Jump to content

User talk:Frank/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6→Archive 10

Temperment

You stated that my answers to questions 1-6 showed that I shouldn't be an admin. I assume you mean all of the answers. In question one, I state that I don't like blocking people nor do I like deleting pages. Are admin supposed to like these things? In question two, I state that I don't really like the idea of people showing off and claiming things as their own as if it is some kind of award. Are admin supposed to show off pages and articles as if they are awards? In question three, I state that I wont badger opposes in the RfA oppose section as what happens in many RfAs in the past and caused a lot of concern on the RfA talk page. Are admin supposed to badger opposers even if they have made it clear in places like this that it really doesn't matter what I say? In question four, I describe my involvement working with Jimbo over at Wikiversity during a ban of a user. Are admin not supposed to understand what goes into a ban let alone have involvement with those like Jimbo during such things? Question 5 is a small joke based on the constant throw away support saying "he won't delete the main page" and is marked as a joke. As being the only thing that is "silly" for April 1st, are admin not supposed to be so limiting in that way? Or just not have any sense of humor? In question six, I showed where I advocated for other users and performed actions like this. My standing up for Mattisse and being willing to recognize that they were a user who, although problematic in some regards, is not a horrible person and tried to work with them towards improvement. Even though many people, including many well known admin around here, praised my efforts, that is something that an admin shouldn't do? Other people have brought your statement to me out of concern. I would like to know the answer also. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:10, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd be interested in any on-wiki communication regarding my statement on your RfA...just one of 91 opposes currently. However, I will explain my reasoning here; it's a reasonable question:
  1. Deskana pointed out - correctly - that no admin is ever required to take a particular action. However, an up-front statement that one does not like blocking or deleting indicates to me that the mettle required for adminship isn't there. There's no doubt about it: users must be blocked and pages must be deleted, whether we like it or not.
  2. "I don't really like this question. I never had, and I never will." - you're clearly aware this question is in every RfA. Whether you like it or not, people expect an answer, and your lead-in shows a disdain for the entire process, which I don't think would bode well for the project if you were an administrator.
  3. "I'm sure the opposes will come up with new and exciting things to look at, so, here's to them." - See #2. More disdain for the process, before a single opinion was expressed by anyone.
  4. I find some of your comments in this answer agreeable, even if you didn't actually answer the question asked ("what's the difference"). I can strike this question as part of my reasoning if you wish, since it isn't much to oppose on.
  5. Temperament is absolutely central to this question. There's a time, a place, and a manner for joking...and even on April Fools' Day, I find your answer to this question to be an indication of someone who just isn't suited for the tools on en.wikipedia. Sarcasm just doesn't work in this medium; if we want it to be a serious project, taken seriously...we have to treat it that way. I'm in the "serious project" camp. I realize not everyone is.
  6. I don't see any indication in this question that you accept the position that administrators hold is to uphold what the community finds appropriate, not that you must be an advocate for a particular point of view or editor.
I'm aware that you hold the bit on another project, but as I stated in my oppose, I just don't feel that for this community, your temperament is in line with what is expected of administrators in general, and how I personally feel admins should behave.  Frank  |  talk  21:34, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Mettle? I have had admin tools at Wikiversity for 6 months and was involved in Moulton's WMF wide ban. Obviously, if I would work ArbCom enforcement it would come up. But I find your comment in regards to that a tad off, as I have never seen you make any oppose to any RfA based on someone not stating their feelings on blocking, nor do I find it comfortable that you think that saying you "dislike" something means that you shouldn't be allowed to block. Instead, it would seem that you suggest that you like to block people. There are 1,600 admin, and if they all liked to block this would be a scary place.
Yes, so saying that I don't feel like bragging about how great I am shows I shouldn't be an admin? Once again, it seems that you are promoting the very people who shouldn't be an admin over a corps of people who respect that this is an encyclopedia and not myspace. We are not here to collect awards, prizes, or anything like that.
And disdain for the process by stating that opposers will link to disputes that I was involved in? I would really like to find a third opinion on that one, because I find it hard to believe that anyone else agrees.
And sarcasm? No, it was a fun answer. It even states "(I kept this in for fun :) )."
The community finds it appropriate that everyone is treated with respect, that everyone is treated as if they are here to help, and that everyone is able to contribute. Regardless of what you state, the creator of that RfC, Casliber, an Arbitrator, supported my view there. I think I would side by his understanding of what people here should strive to do.
To be honest, I don't care if you support or oppose. However, I find your rationale to be indicative of some of the most dangerous problems among administrators around here. Not only have you verified that you support block happy admin who enjoy hurting people, but you also want them to go around showing off their contributions, waving around their power, and treating others like crap. The encyclopedia doesn't need editors, let alone admin, who feel that way, because it is damaging to the community as a whole. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:49, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

You are attributing thoughts to me that I neither stated nor implied. You are welcome to disagree with me, and of course you're welcome to your own interpretations, but you are drawing inferences that I have not implied at all. I have no idea about what RfC you're referring to; nor is it important. I did not hunt around looking for evidence in writing my oppose; I found it right on the RfA page and said so.  Frank  |  talk  21:59, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

"There's no doubt about it: users must be blocked and pages must be deleted, whether we like it or not." Stating this, combined with me stating I do not like it, implies that you cannot express that you do not like it in order to deserve it. As such, there are only two possibilities - being a silent hypocrite or being happy about it. Neither possibility is one that can be respected.
"you're clearly aware this question is in every RfA. Whether you like it or not, people expect an answer" I gave an answer. You didn't like that my answer was that I don't feel like bragging about accomplishments. The only possible meaning is that I -should- brag about accomplishments.
"See #2. More disdain for the process, before a single opinion was expressed by anyone." You claim that I am disdaining a process by stating a common fact that everyone at RfA knows would happen - people bring diffs about disputes.
"Temperament is absolutely central to this question. There's a time, a place, and a manner for joking...and even on April Fools' Day, I find your answer to this question to be an indication of someone who just isn't suited for the tools on en.wikipedia." Because one tiny joke as a last question that -I- added is really awful. That is the only possible interpretation of this.
And the RfC is clearly linked above. That only suggests that you didn't bother to actually read what I wrote. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:16, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
There are often several different interpretations of things; that you believe there exist only one or two is - in itself - sufficient to support my position regarding temperament. As for the RfC, you're right - it is linked above, and you are also right that I didn't read it, which is why I didn't connect it to your comment. As a single example - taking your first comment only - I did not imply that "you cannot express that you do not like it in order to deserve it." What I stated - very clearly, I thought - was that it indicates to me a lack of required temperament (or "mettle") for adminship. I said nothing about block-happy admins, nor did I refer to hypocrisy or a requirement to be happy about it. And I certainly didn't mention anything about "deserving" adminship, as you stated.  Frank  |  talk  22:36, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Frank, you stated that my belief that there are only a few interpretations is a problem. However, you ignore that your wording has these interpretations. The fact that you ignored that and allowed the wording to go through, wording that is highly insulting and defies many of the core values of Wikipedia itself, is really not good at all. Instead of clarifying, you went on the offensive and let the original interpretations stand via your offensive attitude. Even in your statement above, merely emphasizing you does not take away that you think that someone expressing their dislike to something is inappropriate. That is really, really troubling. That is 100% the problem with here and the mindset of so many admin that are rightfully desysopped. The mere hint that you would think that disliking blocking in any way could be wrong is enough to sound some of the loudest alarms. I would oppose you in every possible away, because people who respond in such a manner are only defending the worse possible behavior. -No- admin should like blocking. -No- admin should like deleting. Anything to the contrary is the basis for abuse. The fact that you can't understand is utterly disturbing. We can forget about how disrespectful you are to modesty, or how you don't like people mentioning reality. This, this core value, is something that is enough to be completely troubling. It is responses like yours that makes me feel disgusted. You aren't involved with content that often nor do you slave at adding to the encyclopedia. That means that you have time to be out there in areas where you can delete and where you can block, and I strongly feel that you lack the appropriate attitude for that. I feel sorry for anyone who is ever on the wrong end, because they will just end up being chased out, having good work destroyed, and treated like crap because you seem to not understand that blocking and deleting are not a good thing, that they are not something to be happy about, and that they should be done only in a regretful manner. Editors here are human. They create pages. They deserve to be respected, not gleed over while being destroyed. I'm not going to stick around to see your response. Your attitude in terms of blocking and deleting completely disgusts me. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:53, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

It would probably help to check contributions before such a rant. In the meantime, if you ever have any problem with any of my actions - either as an editor or as an admin - please feel free to contact me. I remain committed to this project, whether you "stick around" to see it or not.  Frank  |  talk  23:14, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Aitias

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Aitias/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Aitias/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, [[Sam Korn]] (smoddy) 22:10, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

RFA thanks

My RFA passed today at 61/5/4. Thanks for participating in my RFA. I appreciate all the comments I received and will endeavor to justify the trust the WP community has placed in me. Have a nice day. :-) AdjustShift (talk) 21:32, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Happy Easter!

On behalf of the Kindness campaign, I just wanted to wish my fellow Wikipedians a Happy Easter! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 07:46, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Support

Curse you, Frank! You stole my last-support position! Vengeance will be mine. – Quadell (talk) 13:05, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the warning :-)  Frank  |  talk  16:43, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of User:Samenus/Remy Corporation

A tag has been placed on User:Samenus/Remy Corporation, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be blatant advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the guidelines on spam as well as Wikipedia:FAQ/Business for more information.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Alexius08 (talk) 07:51, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for Geekologie

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Geekologie. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Computerjoe's talk 21:13, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of Square Enix Music Online

Agreeing with your consensus and that of the community that Square Enix Music Online is non-notable, can you please respond to the editor of that page having taken to spamming composer pages. The editor will not respond to mail. Please see the external links sections of the following for links to this non-notable fansite "Square Enix Music Online" - Yoko Shimomura, Hiroki Kikuta, Yoshitaka Hirota, Joanne Hogg, among others. Can someone please intervene? Jeriaska (talk) 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it is correct to say that because a site is not notable enough for its own article on Wikipedia, that should mean that no external links to the site can exist either. If it gets out of hand and looks entirely promotional instead of informative, that would be a different story, but a few links to pages that add to the encyclopedia's content seem OK to me.  Frank  |  talk  10:50, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

About User:Cody Cooper & User:Cody.feilding.nz

I am using both User:Cody Cooper and User:Cody.feilding.nz because I wanted to use my real name, but the admin who changed it over said just create the new account, and refused to move my edits. That is why I have to accounts, feel free to delete or remove User:Cody.feilding.nz if you wish, as I am most activate on User:Cody Cooper.

Cody Cooper  Talk  00:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Can you provide a link to the discussion you are referring to? (It should have been a bureaucrat you were conversing with on a user rename.)  Frank  |  talk  01:49, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Blackhawks

The name of the team was Black Hawks until 1986. We generally leave the article names to be the name of the team -at the time-. So the article stubs I've been creating prior to that time use Black Hawks, and Blackhawks after. Hope this helps. We also generally keep both names around, pointing to the same article, so I doubt there's any problems... Alaney2k (talk) 01:28, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Flag of pasban

Hi! I assume you meant to delete under WP:CSD#G11? Since "flags" do not meet A7. decltype (talk) 12:04, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Some may disagree, but I really deleted it under A7; I saw it as an article about something that simply didn't make any claim of notability.  Frank  |  talk  12:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Noted. While I do think that it was a procedural error, I do support the ultimate outcome. I consider my own tagging borderline. Had the article not had such a promotional tone, I would probably have requested a more thorough discussion. decltype (talk) 12:27, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Temption

I'm sorry if I wasn't quick enough with references, but I didn't even have time to insert the "hangon" note before my article was deleted. I think it was a little harsh. I will try to prepare the references. RickH86 (talk) 12:07, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

The article was deleted under WP:CSD#G11 because it is merely a promotional page about a company. Please see WP:CORP for details on what establishes notability for a company to be included in the project. Also, if you disagree, I can undelete the page and then nominate it for deletion so that a wider community consensus can be established. Just let me know if you'd like me to do that.  Frank  |  talk  12:17, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

My db-band on Chris Franck

I saw you declined my request to speedy delete Chris Franck under the band criteria. I requested db-band as the article was on a musician of doubtful notability, instead of the more frequent use of db-band as applying to the musical group. I'm not too concerned, though -- under the snowball clause, I expect the article to be deleted soon enough if sources don't suddenly show up. --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 15:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, it was a judgment call, certainly. He's been a member of two three bands that have articles here, and sources exist for the third fourth band (Zeep). I'm poking around; you may note that it's been WP:PRODded and I haven't removed that tag myself. I figure if sources aren't found by the time the PROD expires, the article probably doesn't belong. I just thought it had just enough claim of notability to avoid speedy.  Frank  |  talk  15:12, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
I did see the PROD. Either notability will be established, which is good, or the article will be non-speedily deleted, which gets to the same end point with a more thorough review. And a more thorough review in judgment-call cases is also a good thing. --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 15:17, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
And to show how much I respect admins' judgment, efforts, and volunteered time, Here's some WikiFood. --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 16:07, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

A More Perfect Onion (talk) haz givn u Cheezburgr! Cheezburgrs promot WikiLovez and hoapfuly thiz one haz made yore day bettr. Spreadd teh WikiLovez by givin sumone else Cheezburgr, whethr it be sumeone youz hav had disagreementz with in teh past or a gud frend. Hapy munchins!

Spredd teh goudnesz of Cheezburgerz to all lolcat buddiez by addin {{subst:Cheezburgr}} to their talk puj with friendly messuj to all.

Got any mustard and pickles for that burger? ;-)  Frank  |  talk  16:33, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

A More Perfect Onion (talk) has given you some mustard, for as a topping on ur cheezburgr! You see, these things somehow promote WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else some mustard! Enjoy!

Spread the goodness of mustard by adding {{subst:BlankWikiLove|border=dark-green|bg=gold|image=David holding mustard.JPG|article=some|item=mustard }} to their talk page with a friendly message.

OK, I definitely laughed at that one!  Frank  |  talk  17:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

hello i was just wondering if you could help me

i was wondering how to get a cool user page and sig if you could point me it would be greatly appreciated. that and is it to soon to request for rollback permission yet ? ~~0xRanDomx0~~ (talk) 00:09, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Find whatever page or sig you think is cool and go ahead and incorporate parts you like for yourself.  Frank  |  talk  00:15, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

thanks man will do what about the rollback thing???

WP:RFR is the place to request rollback. If you are directly asking me, I would say "not yet", as you have under 30 total edits to the project. Dig around, learn how things work, then make an request.  Frank  |  talk  00:22, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

My page

why did you delete my page was it too lite on content? Jetskiimike (talk) 00:10, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

See WP:CSD#A7. I also left a note on your talk page.  Frank  |  talk  00:15, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion

Frank, Gaia Octavia Agrippa has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing! Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk | Sign 20:21, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

RfA

Frank, your vote gives me the impression that you think I oppose the use of consensus. My viewpoint is simple: consensus can only be determined by the agreement of participants in a discussion; it cannot be determined by a single person who looks only at the strength of the arguments among those participants. One might as well as say that, if one believed Obama performed better than McCain in the presidential debates, that the consensus of the debate participants (Obama and McCain) was in favor of Obama's positions. I think that is a serious distortion of the meaning of consensus. Consensus is not about who has the better argument; it's about whether or not people agree. Everyking (talk) 17:45, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

There might be room for discussion, but I don't think I'm the only one that has this impression from what you've answered in your RfA.  Frank  |  talk  23:08, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Frank

Hi Frank, I would like to know your reason for deleting the Brothers of the Forum wikipage. Are you an authoritative figure in wikipedia or are you simply another user of it? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that is open to the public to either add or edit. I strongly disagree with your actions and I expect an apology. Brothers of the Forum is a team of individuals similar to Manchester United, the La Lakers or even Ac/Dc, and it is unfair to simply delete pages on wikipedia especially after a lot of effort has gone into creating the page.

This is disappointing As I mentioned earlier i expect an apology.

Thanks,

wikiebotf —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiebotf (talk • contribs) 13:11, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry the page didn't indicate any reason the group is notable. If you can provide citations from reliable sources that indicate it is indeed similar to the groups you mention above, that might establish notability. If you wish me to restore the page in your userspace so you can work on it further, let me know.  Frank  |  talk  13:29, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Frank Melton reversion

Hi, Frank. I'm just curious as to why you reverted harej's edit to Frank Melton's talk page (diff can be found here: [1] ) without any explanation beyond a simple rollback. From what I've gleaned and been told in the past, rollbacks without further explanation are for blatant vandalism only; while I agree that harej's comment was uncalled for and in poor taste, I don't see how it's blatant vandalism. Nothing major, I was just curious. One (talk) 16:21, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

It seemed pretty blatant to me. Looking at WP:VANDALISM; the first paragraph states (in part): Common types of vandalism are the addition of obscenities or crude humor, page blanking, and the insertion of nonsense into articles. However, reading further, the second paragraph includes: For example, adding a controversial personal opinion to an article once is not vandalism... This was certainly a judgment call, and I agree there's room for interpretation. I admit I gave it none of this thought at the time, but even after the fact, I don't think it's a stretch to classify this particular edit as "crude humor" and/or "nonsense".  Frank  |  talk  16:42, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough. One (talk) 20:48, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Edits to Robert Reich

I cited it and everything...what's the problem with that? 199.88.20.8 (talk) 20:16, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Funny, but not appropriate. You will get yourself blocked in short order if you continue to vandalize the project.  Frank  |  talk  20:20, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Question

Hi there,

Wondering why you just took the Christopher Falkenberg page down? You citing that it was too much of a promotion - but it is biographical information on a person who is an expert in the secruity field? there are many other articles with bios - and I am curious to why you pulled this one down?

Thanks. AGDonohoe (talk) 21:18, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

The article was unambiguously promotional in nature; see WP:CSD#G11. In addition, although it's not a reason to speedily delete an article, I am not sure that Mr. Falkenberg would meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines, given that there seem to be very few (or no) articles about him (see [2]; being quoted in an article does not constitute substantial coverage).  Frank  |  talk  21:22, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

With respect Frank...what about an article like this? http://www.businessweek.com/managing/content/apr2009/ca20090429_288478.htm and there are a number of media outlets such as CNN, CNBC and Fox that use him as a professional security source.

AGDonohoe (talk) 14:44, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

This is not a unilateral decision that cannot be re-visited. It was my judgment at the time. I do stand by it, but if you wish the article to be restored, I will be glad to do so. There are thousands of administrators and millions of editors on this project, and I am perfectly happy to let others weigh in on the fate of the article. Having said that, the article you provide above is an interview with the subject, not substantial coverage about him; I doubt that will be sufficient as an only source. I've been wrong about this before, and there are many, many articles in this project that I think it would be better off without; this isn't necessarily anywhere near the top of that list. Again - if you want me to restore the deleted article, let me know, or if you wish to recreate it yourself, feel free. I will watch (and maybe comment) but will not delete it again.  Frank  |  talk  14:53, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Mark Howard producer

can you please restore the page i was working on for grammy award winning record producer Mark Howard. i understand there was a paragraph that was copied from his myspace page but i am willing to delete it although i have full permission from him to use that. noone gave me a chance to put that in writing and it was deleted straight away. please restore my page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Charliedylan (talk • contribs)

Permission to use copyrighted material is handled through WP:OTRS. In the meantime, you can create the page in your user space to work on it. Please work on establishing notability for the subject.  Frank  |  talk  02:49, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Jack Mancino

..the Jack Mancino page were similar designed as other contemporary art painter`s page..3 times was reduced and was always deleted by new reasons!...could you explain if the wikipedia has some strange reasoning policy applied for picked pages and the same policy wasn`t applied to others?....Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgeborg (talk • contribs)

I didn't look at the content; I merely answered your question as to why the page was deleted. I am aware of NawlinWiki's work and I didn't need to look to be reasonably confident of my answer there. You have several choices:
  1. Recreate the page in your userspace and work on it until it meets criteria for your first article.
  2. Request that NawlinWiki undelete it (you can ask, but after five deletions, I think the likely answer is clear).
  3. Request a review of the deletion at deletion review, which is unlikely to change anything because that's usually for articles that were deleted after a deletion discussion rather than speedily deleted articles.
Note that none of these options includes discussing "strange reasoning" and "other stuff", which are rarely useful around here. This is a constantly-evolving project, and it's also run completely by volunteers. We (and that includes you) can't get to everything immediately. Rather than focus on what exists that perhaps doesn't meet guidelines, I highly recommend you determine if the subject actually meets our notability guidelines, and if so, creating an article that is in line with policies.
The best way to do that is to go with option 1 above.
Also, please don't delete others' comments when you add to a talk page. Please create a new section at the bottom of the page and add your question/comment there. If you're responding to an existing comment, please write below it. Thanks!  Frank  |  talk  14:25, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Details

Hi Frank, most of your edits this morning at Fawcett's bio were great. I wanted to restore two things and thought it best to discuss it with you. First, I was wondering why you removed the details of the course of her German treatment in your final edit. I had referenced the documentary for these details. I had notes from the doc, including the spellings of the doctors' names. Obviously I made a spelling error with "profusion" instead of "perfusion". When I had clicked the link to "profusion", I realized it wasn't addressing the relevant point, but thought I'd research it today and/or hoped someone else would correct it, as they did.

I don't know if you saw the documentary, but a great deal of it involves her German doctors and their treatments, following her into treatment rooms and actually showing those treatments, from scans to the insertion of the laser needle through her ribcage and into her liver. It was harrowing stuff, but her inclusion of these details in her documentary make it both clear that she wanted people to know about this and also make it notable and citable.

She also makes a point of contrasting erroneous published reports with what was really going on. The other issue may seem minor by comparison, but Fawcett never refers to her own treatment as "holistic", this was press conjecture, and my recent edit noted it as such. We like to think we have the most modern treatments in the world and anything else must be some flower-child yoga, herbs or voodoo (read: stem cell treatment), but the point of that sentence was that although it was reported as "holistic" (note the article that links to), it was actually very high technology. Again, what the article stated was referenced in its use of terminology ("holistic", "aggressive") as well as supported by the precise course of treatment as described.

For both of these edits, my purpose is to present what Fawcett presented in her documentary, which came from the mouths of her doctors themselves. Abrazame (talk) 19:17, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I've replied on the talk page and with edits to the page itself. I did watch most of the documentary; I do not think it is an appropriate reliable source until and unless a written transcript is made available. That doesn't mean the info can't be used to lead elsewhere. Regarding your discussion of holistic and high-tech: it's not for us to judge that something can be only one or the other, it is merely for us to report what can be cited properly in reliable sources. I don't know if she received holistic treatment or not, and I probably will never know. However, I do know that the Daily Mail reported that she received holistic treatment in Germany, and that's what our article says. Nothing more, nothing less (at least on that point). There are other sources as well, but really not that many. "Alternative treatment" seems to be a more common description.  Frank  |  talk  20:50, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Jay Weinberg

FYI I've put this up at T:TDYK with you as the original author. And sorry for messing up some of your edits at one point, I was caught up in an edit conflict and had trouble resolving it without losing what I had done. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:35, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Sweet; never been part of DYK (yet). We'll see what the community thinks. No sweat on the edits; I figured it was something like that, and you caught on after I put a note in the edit summary. We're all working toward building a better project!  Frank  |  talk  23:44, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Brian Hyland

Thank you very much for your message. User:Mythdon did rather admonish me without substantiated rationale over my usage of 'rollback'; which I did not think was fair, particularly helpful or even handed. However, I have no wish to get involved in the ongoing arbitration process. Could I ask you to look at the recent Brian Hyland edits, based on my message to Mythdon ? Frankly, I do not know where else to turn - most of my Wiki buddies from the past three years, or so, seem to have hibernated, given up or died. Probably says more about me than anything !?! Any help is much appreciated. Regards,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 22:47, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted the copyvio and watchlisted it. No need to get involved in the arb case; I just thought you might want to know you're not alone. :-)  Frank  |  talk  00:02, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Many thanks - again,
Derek R Bullamore (talk) 00:31, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Delano Lewis

Kudos. Very nice work. Thank you. Cheers, David in DC (talk) 01:15, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing. Lewis seems like a really interesting guy. (In case you're interested, I ran across him while going through the series of NPR presidents, three of which I created, and all of which I added a succession box to.) Cheers!  Frank  |  talk  01:47, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
I watch the page mostly to look out for BLP violations against his son. I helped craft the graf in the son's article that, I think, strikes the proper balance under WP:WEIGHT. I've lived in and around D.C. for nearly 30 years. You're absolutely right, the elder Lewis is a fascinating person. Cheers, David in DC (talk) 14:50, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

ThankSpam

My RfA

Thank you for participating in my "RecFA", which passed with a final tally of 153/39/22. There were issues raised regarding my adminship that I intend to cogitate upon, but I am grateful for the very many supportive comments I received and for the efforts of certain editors (Ceoil, Noroton and Lar especially) in responding to some issues. I wish to note how humbled I was when I read Buster7's support comment, although a fair majority gave me great pleasure. I would also note those whose opposes or neutral were based in process concerns and who otherwise commented kindly in regard to my record.
I recognise that the process itself was unusual, and the format was generally considered questionable - and I accept that I was mistaken in my perception of how it would be received - but I am particularly grateful for those whose opposes and neutrals were based in perceptions of how I was not performing to the standards expected of an administrator. As much as the support I received, those comments are hopefully going to allow me to be a better contributor to the project. Thank you. Very much. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:58, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

~~~~~

Well, back to the office it is...

Corrigon

Hi Frank! I saw that you deleted an article I added about my company, Corrigon. You claim that this is promotional (unlike BayTSP or Attributor? ) What can I do better to make it less promotional and more informative? I don't see the problem. I also apologize if this is not the appropriate way to contact you - this is the only way I found. Please help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thitpx (talk • contribs) 13:16, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I didn't claim it was unlike any other article; I've never looked at the two you mentioned. However, your article was definitely promotional; it did not in any way assert that the company is notable, and it did not provide any references about the company (not by the company, but about it). The best thing to do is to read WP:CORP. Please let me know if I can answer further questions.  Frank  |  talk  13:23, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Some external, independent citations: http://www.tradingmarkets.com/.site/news/Stock%20News/1855044/
http://www.startupisrael.com/lab-one-incubator-invests-2m-corrigon
http://www.babylon.com/definition/Corrigon_Ltd._(PicMole)/
http://www.ivc-online.com/G_info.asp?objectType=1&fObjectID=9832
http://www.ivc-online.com/ivcWeeklyItem.asp?articleID=7559
http://www.globes.co.il/news/article.aspx?QUID=1056,U1229242278974&did=1000406688
http://www.globes.co.il/serveen/globes/DocView.asp?did=1000377412
http://www.takdin.co.il/searchgl/%D7%98%D7%91%D7%99%D7%A2%D7%AA%20%D7%90%D7%A6%D7%91%D7%A2%20%D7%9C%D7%AA%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%A0%D7%94:%20Corrigon%20%D7%9E%D7%A4%D7%AA%D7%97%D7%AA%20%D7%9E%D7%A0%D7%95%D7%A2%20%D7%97%D7%99%D7%A4%D7%95%D7%A9%20%D7%95%D7%99%D7%96%D7%95%D7%90%D7%9C%D7%99_h_hd_2L34sCpKsCLmnC30mD30sDZWuBcXqRMm0.html
http://www.incubators.org.il/30014.htm

Thitpx (talk) 13:57, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

The links above that relate to Corrigon, that don't time out, and are in English, merely confirm its existence and the fact that it got $2M in venture capital. People start companies all the time, and startups get venture funding all the time. That alone does not make them notable. Did you read WP:CORP? It really explains policy on the matter quite well. Please feel free to recreate the article; I will leave it alone but I am confident others will see it the same way without any input from me. If you can show how the company is notable, that would, of course, change things.  Frank  |  talk  14:29, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Is there a way that I can reach to the content you deleted? I put quite an effort into to it and it looks like the history is also lost with the deletion. Thitpx (talk) 07:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Here it is, in your user space.  Frank  |  talk  09:33, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Thitpx (talk) 09:37, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Buddy Alan

I wouldn't trust IMDb as it's user submitted. I've added a couple print sources, including another that verifies his birth name as Alvis Alan Owens. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 03:19, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:5P

There's obviously no point in continuing this argument at Talk:Air France Flight 447. I am honestly frightened by the policy quotes you are making. Do you know that Queen Victoria or Abraham Lincoln are dead? I'm sure you've never seen any judicial proof of it! As if judicial proof was some sort of absolute proof – any decent philosopher will tell you that absolute proof is unattainable. The verifiable facts about AF447 are such that no reasonable person doubts that these people are dead. That information might change, but it is very unlikely. I might win the lottery on Friday, but it is very unlikely, and so I do not describe myself as "possible a millionaire". The Five Pillars of Wikipedia require us to write an encyclopedia which normal people will read, not just WP editors, and so to go with normal standards of proof/refutation of hypotheses (also found in WP:V, WP:SYNTH, WP:UNDUE and numerous other policies and guidelines). Please stop pretending that these people might reasonably be expected to be alive: it is indecent. Physchim62 (talk) 15:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

It matters not whether I know those two people are dead or not. There are reliable sources in both articles to support the statement that they are dead. On the other hand, since we do not have sources that claim that regarding, for example, D. B. Cooper, the article does not state that he is dead. We simply don't know.  Frank  |  talk  15:52, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
What level of "knowledge" do you require? Physchim62 (talk) 16:04, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
WP:RS, WP:CITE, and WP:V.  Frank  |  talk  16:09, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
So you believe everything you read in the press, and would be willing to pass it on to other people without the slightest doubt? If so, how does Wikipedia differ from Internet Archive or Google Scholar? Incedentally, and predictably, I think that D. B. Cooper is very far from what waht we should be promoting as [sic] "our very best articles". Physchim62 (talk) 18:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Did you read any of those guidelines? "Reliable sources" does not equate to "the press", and indeed, just because it's published in a "reliable source" doesn't make it instantly reliable either. For example, there was some controversy over what part of the Bronx Sonia Sotomayor grew up in, even though it was published in reliable sources that it was "walking distance to Yankee Stadium", which is apparently not supportable by facts. However...the correct way to deal with that is to write something to the effect of "some sources report this" and "some sources report that". It is definitely not our job as editors of Wikipedia to determine what is "right" or "wrong" or a "true fact". For example: does Air France still have a Flight 447 route? The correct answer: it depends where you look. The right answer for Wikipedia: what do the reliable sources say? These aren't the same thing.  Frank  |  talk  18:21, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Farah Fawcett

Go ahead. Unprotection is always worth a shot! --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 17:51, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Frank, what's the deal? Abrazame (talk) 19:05, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't understand the question.  Frank  |  talk  19:07, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm the editor who protected Farrah Fawcett. Today I log in and see she's been unprotected without any discussion whatsoever. And then, unless I'm misreading it, immediately re-protected? Yet there's no protection tag. So what's the deal? Abrazame (talk) 19:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I am quite confused. I do not see any indication that you are an administrator; nor do I see that you were involved in protection of the page. I did, however, contact the admin who did protect the page before I unprotected it. As for the "re-protect", I made two different changes: one to allow all users to edit the page, and another to disallow anonymous users from moving it, which its own form of vandalism.  Frank  |  talk  19:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Frank, you're supposed to discuss major issues like undoing a Semi-Protect on the article's talk page. I didn't say I was an administrator, I said I was an editor. RegentsPark didn't up and decide to protect the page of his own volition, he was courteously approving my request. A mere two weeks ago I requested and received the standard three months' temporary semi-protection, for which I thanked him.
Though you repeatedly failed to acknowledge it there, I've tried to point out to you on your own talk page and on Talk:Farrah Fawcett that I have been constructively contributing to that page for some months, although you address me like a newbie you have to invite to "jump in". Wikipedia etiquette guidelines dictate that if you're going to settle into a page you do the other active and responsible editors the editorial courtesy of treating them as a colleague at that page and discuss major issues like undoing their responsible work. If you had any respect for anyone around here or paid any attention whatsoever, you might have caught the fact that I've already told you I was the editor who protected the page in this thread. Abrazame (talk) 19:57, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
The removal of protection on a page is not in any way an indication that anyone thinks you are not constructively contributing to the page. I'm sorry if you see it that way. I have provided links above that show that I did contact the administrator who protected it before I unprotected it. In fact, you can see the answer above as the start of this thread. Unprotecting a page so that other editors may edit it is not "undoing responsible work" - it is allowing more people to contribute.
Just to be clear, are you asking me to do (or undo) something here?  Frank  |  talk  20:05, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
I am asking you to do three things. Firstly, I'm asking you to reinstate the Temporary Semi-Protect on the page (I'm guessing RegentsPark assumed your request represented consensus among Farrah Fawcett editors). Secondly, I'm asking you to acknowledge that in the future you will discuss major changes like this on a talk page to develop consensus before a major change is done. (You need to do more than discuss things with administrators, you need to discuss them with your colleagues here). Thirdly, I have explicitly said here and elsewhere that your communication has been lacking in collegial give-and-take, lacking in an indication that you comprehend the points of your fellow editors and lacking in direct response to them, and I'd like you to acknowledge that. For example, you offer me your links, which of course I read and responded to, in noting the name of the Admin and in linking you to the record of my involvement. You have not indicated that you read, and you have not acknowledged the substance of, the links I have posted for you. Abrazame (talk) 20:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
  1. In the absence of any evidence of need for continued semi-protection of the page, I decline to reinstate the protection. It can always be re-protected should the need arise. You may assume what you like regarding RegentsPark's assent; I do not make that assumption at all and I don't represent my request as such. My request simply stated that things seemed to have calmed down at the article, and in fact I stated that in the unprotect. Links to both appear above.
  2. Since I don't see this as a "major" change to this article, I'm going to decline to acknowledge that I would discuss such a thing in advance. No harm is being done to the project by unprotecting the page, and it would take very little effort to have any administrator re-protect it if a problem surfaced. I'll do it myself if I see the need, and I don't/won't see the need to ask a whole bunch of people what they think of that routine action. I have seen people complain about protection of an article; this is the first time I've seen a complaint about an article being unprotected. (Not that it hasn't happened; I've not seen it before now, though.) Now, if the article were, say, George W. Bush or Barack Obama, that would certainly warrant discussion and consensus beforehand (although that doesn't always happen either). This article doesn't fall into that category.
  3. I acknowledge that you've said here and elsewhere that you don't like my communication style. I further acknowledge I've read the links you provided.
Finally, I would add that there is no "standard three months' temporary semi-protection" for pages, BLP or otherwise. The judgment to protect or not, and for what length of time, is at the discretion of the administrator.  Frank  |  talk  21:07, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)I'm a tad astonished by the reaction! For the record, I did not assume that there was consensus to unprotect on the article talk page. I assumed that Frank wanted to see if unprotecting would work (i.e., the level of vandalism would be low) and was sure that he would monitor the article (as I would as well) to reinstate protection if necessary. In general, articles, including BLPs are not automatically semi-protected unless there is a long history of a 'vandalism/blp violation - protection - unprotection' cycle, which is not the case with this article. We value our IP editors and must make every reasonable attempt to allow them to edit. --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 21:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, which describes exactly my thoughts when I asked your opinion, my intentions going forward, and my view of IP editors. I realize there are other issues that User:Abrazame has with my actions, but I appreciate you taking the time to clarify on this one point.  Frank  |  talk  21:51, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Moonriddengirl, collected :)

Please don't let the identification of a mirror at Frank Frost discourage you. As you may have noticed, it actually is an infringement, simply from a different source. Picking out the mirrors can complicate things immensely, but when a user's history verifies a problem, I often find that continuing to dig deeper will eventually locate the problem. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:14, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
What does discourage mean? I'm not familiar with this word. :-)  Frank  |  talk  14:27, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
I like that attitude. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:29, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Thank you for participating in my RfA, which succeeded with 56 in support, 12 in opposition and 3 neutral votes. I am truly honored by the trust that the community has placed in me. Whether you supported me, opposed me, or if you only posted questions or commented om my RfA, I thank you for your input and I will be looking at the reasons that people opposed me so I can improve in those areas :). If you ever need anything please feel free to ask me and I would be happy to help you :). All the Best, Mifter (talk)

Mifter (talk) 23:40, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Oy

My limited knowledge of Yiddish was acquired years after learning German. Due to the large number of cognates between those two languages, I tend to use German phonetic spellings. Most of the people who speak both Yiddish and English have minimal knowledge of German and approximate English pronunciations when writing Yiddish in the Roman alphabet, but German is a much more phonetic language and more closely related. So that's the reasoning behind the somewhat unusual spelling. DurovaCharge! 01:22, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I was just going with what I have heard...and I even looked it up here...no sweat. I'm trying to keep things light around here :-)  Frank  |  talk  01:23, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

East Central Community College

Let me know if I can be of assistance in editing (up to policy) the East Central Community College as I have done with the Southwest Mississippi Community College‎ page. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 03:44, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Go for it!  Frank  |  talk  03:53, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

May be of use..

This may be of use in your current efforts. //roux   15:12, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks; it's a neat tool. Maybe I'll write a similar one for Wikipedia. (When I don't have 400 other things on my to-do list...)  Frank  |  talk 

WBAL-TV Edits

If you think it needs to be removed, take it up with WP:TVS and get consensus. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 23:47, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Not necessary; there's plenty of precedent for not putting extraneous information in an article, so I removed it. If you think WP:TVS somehow supports adding spammy, extra information to an article, please show me where.  Frank  |  talk  00:25, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Did you bother to get consensus before removing those edits? Did you bother to remove them from the 400+ other pages? No, so, I am going to revert...again. All I am asking is you get consensus from WP:TVS before going off and deleting information that is in the WP:TVS rules (see Article Structure where you will find "information on its personalities, past and present"), which were created within the policies of Wikipedia. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 00:27, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
I asked for you to show me where it is said that adding spammy links is withing Wikipedia policy. I don't need consensus to remove spam; it's already policy. A Wikiproject cannot trump that.  Frank  |  talk  00:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
I showed you were it was....see Article Structure where you will find "information on its personalities, past and present". It is in the rules for the Wikiproject. Now...you need to remove that information from ALL 400+ television stations, not just one....for that you will need consensus. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 00:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Did it say WP:LINKSPAM about former personalities? I missed that. There is a very long precedent for providing links (OK), not long descriptions (NOT OK).  Frank  |  talk  00:40, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
I think we can dispense with the sarcasm. I also think that we should assume good faith that when the rules for WP:TVS were created that all of Wikipedia's policies, including WP:OR and WP:LINKSPAM were taken into effect. Also, these are EXTREMELY easy to reference. Just go to that station's website, find the reporter's bio and link it. Simple. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 00:44, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't object on the basis of referencing; I object on the basis that it's simply not necessary. If a subject is notable enough to have an article in the project, a wikilink is sufficient. If not, it's questionable whether they should be mentioned at all, but if they are, there's no reason to then add a description of them. A reference is enough. This is how it works elsewhere on Wikipedia; I cannot fathom a reason that WP:TVS should make up its own rules that digress.  Frank  |  talk  00:47, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

That is why I am saying consensus should be reached, this way a discussion on references can be made as well. Undertaking a project that would remove information from 400+ pages needs to be discussed before done. If enough people feel that it isn't necessary to have the information, I will let it go....but I feel a discussion on it and possibly a discussion on referencing the information (if people feel it should stay) should come first before deletion. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 00:53, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
You're asking for consensus on established policy. That's extra work for no good reason.  Frank  |  talk  01:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Which established policy are we talking about? The one Wikipedia made or the one WP:TVS set up? Cause at the moment, and I will admit, we have two conflicting policies. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 01:31, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
There's no conflict; Wikipedia policy trumps Wikiproject policy.  Frank  |  talk  01:33, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Then what do we do? Remove information that has been allowed for a few years now with no issue from 400+ pages? Cause we aren't just talking about WBAL-TV....this goes from WABC-TV (market 1) to KXGN-TV (market 210)....and all the stations in between. Which is why I am asking for consensus....I don't think that is too much to ask. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 01:36, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Comments about TV personalities

Greetings! You added a comment to my talk page about lists of TV personalities in Wiki articles on TV stations. So you probably will be interested in the discussion that's been opened in [3]. Best Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 12:23, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Some shameless thankspam!

I'd like to thank everyone who took part in my RfA, which closed 79/3/6, so I'm now another proud bearer of the mop-and-bucket - hopefully I'll wield them with success! I'd also like to say that I found the process to be welcoming, friendly and supportive, with the support comments encouraging and the oppose and neutral comments offering good feedback, so I had a very positive experience, despite the fact that, from all the comments and discussions, I was expecting something much more negative - thanks for helping to make it a worthwile experience!

Many thanks once again,
Colds7ream (talk) 13:01, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Section

Please have a look at this section Jackson, Mississippi#Crime, the last paragraph written by me and verify whether or not it is a copyvio. Thanks. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here @ 15:10, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Works for me.  Frank  |  talk  15:43, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

So explain this edit summary by Moon for me. I have never in my 3+ years seen anyone say anything about "if you split an article, you must give credit or you are violating the GFDL". I've never even seen anyone reprimanded, notified, coached or anything else about such a "violation". I've never even seen the associated template, {{Split-to}} before and only became aware of it by see her edit here. I'd be curious to know how many people are even aware that such a violation is possible and that said template exists. I've seen many an article split in my 3+ years here and have never seen anyone question a "violation of GFDL" in this manner nor have I ever seen the template used. I may be paranoid but this just seems like now nit-picking towards my every move.. so please help to understand this supposed kind of violation. I just seems to be that GFDL attribution is obvious in the edit history when an article is split. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here @ 23:36, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm the wrong person to ask, but I'll try. My understanding is that once something is submitted under a GFDL license (as Wikipedia is), it is licensed for "free" as long as it is attributed. Basically "open source text". So if something is copied from one place to another without attribution, it's not a copyright violation, but apparently violates GFDL. I think you should ask User:Moonriddengirl or look up GFDL for more details.
As to whether or not you've seen it before, there is much I could say, but I'll settle on the neutral "neither have I". However, there are many things I haven't seen or worked with, and I try to tread carefully in such cases. When I ask, people are quite willing to instruct. When I don't, they are almost as willing to bite. For you, as with everyone, I would recommend focusing on the content. If someone has alerted you to something new, look it up, decide if it's something you want to learn about sufficiently to avoid a problem in the future, and act accordingly. Practically speaking (and not a direction from me, but just generic advice I'd give anyone): if you want to split articles, learn what GFDL has to say on the matter. Otherwise, consult with someone else when that situation comes up.
My two cents.  Frank  |  talk  23:45, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
I still have Frank's page on my watchlist. Perhaps this will be helpful: from Wikipedia:Splitting:

To conform with §4(I) of the GFDL, the new page should be created with an edit summary noting "split content from [[article name]]". (Do not omit this step or omit the page name.) A note should also be made in the edit summary of the source article, "split content to [[article name]]", to protect against the article subsequently being deleted and the history of the new page eradicated. It may also be helpful to place the {{Splitfrom}} template on the talk page of the source article to further safeguard against deletion.

(Cf. Help:Merging: "Save the destination page, with an edit summary noting "merge content from [[article name]]" (This step is required in order to conform with §4(I) of the GFDL. Do not omit it nor omit the page name.)" See also WP:C: "Wikipedia content can be copied, modified, and redistributed if and only if the copied version is made available on the same terms to others and acknowledgment of the authors of the Wikipedia article used is included (a link back to the article is generally thought to satisfy the attribution requirement)." Wikipedia's contributors do not release their material into public domain, but liberally license it under GFDL, which reserves the right to attribution. The {{Split-to}} template is relatively new, but a helpful way to credit in addition to the edit summary. The {{Splitfrom}} has been around slightly longer. I have myself instructed enough people on this that I have a "form" letter for the purpose, User:Moonriddengirl/form letters, created in September 2008. This is an off-branch of the "cut & paste move", which has its own repair pen here. There is a {{Uw-c&pmove}} which also notes that separating a page from its history is undesirable, in part because of the need for attribution. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:08, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Zone024

I don't think you should have deleted that page. I was in the middle of trying to add to it. I made no endorsements nor did I discredit. Being impartial is hardly grounds to claim advertisement. Many products have pages, as well they should. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkiker2089 (talk • contribs) 18:57, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Please read WP:CORP and your first article.  Frank  |  talk  19:06, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Rather than just deleting please help me with it then or at least flag it as a stub so others can. By deleting it you are destroying it's chances. Yes I'm new here, but I am trying to help. 75.181.83.111 (talk) 20:04, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Your help is most welcome. Please feel free to jump in and edit existing articles to get a feel for how things work around here. Also, if you start an account, you can create a version of that article in your own userspace and then build it gradually. When it's ready, and you have WP:CONSENSUS that it belongs, you can move it to the main article space. Finally, it's possible that topic just isn't WP:NOTABLE enough for inclusion.  Frank  |  talk  20:13, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Frank Bruno's Laugh

I had told the user I was removing any further comments from him to my user talk page without comment. But as you replied to him in his last comment, I am just notifying you that I have removed your comment as well, because if I left it it'd be out of context.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:51, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Totally cool with me; thanks for the notice, which wasn't strictly necessary. I gave my input because he seems to need it...whether it will help or not is questionable. Plus, I didn't see your notice about removing his comments until after I left mine. Anyway, thanks again. Cheers!  Frank  |  talk  23:21, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Before you start lecturing me, do you think that perhaps Ryulong's comments and accusations towards me damaged the community and detered my involvement? The community's recent judgement on Ryulong conduct seems pretty clear and yet, with his track record, you still seem to default to lecturing me on my conduct. All I did was ask him whether he felt his comments towards me were fair and constructive. I didn't cast the first stone. It seems that his recent conduct has been appalling and has been dealt with as a serious matter. Frank Bruno's Laugh (talk) 13:38, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not lecturing you. I'm telling you about some of Wikipedia's core policies; violating WP:NPA is one of the quickest routes to a block on this site. I'm assuming you understand that and won't need any further warnings. More to the point, however, is that continually asking a single editor a single question and harping on closed issues from an editor's past actions may not be an attack, but it is WP:DISRUPTIVE and may also lead to a block. Wikipedia is not a social network and it's not a democracy (among many other things listed at WP:NOT, which I already linked for you). It's an encyclopedia. Please find something you like and contribute; there is more here to do than can ever be completed. And please let whatever perceived slight you've received from any other editor drop. The encyclopedia awaits.  Frank  |  talk  13:45, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Why are you so interested in this, and why did you not say the same thing to Ryulong when he was attacking me? You tell me to drop perceived slights, but when I make a comment towards Ryulong that you consider a slight, you start removing them, lecturing me and threatening me with blocks. Where is the balance here? Why don't you expcet Ryulong to just let these slights drop? Why does he need you to step in, gang up on me, and start throwing your weight around? Have I said anything that is not untrue? Surely you have to admit that the Wikipedia community has passed judgment on his conduct, and condemned it. Frank Bruno's Laugh (talk) 13:49, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
You have to understand that I perceive you as taking sides here. Is that weren't the case, if I felt you were treating us equally, I would be much more open to your suggestions. Frank Bruno's Laugh (talk) 13:51, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Show me the diffs where you were attacked; I didn't see that. As for taking sides, you are quite correct; I am on the side of the community. It is plainly unacceptable anywhere on Wikipedia to attack another editor, and it is unacceptable to be disruptive. If you perceive that more than one editor pointing this out to you is the equivalent of "ganging up on you", that is your right, but it does not change the fact that certain behaviors are unacceptable and may result in a block.  Frank  |  talk  14:41, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say that he attacked me. You said to let any perceived slights drop, and I asked you why don't expect him to allow slights to drop. In other words he was rude to me and I am meant to ignore it, but when you perceive that I am being rude to him you step in and start talking about blocks. If you are talking about attacks, I guess you are talking about "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence" on WP:NPA. What exactly have I said that is not backed up by evidence? Ryulong reverted my edits on the basis of WP:DENY which deals with vandalism, therefore suggesting that my edits were vandalism. When I refuted this, he just told me to drop it. Now, are you accusing me of personal attacks, if so, which ones? If you are, instead accusing me of being rude then we are back where we started. Why can he be rude to me, but I can't be rude to him, and why do you step in to stop me, but not him? Frank Bruno's Laugh (talk) 15:04, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
The great thing about the MediaWiki software that runs this site is that previous entries are preserved more or less forever (unless deleted by an administrator or WP:OVERSIGHTed for a very limited set of reasons). This enables me to show you two things you wrote that support what I'm saying:
These comments (and, indeed, this entire thread) have nothing to do with building an encyclopedia. That's why I've encouraged you to focus elsewhere.  Frank  |  talk  15:16, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough, I did use the word attack, although in response to your use of it, without realising its specific meaning on Wikipedia. In other words, if my words are considered and attack, then so should Ryulong's (in fact, they should probably both be classified as rude). As for the comments regarding Ryulong, I stand by them. His actions have been condemned by the Wikipedia community, and he did bully me, removing my edits, responding to my requests for clarification with dismissive comments such as "drop it" and then giving me instructions to work on articles rather than raise my concerns. He didn't flush my head down the toilet, but I consider what he did bullying. He was very rude to me and didn't like it when I called him on it. Frank Bruno's Laugh (talk) 15:27, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Was This Really Necessary?

I draw your attention to your comments on the ASE post I started....

"It should be noted that User:Neutralhomer is an unapologetic cheerleader for ASE, given this sarcastic comment shortly after the initial block. I have no problem with liking and supporting a contributor; what I disapproved of in that comment was that either there was no attempt to look at the facts of the matter, or the facts were ignored. To his credit, NH did actually look a bit later and allowed as how he must agree with the community on this one. Now he's back on the other side of the fence. (Sorry if this seems like I'm commenting on the contributor rather than the content; I'm merely pointing out that this is a highly-involved user and providing some context.) Also, it should be revealed that we subsequently discovered a content disagreement we have, but again - I'm confining this to ASE, nothing more. I just think that if it is agreed that mentoring is the right way to go, perhaps a better choice would be someone other than a cheerleader."

Was it necessary to bring me into the conversation? I am not on any side of the fence. I want to ASE unblocked (he is) but I also want to see him working on the cleanup of the copyvios (he is). I don't see how that is a bad thing or my wanting to be a mentor to ASE if he or the community so choose. Maybe you could explain this to me. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 03:57, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I didn't bring you into the conversation; you started it, as you noted. I don't question your motives; I was pointing out that you are what is known as an "involved party" - same as I am. Others reading the conversation might not have known that. I mentioned that we had crossed paths later, in the interest of full disclosure. I meant no offense; I'm a drama-free editor. But I did think it was important to keep things straight; there's been a lot of traffic on this issue.  Frank  |  talk  04:05, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
I guess being an "involved party" that probably limits me from being a mentor anyway, they are normally uninvolved parties. Oh well, that was worth a shot :) I do hope that ASE continues with his cleanup activities as he is doing. I gave a look in at his contribs and he seems to be helping in some of the articles. Not sure to what extent, but it his helping and that is a good start. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:09, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

SproutBox

I didn't realize that I had to include explicitly why this company was notable. It is notable as it has invested in at least 3 companies and directly employs 8 people. It is the first Venture Capitalist company of its kind in Bloomington.--Zdwiel (talk) 22:03, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Every single article on Wikipedia has to indicate why its subject is notable enough for inclusion. Do you have any references that show that for SproutBox? There are literally hundreds of thousands of companies in the US alone that employ 8 people...maybe millions of them. They aren't all notable. Please read WP:CORP. If you've got something to work with, I'll be glad to help you out.  Frank  |  talk  22:13, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Ryulong

Frank, please stop taking sides, check out my talk page and you will see that Ryulong is continuing this, tell him to stop, don't let him abuse me without my right to respond. Frank Bruno's Laugh (talk) 23:19, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Check out Ryulong's comment on my talk page please Frank. "Contribute to the project for once"? Is that not a personal attack? If you tell Ryulong to stop attacking me, I will stop responding immediately. Otherwise, you are just letting him abuse me, without letting me respond. Frank Bruno's Laugh (talk) 23:21, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
No, that's not a personal attack. Let it go. You are continuing, not Ryulong. Ryulong has made 500 edits to Wikipedia in the last three days, and 64% of them have been to articles. You have made 69 edits to Wikipedia ever (with this account, anyway), and exactly zero of them have been to articles. As I've told you before, I am taking sides: I'm siding with the encyclopedia, which is what this site is about.  Frank  |  talk  23:25, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
What exactly does Ryulong's last edit on my talk page have to do with the encyclopedia. The issue was over, I said that I would not contact him again and he leaves and aggressive comment on my talk page starting it again. How can you justify attacking my comments but not his. Just because he edits more than me? That gives him the right to make rude comments towards me, about a subject that I said I had dropped? Frank Bruno's Laugh (talk) 23:28, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
His comment was about what this project is all about: please find a way to contribute to the project. That's what we are here for. If you're not here for that reason, please check out Myspace, AOL, Facebook, or World of Warcraft, which may be more compatible with your online goals.  Frank  |  talk  23:33, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Another day, another WP:TROLL. :-/ --Koji† 23:40, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Ya think? ;-)  Frank  |  talk  23:41, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Template:CCBYSASource

Thanks. I'm rubbish with templates. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:32, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

The original probably needs to be fixed too. I'll take a look. It was fine. One little <noinclude> tag.  Frank  |  talk  15:37, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Frank

About Cronkite, if it's a blog, I agree with you. However, the Chicago Sun Times reports

Legendary CBS anchorman Walter Cronkite, 92, long known as the "Most Trusted Man in America," is gravely ill, according to multiple CBS News sources and published reports.

I hope Cronkite gets over the hump and lasts many more years. Living to the late 90's is not unusual now. User F203 (talk) 16:13, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Read further into the articles: According to Mediabistro's blog, TVNewser... They are all reporting based on one blog and "sources" who are unnamed. That's speculation at its worst, and we don't need it. If he's really sick and if it's really newsworthy, it will be reported in reliable sources.  Frank  |  talk  16:20, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm actually in favor of waiting a while and not updating stuff. Wikipedia has a lot of sensationalist murders. Not very encyclopedic. This will never come about, though. User F203 (talk) 16:33, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Is this your idea of waiting a while? It's the same blog report. Schieffer is wishing him well and specifically says he has no current news on his condition. That's not encyclopedic.  Frank  |  talk  20:28, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
No, read it carefully.....

NEW YORK – CBS isn't commenting on reports that veteran newsman Walter Cronkite is gravely ill.

The 92-year-old former anchor of "The CBS Evening News," who has been ailing for some time, has reportedly taken a turn for the worse, according to TVNewser and other online sites.

The first part can be fairly included. The striken out parts is the blog parts. My idea would be just to put the non-striken parts.User F203 (talk) 20:37, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


You must be a real Wikipedia old-timer because of your username, Frank. I kept trying user names that were already used until I gave up and chose a number. User F203 (talk) 16:15, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Nah, not really; a few years.  Frank  |  talk  16:20, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

more about Walter

You are single handedly removing the blog reports of Cronkite taking a turn for the worse. This is a noble effort but could violate 3RR. To help you out, I've started a discussion on the talk page so that others who want to say he's dead can discuss it (they may not discuss it, though). User F203 (talk) 20:30, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

talk page

Since we're the only ones talking on the Walter Cronkite talk page, I'll remove the entire thread because we need a united front against the people who want to say he's dead. I hope this is ok with you. User F203 (talk) 20:42, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that's appropriate, because you are among those putting the reports in, and because there are others as well. The conversation should be there.  Frank  |  talk  20:43, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Why?

I had articles, I had information, I had everything. Why did you delete my article on Garneau? 

(UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Frank/Archive_4&oldid=1082541246"