Hey :). You're being contacted because you are involved in the ACC process, or participated in the original discussion in '08 about the ConfirmAccount extension. This is a note to let you know that we are seeking opinions on switching this extension on, effectively making the ACC process via the Toolserver redundant. You can read all the details here; I would be very grateful if people would indicate how they feel about the idea :). Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 13:20, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Gatorinvancouver

Greetings, I see you appear to be mentoring/instructing User:Gatorinvancouver in terms of Wiki policy. Said user is currently attempting to bullbait me into removing a userbox from my user page stating I use Vista, mainly due to the fact that he doesn't like Vista. He also claims that it is against policy and violates trademark law. Considering you are an administrator and an authority figure to Gatorinvancouver (though I do hate to have to bother you with this menial nonsense), I would be very grateful if you could corroborate the fact that what he is claiming is indeed untrue (at User talk:Gatorinvancouver#.22Advertisement.22), that I am not violating wiki policy and that he isn't supposed to go around telling people what they should or should not put onto their user page. Also, I think he may be thinking that user pages must adhere to the same rules as encyclopedic content. Thanks in advance, Newbiepedian (Hailing Frequencies) 15:59, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I think this is mostly resolved at this point.  Frank  |  talk  11:18, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Category:Delta Sigma Theta presidents

Category:Delta Sigma Theta presidents, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:54, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Notification of Admin Noticeboard Discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/#Censorship_of_Obama_Talk_Page_Discussions_-_Proposing_Ban_on_Frank.2C_Wikidemon.2C_and_DD2K regarding your recent edit warring and unreasonable deletion of well-sourced edits. --98.220.198.49 (talk) 15:15, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wnnse

Hi Frank, thank you for your CheckUser service in clearly proving and identifying the sockpuppet account. I wanted to know that as it is quite possibly known (at least i know) that all these accounts and IP addresses are operated by the same person on a very broad dynamic IP range of ISP Turk Telecom in Istanbul, Turkey. So just wanted to clarify that are there any more sleeper's or sockpuppet accounts you had found out while having a check on all the IP addresses and accounts ? I am asking this because this sockpuppeteer has a known history evading block by making multiple accounts and editing from various dynamic IP addresses of the same range. Thanks! TheGeneralUser (talk) 18:09, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Fair point; I did check but didn't note that. I have added a note indicating no sleepers were found.  Frank  |  talk  18:56, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lance Armstrong, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page WADA (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:00, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

Steven Zhang's Fellowship Slideshow

In this issue:

  • Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
  • Research: The most recent DR data
  • Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
  • Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
  • DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
  • Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
  • Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

--The Olive Branch 19:04, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Editor review/TheGeneralUser (2) Your review is required and will be greatly appreciated :)

Hi Frank ! I have started my second editor review at Wikipedia:Editor review/TheGeneralUser (2). I will be greatly delighted, thankful and valued to have your review for me regarding my editing and possible candidate for Adminship. As you are a experienced and long term Wikipedian so i have asked for your kind review. Take your time to review my editing and give the best review that you can :). Feel free to ask me any questions you would like to on the review page itself. It will be a great honor to have you review me for which I will truly feel appreciated and helpful! I always work to improve Wikipedia and make it a more better place to be for Everyone :). Regards and Happy Editing! TheGeneralUser (talk) 20:01, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

For protecting Lance Armstrong; I guess Lance Armstrong needs protection as well. How the mighty have fallen. Drmies (talk) 14:31, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. (No problem. It just has to be done sometimes.)  Frank  |  talk  03:36, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Question about AbanteCart page deletion. Thank you

Dear RHaworth. I am not quite sure why AbanteCart was deleted as G4. This was not just resubmission. It was completely new article with new references. Original deleted was half a year ago. In addition, we have checked other commercial projects that are similar and got approved with similar references and content. I quite do not understand motivation for deletion. Please help us understand what is needed in order AbanteCart page for our open source project got approved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Projkov (talk • contribs) 00:30, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Category:Delta Sigma Theta Presidents...

I read the CFD, and would definitely have taken your side. There are 8 Delta Sigma Theta presidents with articles now, and there are 11 Alpha Phi Alpha Presidents (WP:OSE :)). Not sure if this was the count back in May. When the category was deleted, the link to the category was changed rather than changed to Category:Delta Sigma Theta, I'm categorizing them there for now.Naraht (talk) 14:27, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I didn't get that it the time but, sometimes these things happen. I didn't understand when I swapped the two Anne Hathaways, and that took some time to come around to where I think it should be. (See Talk:Anne_Hathaway - there are three discussions on that page!) But consensus can be a funny thing...  Frank  |  talk  22:09, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello

File:Spring HN2085.jpg hello
Hello, Frank. Thank you for helping me, though I did not edit Lance Armstrong. Karsha309342 (talk) 01:25, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Well, you're welcome, but...how did I help you?  Frank  |  talk  01:27, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

SPI

Saw your comment at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Jeiboul, thanks for the confirmation. did you run CU on the other account I pointed out? User:Nadiia Lushchak Based on the russian wiki edits, and the fact that that user had a copy of the socked articles in their user space and aFC makes me think they are one as well? Gaijin42 (talk) 03:13, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Also, just as a question, how does checkuser find the no edit sleepers. Does the tool return every account to you from the matching IP ranges? Gaijin42 (talk) 03:14, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
I hadn't checked that other account because it appeared in the commentary, not on the list. However, it has been too long since that user edited for a checkuser to check anything. As to your other question, I'm going to go with "no comment."  Frank  |  talk  03:53, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Template:Event & Template:Marriage

I;m concerned that your close at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 January 21#Template:Event & Template:Marriage appears to be based on counting !votes rather then weighing up arguments. I'd like to do you the courtesy of inviting you to review it, before I refer the matter to deletion review. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:54, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your concern but you needn't worry on that point; I did indeed weigh the content of the discussion. Nevertheless, your invitation is reasonable and I did go back and scan it again; I remain confident my close reflects the consensus. I would point out to you that "it's complicated" and "it doesn't do what it was intended to do" as delete opinions are not especially more convincing or policy-based than "no valid reason given" is as a keep opinion. WP:DRV is of course a reasonable next step if you really feel I have misjudged the consensus of the discussion, and - not that you need any encouragement from me - I am perfectly willing to put my two cents in at such a discussion should you choose to go that route.  Frank  |  talk  12:44, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Vander Beatty, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Hour (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:08, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Meetup noises

People are making noises over in this part of the state about a meetup ... is Greensboro too far for you? (Some might come from Charlotte). - Dank (push to talk) 20:52, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

GSO isn't too far, necessarily, but...time might be an issue. I am interested, though. Keep me on the contact list.  Frank  |  talk  21:41, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
Will do. - Dank (push to talk) 21:58, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

request about the page football records in spain : Someone needs to stop this circus !

Hello ..

may you please take a look at football records in spain ,this page is containing various different records in Spanish football, the user : 49.244.108.56 keeps removing some of them because he believes they are not needed and if you took a look at what he adds or removes you can see he is doing that biasing since he is working hard to remove Barca records allowing only real records !! the 3 records i added are well referenced from the related club website and even classified clearly under national records even not just a club records !! so anything clearer than that even ?? how should someone opinion or even bunch of people opinion about it make a difference in that ?? its a clear case...the related club classified it as record , so if someone likes it or not it shouldn't stop being a record .

and since its referenced I can't see any reason to remove it .

the website : http://www.fcbarcelona.com/club/the-honours/detail/card/fc-barcelona-team-records

what is really weird...there is some records similar to those added ( like i added ) but he added them related to Real Madrid so obviously he doesn't have a clear measure in that.\

I tried sending other for help also but i found no response so far, I just think the whole thing is turning into a circus as that :) and for the protection of integrity of wikipedia someone should act in someway !! making it clear (neither way i dont care ) just don't leave it for somenoe to decide oh i hate this club so i dont want his records and im making my hard to remove them and bringing everyother possible records for the club i like ??! take a look at it please because this IP : 49.244.108.56 has long history of doing that !

he is the same range of ip from 49.244.125.32 also he is the same as 49.244.161.201 and by the way it's all belongs to a user has been blocked before but i dont know why they unblocked him again ! it's just as a circus as that

thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:3878:81E0:A0A2:1EFE:E57C:DD88 (talk) 17:26, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

New article for Anthony Ausgang

Hi Frank, the history of the Anthony Ausgang article shows you deleted an article on June 4, 2010. There was a note to contact you to review any new article with new content. I posted the new article to the Talk page at Talk:Anthony_Ausgang. Can you approve and post? I've also contacted C.Fred, but JamesBWatson is away and KingofHearts is under administrative review. Thanks.TBliss (talk) 07:22, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

In a quick review, I'm not especially convinced the subject is actually notable, but I wouldn't automatically delete the article if you moved it to main space. The deletion discussion dates back 3-4 years. If someone thinks it isn't suitable for inclusion, I would think it deserves a fresh review rather than automatic deletion based on that discussion.  Frank  |  talk  07:40, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Checkuser?

Hey Frank, are you available to do a checkuser? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 07:58, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Amiram Goldblum

There are growing concerns that Amiram Goldblum is himself editing the article about him. He has two accounts: User:Rastiniak and User:רסטיניאק. Take a look at the this sockpuppet investigation. Also, read the following discussion. רסטיניאק has removed the POV tag from the article twice so far: 1 and 2. While I don't find this subject particularly interesting, I'm alarmed by the fact that Goldblum is fighting tooth and nail to get users who question the neutrality of his article to get blocked. I request you to help us determine whether the two accounts indeed belong to Goldblum. Nataev (talk) 11:31, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Please note that Nataev (talk · contribs) is posting this item on the talk pages of > a dozen admins. It might be instructive to investigate more deeply via his contribs as to why he is doing this -- I suggest that it has to do with his right-wing (Israeli) sympathies and his desire to smear Goldblum for being a leftist (on which [8]). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:39, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Here we go again. This is the first time I have asked for help from a user who has access to CheckUser. Now Nomoskedasticity himself is calling me names. I don't know much about left-right politics. I have no interest about subjects related to Israel either. My sole problem is that Amiram Goldblum has written the entire article about himself. If doing so is acceptable on Wikipedia, then I have no problems with it. Nataev (talk) 11:47, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I am declining to run checkuser in this case because Rastiniak's most recent edits were two months ago and it does not appear that establishing a link between the two would have any impact on the larger discussion. The article talk page is quite active already.  Frank  |  talk  13:27, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

AAFM

@Frank: I assume that you were just notifying me of the AAFM legal threat, and have no connection with them, yes? On that assumption, my thanks for the notice. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:22, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Correct; my only "connection", so to speak, is that I chose to answer the earlier email.  Frank  |  talk  04:42, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Pops Maellard AfD

Hi. You closed WP:Articles for deletion/Pops Maellard as redirect. Would you please explain why you did not close as delete? Thanks. Flatscan (talk) 04:27, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I judged the consensus to be for redirect rather than delete. In addition, no harm is done by choosing the less destructive redirect; you are free to pursue it further at WP:RFD or - if you feel really, really strongly that I misjudged - at WP:DRV. I'll weigh in as appropriate in either venue; notification would be appreciated.  Frank  |  talk  01:48, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for replying, but closing in line with observed consensus is dictated by WP:Deletion guidelines for administrators#Rough consensus. Did you discount any of the arguments? Which did you consider to be the most convincing and/or based in policy? Flatscan (talk) 04:09, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
It seems pretty clear I considered "the most convincing and/or based in policy" to be those supporting a redirect. I've given you two links above as next steps if you feel my action was not optimal, but I don't think that having the equivalent of a WP:DRV on this page will serve much use. I won't mind in the least if you choose either of the routes above - not that I think you need my approval to do so.  Frank  |  talk  03:23, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Did you consider my recommendation to be based in policy? Flatscan (talk) 04:33, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Yes, and indeed, the end result is in fact redirect, as you suggest. What is your point?  Frank  |  talk  04:36, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
I wrote, "delete ... and redirect", as suggested by WP:Guide to deletion#Recommendations and outcomes. It is not equivalent to simply "redirect". Flatscan (talk) 04:44, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
It is true: they are not the same thing. However, I do (still) believe my close reflected consensus in the discussion. If you feel otherwise, WP:DRV is the best next choice, IMO.  Frank  |  talk  13:14, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
I plan to file at WP:Deletion review, but there will be a delay while I check consensus on a related issue. I will notify you as requested. Thanks for discussing. Flatscan (talk) 04:32, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Kazakhs

Hello, As I see you are quite experienced Wikipedia editor. There is a dispute in Kazakhs article regarding their religion. In article as a source there was a link which showed something around 20%, but it turned out that the percentage is about the population of Kazakhstan, not Kazakhs. I submitted a source proving that only 0.4% of Kazakhs are Christians. But a user undoes my edit's with explanations like "What a pity! Just in the page you don't even see the number of christian Kazakhs is larger than the significant Kazakh population in Kyrgyzstan or Turkey. Please read more Bible and open your sight", or "I have said". I'd ask you to intervene and solve the problem. Thanks in advance, Ali-al-Bakuvi (talk) 07:15, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

DYK RfC

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dick Dodd, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Buena Park (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 08:59, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Frank/Archive_10&oldid=1145836059"