Jump to content

User talk:Frank/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7→Archive 10

Brightspirit's Mercy

Excuse me, but this is Melkittycat and Brightspirit's Mercy is my first article. If you were the one who said to delete it, wateva but I'm willing to compromise. Someone said it's a non-notable play, but I don't think so. Even if it doesn't deserve its own article, I'm going to put the summary and the link to the full play on the Warriors main article, and I'm going to do the same on the other play by Erin Hunter. Which reminds me, someone else said they were going to redirect it to Erin Hunter, but the only problem with that was, my article never mentioned Erin Hunter at all. But the first sentence on the article was, "One of two plays by Erin Hunter...", with Erin Hunter in an internal link. Go ahead, delete my first article. But in the main article, they barely put enough info for Brightspirit's Mercy, I think, or for the other play, and I will put the plot summary on the main article. Melkittycat (talk) 19:15, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

It's hard to figure out what you're referring to here; I don't know that we have ever crossed paths before, either directly or indirectly. Please clarify if you are asking me to do something.  Frank  |  talk  19:56, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Two Confusing Pages

Alana(disambiguation) and Alana (given name). Should be deleted, redirected or what? -WarthogDemon 00:56, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes. :-) (Let me ponder it.)  Frank  |  talk  00:58, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Alright, I think I've got it cleaned up. Thanks for pointing them out.  Frank  |  talk  01:21, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

RfA Thanks

WikiThanks
WikiThanks

Hi Frank. I just wanted to thank you for contributing to my RfA. It wasn't one of the best RfA's held, but I've learned a lot from the experience. Sorry for sending you the message today, and not last week when my RfA was closed. I've been very busy the last time. Thanks once again! Kind regards, LouriePieterse 10:23, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Frank Lorenzo

I see you've been very active on this page and the page is a lot more fleshed out. I like it. I see someone added a 'controversy' section. Let's pray that doesn't that doesn't become a lightninig rod like it has in the past. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.37.162.214 (talk) 23:13, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing! I put the controversy section in there, because Lorenzo's entire tenure in the airline industry was punctuated at every turn with controversy. The detailed, step-by-step chronology of his career that I researched and wrote is the backdrop for the publicity and controversy sections. There is no question that he was a pioneer in the industry, but to fail to mention that people often felt very strongly about him - both positively and negatively - would be to ignore his two-decade legacy. I've got a couple of other irons in the fire, but I'm going to get back to it. I have copies of dozens of articles, and I just got two books from the library specifically about Eastern Air Lines and its demise.  Frank  |  talk  23:44, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

How Dare You

Why did you delete my article on Mitchell Bell it was awesome it had the right info and it had the reason for him being important and it was funny!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Belly.flop03 (talk • contribs)

Because it didn't establish notability.  Frank  |  talk  01:02, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

The Editor's Barnstar
Wow! You deleted Magenta Lovett before I even added the speedy deletion tag! I dream of horses (talk) 01:52, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Dr. Granvil Wade Seale Jr

Re-created and slapped with an A7 tag Bmg916Speak 17:42, 7 July 2009

Incorrect speedy at Purpleohm

Hi there Frank, firstly, thanks for your amazing work in clearing up CAT:CSD. About Purpleohm; You deleted this as a non notable band. But the page would seem to be a blatant hoax. If Jesus really was a member, then surely it would be notable (so what you marked it under was incorrect), chewbacca can't be a member, as he doesn't exist, and Jesus didn't have a son called Derek. Result = Hoax. Cheers - Kingpin13 (talk) 20:03, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

It may seem to be a blatant hoax, but it definitely did not assert notability. Since Jesus is a common given name, there's no reason to assume that the article was referring to Jesus, especially since it wasn't wikilinked. Likewise, with no link to establish who was being referred to by "chewbacca", I have no reason to assume it referred to the fictional character, (which I agree couldn't be). In the process of attempting to keep Wikipedia free of things that do not belong (as in all my actions both on- and off-wiki), I try to err on the side of caution and non-controversy. Hoaxes are a judgment call at CSD; A7s are less so. However, if Jesus had been wikilinked, I would agree with you, and I then would almost certainly have deleted it under G3 as a blatant hoax.
As another point, I think the bar is higher when deleting something as a hoax than as an A7. In the case of a G3/hoax deletion, an admin is making the judgment call that something is so blatant as to not require further scrutiny by other editors. How do I know there is no such notable band, which would be required for a hoax deletion? I don't, without spending some time checking. That time isn't necessary when there is no assertion of notability; combine this with the likelihood that it's a hoax anyway, and a quick A7-and-move-on seems the better choice to me. Mind you - I'm not saying I delete anything I haven't heard of. Just the other day, I declined a CSD on Practice Fusion (a company, not a band) and then added cites. Of course I'd never heard of it before the article was created.
Thanks for your note. Whether you agree with my explanation or not, it's good to have a little sanity check now and then.  Frank  |  talk  20:26, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Well I agree entirely with your reasoning; I understand why you'd rather go with A7 then G3. But with this particular page I'm determined that it was a hoax (it also claimed a member of Thin Lizzy was a member, although this was misspelled, so you may have missed that, in the same way that I did when I tagged). Still, I don't have a massive problem with you deleting it under A7, I'm just happy it was deleted :). Cheers - Kingpin13 (talk) 20:47, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, Phil Lynott (d 1986) was on the list too. Again, though: I wasn't saying it was not a hoax. I was saying that I made no determination one way or the other. It was an A7, quite sufficient to delete it. It's not necessary to apply every tag that might apply to a CSD, although sometimes I do apply two or three of G11, G12, and A7 simultaneously.  Frank  |  talk  21:06, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
I see where you are coming from, and I also understand how much easier it makes things to just pick one CSD (even though I find that on most articles which get speedied, at least two apply (e.g. G10 & A7 go together a lot)). So yeah, no problem with you picking a different one from me :) - Kingpin13 (talk) 21:11, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7→Archive 10

Roo2904

Hi, Re. Roo2904 (talk · contribs), the helpme;

They have a 'proposed article' on their talk; User_talk:Roo2904#Request_an_article_-_don.27t_know_if_I.27m_in_the_right_spot_for_this.

It needs moving over to AFC and the AFC process explaining to them. And about refs.

I'd do this myself, but I'm a bit busy with other stuff; are you able to take care of it?

(If not, no worries, I can do it later, just let me know)

Keep up the good work helping! Cheers,  Chzz  ►  16:19, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I noticed that and provided several relevant links for the user. I'm hoping to engage in a dialogue on the user's page regarding his company and its WP:NOTABILITY. If that could be established (perhaps not so easy to do), I'll create the article myself.  Frank  |  talk  16:25, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Great stuff, cheers. I'll leave you to it :-)  Chzz  ►  18:02, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Butner!

Thanks, I had discovered many conflicting press accounts on the city and was going back to undo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kyle Andrew Brown (talk • contribs) 15:56, 14 July 2009

Re: Groves

I would argue ACORN is pertinent since their involvement in the 2010 Census for "getting out the count", so to speak, was an issue raised during his confirmation hearings and was one of the reasons for the delay by Republicans. Perhaps it could be better-worded since I added it somewhat quickly, maybe by providing slightly more context instead of just identifying them as "controversial" (which feels somewhat general and weasely).

If you can improve it, please go ahead. However, I still think it is worth mentioning ACORN since several news articles have also felt they deserved mentioning ([1]). The rest of the article needs to be expanded anyways, which I was planning on tackling at some point. --Tom (talk - email) 18:21, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

It looks like the ACORN mention is a political stunt by senators rather than having anything actually to do with Groves. That seems like it would fit more closely in the 2010 United States Census article. But I'll check the refs and maybe go from there. I've known this article needs expansion, but sources are scarce to start with. Thanks for your response.  Frank  |  talk  18:26, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

leaving an article

Frank hi,whats procedure for leaving an article on myself,re local singer/songwriter? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grecianvenetian (talk • contribs) 22:10, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Generally, writing an article about yourself is frowned upon; see WP:COI. Also, every article needs to meet notability criteria, and your first article is a good place to start.  Frank  |  talk  22:13, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

dissatisfied pizza-lover

Please see [2] You may be next. DGG (talk) 03:31, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the warning ;-) Meanwhile, keep up the good work. I know how you feel; you can see a few notes above. Some advice (you probably don't need): for me, it's sometimes hard to keep my finger off the delete button the second and third time an article is created, but it is rewarding when someone else reaches the same conclusion independently (as you noted on your talk page). Sometimes I watchlist a page to keep tabs on its eventual fate. Cheers!  Frank  |  talk  03:45, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

A busy day!

Good morning Frank. Just a quick drive-by thanks for replying to those queries on my talk page - much appreciated! Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 08:17, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

My pleasure. Cheers! :-)

Pornophonique

Hello Frank. Can you quick tell me what was the problem with this article? Is it possible, that you can restore it on my user page User:Micha L. Rieser/desk/Pornophonique. Thanks a lot. --Micha L. Rieser (talk) 12:30, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

The article did not assert notability of the group in any way; hits on last.fm merely show that it exists. You'd need to have citations from reliable sources in order to establish notability for the group. I've copied the content into your user space as requested; please feel free to check over at either WP:RA or WP:DRAW for more info, or ask me.  Frank  |  talk  12:38, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
We succesfully discussed the notability in the german wikipedia [3]. The main arguments were that the band is in the german speaking world the most famous band producing creative commons music. But this makes it difficult to prove that the band has a encyclopedic notability because they never have sales figures like other bands. So we argued that the band is most downloaded on the site Jamendo which distributes only free music. The press release [4] tells that Pornophonique, (ist) die international bekannteste und beliebteste Electroband auf Jamendo (Pornophonique is the international most famous and most loved electroband on Jamendo) and that they had 150.000 streams and 20.000 downloads there. An other indication are the listeners on last.fm and that the band had more than one hundred concerts in different countries (Germany, Switzerland, The Netherlands, Austria) what indicates that the band has not only a regional publicity. The band in fact has a international publicity on the European continent. --Micha L. Rieser (talk) 13:01, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Notability established on German Wikipedia is fine for an article in the German Wikipedia; each project has its own criteria. Some of the other things you're referencing point toward meeting notability here on English Wikipedia; I'm not convinced yet but I'm also only one editor of many. The best thing to do is to find references that support it. There are plenty of folks who are "famous" on Youtube but that doesn't necessarily confer notability; you may find the same situation in this case (and maybe not).  Frank  |  talk  13:06, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
:Notability established on German Wikipedia is fine for an article in the German Wikipedia. Absolutely agree. We also argue that way. If there is a notability on the English Wikipedia we do not automatically assume the same notability for the German Wikipedia. But I think in this case the arguments would be about the same for both language versions. Because the notability of bands in both language versions are mostly a thing of sales figures. And that's the crux. A creative commons bands can never be measured that way, because they do not sell their music. - Do you think the article would be accepted here if I cited the download figures on Jamendo and the number of international concerts? --Micha L. Rieser (talk) 13:16, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
I think it will be an uphill battle. And, though it may not reflect the project in its best light, I think it will be even more difficult if the few sources you can cite are not in English. I have seen it go this way: No sources in English; belongs in <other> Wikipdia. That's not universally true but it happens. I would say, though, that sales figures aren't the only requirement. If you can show notability in some other way, that would be sufficient. WP:MUSIC, as I recall, establishes additional criteria that could show notability; it does not restrict WP:NOTABILITY but rather expands it.  Frank  |  talk  13:23, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I try to expand the article. I think if the additional criteria are suffied it will be discussed in a possible further deletion request. It is also a question of general estimation. Is there also a encyclopedic notability for artists of creative commons music and not only of artists of commercial music? If the answer is yes, there must be a notability for the few most successful musicians in this genre. And my opinion is that there is a notability for artists of creative commons music and in this case Pornophonique is one of the most important representative. --Micha L. Rieser (talk) 14:01, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Just keep in mind that notability is best demonstrated by sources that show it; our opinion carries less weight alone. If you create it, with sources, and it is nominated for deletion, then the discussion can be had. If it is recreated without sources and without a credible assertion of notability, that discussion can't be had. Also, don't forget WP:RA and WP:DRAW.  Frank  |  talk  14:32, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
I always use sources. I'm for an obligation of reliable sources of every article! But sources doesn't prove notability. It only prove the correctness of the content. Encyclopedic notability is an intersubjective definition an can never be objective. --Micha L. Rieser (talk) 16:04, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

"Prove" is such a subjective word as well. The point is that sources definitely support an assertion of notability. I agree that the definition of notability is subjective; the sources are required to meet that definition. The community can decide what it means at any given time. I don't always agree.  Frank  |  talk  16:10, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Children of Michael Jackson

This page needs to be SALT-ed. Unitanode 19:31, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Done; let me know if you need any fries with that :-)  Frank  |  talk  19:33, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Thank you, sir! Unitanode 19:57, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of 7Million

Hi Frank. Why did you delete my article about 7Million? It is no spam or advertisement, as it is an article about a released MMO which tousands of people are playing and interested in (Well obviously you are not). I am a big fan of the game and there simply is no article on Wikipedia at the moment. When I look into Wiki I can find several articles about games or MMOs which are not even released yet. Example Dragon Age: Origins, Ride to Hell,... So you should also delete all of them then.

What is the problem with the article?Thanks for the feedback and best,stefan —Preceding unsigned comment added by StefanEder (talk • contribs) 12:26, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

The article was strictly advertising and made no claim to WP:NOTABILITY whatsoever. The only two references in the article were the company's own web site and a fansite. These do not constitute significant coverage in independent media. Please see WP:CORP and in general, WP:NOTABILITY. Also, please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS for reasons why other articles are not important to this discussion. Still, having said that, both of the first of those articles does contain references from reliable sources, which the 7Million article did not.  Frank  |  talk  12:37, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Jerem43's RfA

Hi! I left a response to your comment in Jerem43's RfA page. I hope you don't take it too personally—I just really don't think that CrazyInSane needs people dismissing his comments and reminding him of his failed RfA right now. You can answer on my talk page or on the RfA page if you like. Thanks for understanding. Jafeluv (talk) 12:32, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

You're certainly entitled to your opinion. I made no judgment, nor did I dismiss the comment. I merely provided some context for its placement in the RfA, for the benefit of others in the discussion and the closing bureaucrat. The oppose looked mighty pointy to me, and obviously I wasn't the only one who felt that way. It's particularly damaging to the chances of an RfA being given a fair look when an oppose is entered so soon after it is transcluded.  Frank  |  talk  12:43, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Deletions

Sup y'all. Why you remove the page on comedy moustaches? Essential information, dude. Reconsider! —Preceding unsigned comment added by BoredOfMath (talk • contribs) 18:52, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello. I was trying to put up a page for CKR Interactive. I used an advertising agency that is up on wikipedia right now as a guideline. CKR's page that I wrote looked EXACTLY like the Bernard Hodes Group that is still left up. I do not understand. Please take off the speedy deletion for CKR Interactive and give me an exlpanation. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MChunhoon (talk • contribs) 19:02, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Please read WP:NOTABILITY and, in the case of CKR, WP:CORP. A subject must be notable before it can be included in Wikipedia, and that notability must be supported by citations from reliable sources.  Frank  |  talk  19:13, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
But still then, why is Bernard Hodes Group up? Nothing is wrong with that entry- despite the lack of references and being written like an advertisement? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MChunhoon (talk • contribs) 19:52, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
First of all, please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Following that, the fact is that the article you mention, Bernard Hodes Group, is a borderline article in itself. However, it does have hits in reliable, independent sources, shown here. CKR Interactive does not; it is either blog entries or press releases. (Check here).  Frank  |  talk  19:56, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your help so far. I was wondering though if I mentioned in the CKR Interactive posting that they were formerly known as the CKR Group if that would make a difference. Because in the google archive, which you directed me to for the Bernard Hodes Group the CKR Group has more references. http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=CKR+Group&btnG=Search+Archives&ne d=us&hl=en&scoring=a please let me know!MChunhoon (talk) 21:39, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't know...when you put quotes around it to search for the phrase "CKR Group", you only get three hits. Look, the fact is that most companies are not notable enough to have an article in Wikipedia. The community has set up policies which cover this, primarily at WP:CORP and, more generally, WP:NOTABILITY. I saw a reference recently to another site you might be interested in, and it has an article here; it's called MyWikiBiz. Alternatively, you might check out WP:RA or WP:DRAW to get others' opinions about an article here.  Frank  |  talk  22:39, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the recommendation! —Preceding unsigned comment added by MChunhoon (talk • contribs) 23:11, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of Colt Egelston

Why did you delete this page? He is a published scientist, the references were cited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peanutbutter25 (talk • contribs) 19:30, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Because there was no assertion of WP:NOTABILITY in the article. Publishing a scientific paper doesn't automatically qualify a person. Please see WP:ACADEMIC.  Frank  |  talk  19:33, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Aspirin poisoning

I guess not. Good spot. --candle•wicke 00:39, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not necessarily an expert; I just happened to have seen that article when it was split in the last day or two. I really don't know the protocol in this case.  Frank  |  talk  00:42, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
I believe it does not count in this case. It is an A5 I think. --candle•wicke 00:50, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi Frank. Thanks for the vandalism revert on my talk page. :) Timmeh 13:50, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

NP, we're all in this together :-)  Frank  |  talk  13:53, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Lionel Pincus

Hi there - you might want to check out a query I left at DYK re this article. Cheers. hamiltonstone (talk) 07:04, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: Bill Bradley

Replied on my talk page. Thanks. --Kbh3rdtalk 17:34, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Tried that before

I just wanted to let you know that I really wasn't trying to be an ass but I have tried the "get more with honey that you do with vineger" approach before several times over the last couple years and about 1 in 5 articles I create (which has been a couple hundred) get this corenbot message. Well intentioned or not after a while it draws on the nerves and becomes a bit irritating. By the way, since 1 do only get it about 1 in five times that bot isn't looking at the site all the time because in theory I should get the message every time not 1 in 5 and since I used an inline citation to a different site (the Army Medal of Honor site) I should not get it at all. --Kumioko (talk) 12:58, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

So you're upset because it doesn't tag your articles more often? And that makes it perfectly reasonable to tell another editor - a volunteer as you and I are - that he "needs to fix this"? I did look back to the last 500 edits on Coren's talk page and didn't see anywhere else you'd commented on this topic; maybe 500 edits isn't long enough but it just seemed a pretty strong message to lead with. I'm not involved; you'll get whatever response you get, but I thought it might be a better response with a different approach. Just my two cents.  Frank  |  talk  13:12, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the re-delete

Thanks for the re-delete of the Amanda Imani article. I was a little slow in tagging the article, but the article was deleted anyways.-- Dspradau → talk  15:09, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: Chip Israel

This page was marked for deletion as advertising, but it is modeled after the format and layout/topics of existing pages of other notable architectural lighting designers. I am new to this process and I don't want to insult your intelligence by reposting it. Please advise me how this is considered advertising, as compared the pages for Chip Israel's contemporaries Speirs and Major Associates, George Sexton, and Motoko Ishii after whose ‘legitimate’ wikipedia pages this page was modeled. I did try to conform to the Wikipedia standards and do this correctly, so I was surprised to see it deleted, but I’m sure I am not seeing the errors and want to make appropriate modifications prior to reposting. Thank you! Vero1982 (talk) 16:13, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I've looked at those three articles, and the first one is a good example of the right way to do it; please note that it has 14 sources, of which your article had none. The other two are borderline articles, and in point of fact may merit deletion themselves. But that is not of concern to you either way; if your article is about a notable subject then it belongs; if it is not, then it doesn't, and the fate of those two is not relevant. I would say to look for reliable sources to support an assertion of notability, and to tone down the promotional nature of the article significantly, as the Speirs article has (by comparison). I see you have a copy of the article in your user space to work on; I'll keep an eye on it and you can solicit advice from others as well. I would also say that it is hard to distinguish what the article is actually about; is it about the person or the alliance?
The overriding thing to keep in mind here is that I'm not saying the article can't exist. What I'm saying is that the original version was purely (or primarily, anyway) promotional in nature and not encyclopedic. That can be fixed, and if the subject is notable, it can remain. I will assist if requested, and/or you can check out WP:DRAW.  Frank  |  talk  16:42, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Great! Thanks. The person and the Alliance are one and the same. I'm new to this and appreciate the help, I tried to make a hybrid of those existing examples, not knowing which was more correct, and I think with this I can get closer to appropiate content with appropiate sources. Thank you!Vero1982 (talk) 20:47, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Lionel Pincus

Updated DYK query On July 21, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Lionel Pincus, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Royalbroil 00:00, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Frank, You removed two links from Mikvah. We had a discussion about this here and here. Do you disagree? -shirulashem(talk) 17:50, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I have no opinion about the discussions; I didn't see them prior to removing the links; I removed them because they are WP:SPAM links. Both sites require you on the front page to "log in" or "sign up" in order to proceed. They are not providing any information; they provide a service. Whether they get paid for it (directly or indirectly) is not material to the basic fact that they are spam links.  Frank  |  talk  18:18, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
I see your point, but the thing is that mymikvacalendar.com is not for profit organization so there is no form of income involved. --Ntb613 (talk) 20:07, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Ntb613, from what I can tell, there is actually a guideline that states, "A site that requires registration or a subscription should not be linked unless the web site itself is the topic of the article or is being used as an inline reference." However, this is a guideline and not a policy, which means that it is advisory but not compulsory. If there's a policy about this, I was unable to find it. -shirulashem(talk) 20:19, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Time-Traveling Jesus

I'm curious why my new page on the descriptive phrase Time-Traveling Jesus was deleted.

Splateaux (talk) 15:25, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

It was vandalism.  Frank  |  talk  15:30, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
We saw that in the initial description saying that it was deleted, but we couldn't tell which specific form of vandalism you thought it was. We're not trying to be abusive or destructive, but we've coined this new phrase, and would like to include it. The initial article did not have a lot of "meat" to it, but we were in the middle of correcting that. Splateaux (talk) 15:38, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Picking the right criterion under which to delete an article is sometimes a judgment call; this could also have been an WP:CSD#A7. Also, please see WP:NOT#OR.  Frank  |  talk  15:43, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Ahh... So, basically, the description needs to exist somewhere else, before being repeated on Wiki. Gotcha! Splateaux (talk) 16:01, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
That's only a start. It needs to be notable, and it needs to be published in reliable sources. There are any number of business and Youtube performers whose names would generate hundreds or even thousands of hits in a Google search, but they aren't automatically notable, and they often have never been mentioned in reliable sources. Blogs and fan sites generally don't count for establishing notability.  Frank  |  talk  16:23, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

An BLP violating IP you blocked on Sally Perdue

...is at it again on Duane Gish, which is one of his targets. I'd rather deal with him than have the page protected. Can you re-block? Auntie E. 15:50, 23 July 2009 (UTC) ETA: 204.169.161.1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Auntie E. 15:52, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I think those edits happened before the block, which is still in effect. Please let me know if you see otherwise.  Frank  |  talk  15:54, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Duh, sorry, I just realised that. Thanks anyway... Auntie E. 15:54, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

The Dr.Anantha Babbili page

Hello Frank....Thanks for recreating the page and redirecting it to Anantha Babbili. But can we have the new wiki page on google instead of the old page being redirected to the new page. when i type the name can i go to this link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anantha_Babbili) on google instead of (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dr.Anantha_Babbili). If you can delete the old page as soon as you can it would be of great help.

We have no control over how Google indexes pages, and Wikipedia isn't for promotion anyway.  Frank  |  talk  18:53, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Paul H. Carr (physicist)

Frank,

I would like to delete my birth date. I do not want to make it easy for anyone to steal my identity.

Thanks,

PaulCarr57 (talk) 21:15, 23 July 2009 (UTC)PaulCarr57

The information is freely available in any public library, which is how it got into the article in the first place. If you look at biographical articles in Wikipedia, you'll see it is standard practice to include them. I don't know of a policy that allows such information to be removed as you are requesting.  Frank  |  talk  21:43, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
I have asked for additional eyes on this question.  Frank  |  talk  21:50, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

BLP

I noticed that you appear to have quite a heavy involvement in biographies including BLPs. While this is great, and it is good that you asked for a third opinion on WP:BLP/N as I noted there I am concerned that you may not be that familiar with BLP policy. The section addresing birthdays has existed for quite a long time, e.g. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons&oldid=139341289#Privacy_of_birthdays) and specifically mentioned identity theft as one of the reasons why editors should take care when considering whether to include the information. Therefore unless you've done so recently, I would like to strongly suggest you do read our BLP sometime soon to ensure you're more familiar with details such as this. Cheers Nil Einne (talk) 14:10, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I replied there, and I believe this particular matter to be closed. If you believe there is any issue with my application of WP:BLP policy, I would appreciate you letting me know. It is, as you noted, something I focus on and I do take it quite seriously.  Frank  |  talk  15:10, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Just wanted to say thanks for helping to sort through those lists of articles. It's much appreciated. –Juliancolton | Talk 05:17, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

No problem at all. We're all in this together. And thanks for your work on it too!  Frank  |  talk  12:46, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your help

I appreciate your stepping in with Ethelh. I hope you don't mind, but I'm going to be removing her frivolous warning. I'm posting a note to you, since you were kind enough to step in and respond to it while I was sleeping. Unitanode 14:36, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

No problem!  Frank  |  talk  14:37, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for King Mondo

An editor has asked for a deletion review of King Mondo. 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. Exxolon (talk) 21:16, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Richard William Aguirre

Hi Frank, thanks for taking the time with my article, and sorry for my learning curve with WP. I am requesting userfication so that I can continue to build the Richard William Aguirre article and present a reliably sourced verifiable version of the article to DRV so that it will be uncontroversial to undelete the article. Thank you again (Sdpolitics (talk) 09:11, 29 July 2009 (UTC))


WP:BLP

I'm sorry, but I am missing something here. What are you asserting is the BLP bar? "MOT asserted by himself" is arguably the BLP category bar -- but there is nothing that indicates that it is the BLP text bar. I am committed to upholding the BLP bar -- but perhaps we disagree as to what it is. All Unitanode has pointed to in making his deletions of text is the bar for categories -- that is simply not the test here. What is the "BLP bar" that you are referring to?--Ethelh (talk) 02:50, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:BLP, WP:SYNTH, WP:OR, and, yes - WP:BLPCAT, even if this currently relates to the text of an article.  Frank  |  talk  03:05, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, but as discussed at the talk page and ANI and above,
  1. BLPCAT by its own terms is wholly inapplicable to textual deletes. If you have any evidence to the contrary, I would be interested in seeing it. But it by its own language BLPCAT (which, of course, stands for "categories") refers only to deletion of categories, for the reasons mentioned.
  2. This meets BLP, with now 6 reliable sources, including a writer for major league baseball's official publication, an organization licensed by Major League Baseball to put out baseball cards of Major League Jewish baseball players, and an organization that checked with Fuld or his representative and was told that it was appropriate to refer to him in the publication as Jewish.
  3. No synthesis is engaged in or required, as the statements from now 6 reliable sources are that Fuld is Jewish.
  4. No original research has been engaged in.

--Ethelh (talk) 05:47, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Frank, this is fast becoming little more than WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, and quite futile. She's not going to concede that stating "X is Jewish" when X has never made a statement saying that is a BLP problem. She's demanding that BLPCAT be applied ONLY to categories, even though it's crystal clear that if a Jewish category can't be placed on an article without a statement of such from the subject, then a statement in the article text itself (which is MUCH higher-profile than a simple category) is wildly inappropriate. At some point, we simply have to say, "This is a BLP issue, and if you continue to add the text, it will be reverted on sight." Unitanode 05:56, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Actually there is a different standard for text. It meets that standard. As to why, a simple perusing of the draftspeople of the two make is clear. The cats lack citations indicating why a person is in the cat -- that is the reason for the higher standard (which began only as an effort to avoid upsetting people who were said to be gay while they were not ... and was then extended to religion ... though the line was drawn when it was considered that perhaps it should be extended to ethnicity (e.g., does Tiger Woods have to self identify as being African American). Text has citations (when people do their job), which indicates the basis of the support for the statement -- hence the clearly stated different standard. In short, different standards exist, and in this case there was a thought-through reason for establishing different standards for the two.--Ethelh (talk) 06:19, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
      Actually, stating -- as a fact, not even by attribution -- "X is <Jewish, Muslim, Christian, gay, bisexual, or whatever>" is actually worse than simply having it in a category, because the average reader doesn't know -- or even give a damn -- about our categories. But they read our articles. It's as obvious as it could be that BLPCAT is not meant to be construed narrowly in this case. I have to make this my last post to you, as it's getting frustrating to simply have you ignore significant BLP issues that have been raised by multiple editors. Unitanode 12:31, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
    • As discussed at the ANI, that's not the case. As is also discussed, as the history of the guideline shows one editor made the suggestion that the test of the person so-stating their religion be extended from category tags -- the current guideline -- to the text. That proposal was not accepted. It is, as you say, "as obvious as it could be" that BLPCAT applies to category tags, and category tags only. If the intent had been different, it would not have been so limited by its very terms.
The whole matter is curious in any event. As written, if I have supporting references in the WSJ I can assert in the category tag that you are a terrorist and have AIDS, but a higher standard is applied before I can assert in the category tag that you are Protestant. A curious result.--Ethelh (talk) 09:38, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
As I mentioned when you posted nearly this exact thing in a different area, any attempt to synthesize sources claiming a person as a "member of the tribe" will be reverted on sight as a BLP violation. You reported me for edit-warring in that regard, and were flatly rejected, which should tell you something. Unitanode 14:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Meetup/DC_7#Photo

I met some of these folks at the NYC wikiconference, and I'm really looking forward to the next DC meetup, which might be in early September ... in fact, the date is always negotiable, which is why I'm here. Would you be interested in a shortish or longish DC Meetup, and if so, which date, and would you like a ride up there? - Dank (push to talk) 12:58, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Might tag along but probably not going to make a plan or pick a date; honestly too busy with other stuff. But if you zero in on something as we get closer to it, let me know.  Frank  |  talk  13:10, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Sure thing. - Dank (push to talk) 13:19, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Aitias

As you participated in the first RFC, I am informing you there is a second RFC on Aitias currently open. Majorly talk 16:09, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Newbie

OK, I take notice of your remarks on my page, and I am trying to conscientize myself about my shortcomings of style and improve it. On the other hand I hope you also acknowledge that it is natural to feel it as a personal attack to ignore my arguments and policy-references by not referring to them in your answers. It may also be interpreted as disrespectful as a personal attack. If you are in the position of administrator or regular editor with certain discretionary power then it goes along with a responsibility for extra consideration and courtesy, inconsistent with e.g. just ondoing edits prior to one-way discussion. I am also thinking of the less known dynamics of social relationships as found in Hannah Arendt's book "On violence". The analog of violence on the written arena is a certain awakened emotionality which you label as borderline personal attacks or personal jibes which you only can meet with a masterful "this habit has to stop". And, finally, I think about Wikipedia:Newbie:

  • 1. Remember, our motto and our invitation to the newcomer is be bold. We have a set of rules, standards, and traditions, but they must not be applied in such a way as to thwart the efforts of newcomers who take that invitation at face value.
  • 2. When giving advice, tone down the rhetoric a few notches from the usual mellow discourse that dominates Wikipedia. Make the newcomer feel genuinely welcome, not as though they must win your approval in order to be granted membership into an exclusive club.
  • 3. Acknowledge differing principles and be willing to reach a consensus.
  • 4. Listen actively.
  • 5. Choose to learn from the incident.
  • 6. Find something of value in the experience. Extract the wisdom that may have been unintentionally veiled.
  • 7. You yourself violate Wikipedia's guidelines and policies when you attack a new user for ignorance of them.

On occasion you may wish to tell me whether you have learnt from the incident, or whether you found something of value in the experience. Thank you. Stefanson (talk) 16:24, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Mercedes Rose

Hi, I see why you deleted the page; do you want mw to recreate it without the copyrihgted paragraph?--Launchballer (talk) 06:01, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, it can't be in Wikipedia if it violates copyright. However, the subject must also be notable, so keep that in mind. Try WP:RA or WP:DRAW for assistance.  Frank  |  talk  12:31, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
The subject is notable. I've got six different provided sources (albeit two are from other Wiki's and another is from Youtube, the other three are impeccable though) to confirm its notability.--Launchballer (talk) 12:28, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
OK, here's what I saw in the article:
By my count, that's one YouTube, two wikis, one IMDB, and two promotional sites, for a grand total of zero independent, reliable sources. The IMDB and personal web sites could be useful as supporting material, but not as the only references in a biographical article. The lack of independent citations in reliable sources makes me question notability. I'm only questioning though; I am not saying this definitively. Please locate more and better sources; you can also check WP:RA and WP:DRAW for ideas, opinions, and assistance.  Frank  |  talk  16:08, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't know if this is reliable or not…--Launchballer (talk) 19:59, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't think so. But you can check out WP:RS and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard for guidance.  Frank  |  talk  20:03, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll watchlist the two links.--Launchballer (talk) 12:45, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/ThaddeusB

I wanted to take a moment to delivery a personal thank you (not "thank spam" :)) for your involvement in my RfA. (It passed 117-2-7 in case you hadn't seen.) I was especially flattered by your kind words about demeanor and my understanding of Wikipedia. I only hope I can continue to serve the community well in my new role.

Thanks again, ThaddeusB (talk) 16:59, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

AFD?

I thought that high schools are automatically notable but not junior high schools or elementary schools.

I do not want to cause trouble but I do think we should treat all situations the same without favoritism.

What do you think about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Hill_Elementary_School User F203 (talk) 22:57, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I think that if you believe an article should be nominated for deletion, you should nominate it!  Frank  |  talk  02:53, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Heh

This comment surprised me, as I believe the last time we interacted was in August of last year, when Pedro was directing me to possible admin coaches. Nice to see you again. :) ceranthor 15:19, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't recall that interaction, but I can say that your talk page is one of those that does not get culled when I go through the list to trim down.  Frank  |  talk  15:41, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
You're welcome, I think. ceranthor 19:28, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Now I'm confused...unless I should be amused... :-) Anyway, I hope the comment didn't upset you. I thought I was being supportive of something that someone needlessly took you to task for.  Frank  |  talk  19:55, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, and I thank you for that. :) It's okay, I'm often taken to task for things I don't do, but that is just part of being a person. ceranthor 22:49, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Yep, I have that problem too :-) Cheers!  Frank  |  talk  15:06, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Reply

That's fine, but what about the user removing the whois template from User talk:70.127.200.220, the pattern of personal attacks and vandalism from both the IP account and the registered user account, plus editing in violation of the block? Wildhartlivie (talk) 13:53, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

That's another story, but let's use the proper channels. This is getting personal; don't get stressed out. I'll look into it or ask others to do so; thanks for the pointer.  Frank  |  talk  13:57, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. This started from this person vandalizing another page and making attacks. I will go ahead and deal with the bizarre renaming of the Ben Stiller page to Boon Stiller by someone else. Wildhartlivie (talk) 14:01, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jason1960.  Frank  |  talk  14:10, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. I think it's sufficient, given what the summaries/contributions show. Wildhartlivie (talk) 15:13, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Brookhaven Ampitheater

What I was doing was moving it from the incorrect spelling to the correct spelling of Brookhaven Amphitheater. Let me know if i am doing something wrong. thanks. --Neighborhoodpalmreader (talk) 16:46, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

The way to do that is to use the "move" button at the top of the page. I'll take care of it. Thanks!  Frank  |  talk  16:48, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Done now. Please keep in mind that for WP:GFDL reasons, copy-and-paste moves are discouraged, because they do not attribute the previous work of others. Moving the page keeps the entire history of the article intact. It's not much, but it goes back to August 2008 and by copying and pasting, that history would not have been preserved.  Frank  |  talk  16:52, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, I was not aware of the move function, I will be sure to do that the next time a similar situation arises. --Neighborhoodpalmreader (talk) 16:54, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
No problem. One neat feature of the MediaWiki software is that when such a move is done, a redirect is left behind by default. (You can check a box to not leave the redirect.) Feel free to play around with it in your userspace.  Frank  |  talk  16:56, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Jim Garrison

ah, thanks for bringing that to m yattention. I had read the article but I didnt notice that he was already dead when that happened. My worry was that tit might offend his family or his friends or posibly his estate: Although this policy specifically applies to the living, material about deceased individuals must still comply with all other Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Prompt removal of questionable material is proper. The burden of evidence for any edit rests firmly on the shoulders of the editor adding or restoring the material. This applies to verifiability of sources, and to all content policies and guidelines. Smith Jones 17:32, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

The text you removed was The Garrison investigation had largely faded into obscurity{{Citation needed}}, until Oliver Stone's film was released in 1991, which depicted Garrison as a hero. First of all, when he died isn't the issue; the point of my comment is that BLP applies to living persons. As to the claim being "offensive", I just don't see how that would be regarded as offensive. If the investigation really faded into obscurity, then it did. The key point here - as everywhere on Wikipedia - is verifiability. That's why someone put the tag on there - not because it might be offensive, but because it's the sort of statement that can be sourced. (In fact, it seems possible that it would be unnecessarily complimentary to say that he was depicted as a hero.)  Frank  |  talk  18:08, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
see, i Understand what your saying and now that I ahve gone back I realize that you were right. However, what I THOUGHT AT THE TIME was that it can be offensive to Mr Garrisons friends and families by either implying that one of his major accomplsihments in his career was a joke OR that it might offend the man he put on trial by implying that it didnt matter. Now that you pointed out that he was dead I took the liberty of reverting my own deletion as vandalism and putting a warning on my talk page. I apologize for my error and ia ssure you It Won't not happen again. 18:25, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
It wasn't vandalism and a warning isn't necessary. Just keep it in mind for the future and the matter is closed!  Frank  |  talk  18:31, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
thank you but its' important to be tough in situations like this and be swift with punishment becuase mistakes have been made over less. Thank you for your time and patience!! Smith Jones 22:31, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia isn't about punishment. Don't sweat it.  Frank  |  talk  22:32, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
if you will insist, then okay! I'll downgrade the warning a little Smith Jones 00:39, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: reverting user:Jeff G. on Caffeine

Thank you for contacting me on that. My point was this: every priority article is being watched by several recent change patrollers, including myself, at any given moment, who examine every edit made. Therefore, I believe edits merely adding a space character and rearranging tags in a citation template (like the one you pointed at) have questionable value, as they distract RCPers, swell the article history and increase the burden on WP servers (keeping every revision). Note also that all priority pages (GAs and alike) are being regularly brushed up using AWB. I admit my revert was impolite and apologize for that. I would also like to hear your opinion on this matter, which does worry me as RCPer who daily goes through at least several such edits. Materialscientist (talk) 00:04, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I think that if an edit improves an article, and an editor feels the edit should be made, then the fact that a page is a "priority page" should not be a consideration. I don't think we should make edits just for the sake of editing, but this one clearly did not do that, and in fact it looked to me like it was not rearranging tags but rather eliminating duplicate parameters in the template. Regardless - the RCP aspect shouldn't enter into it. Now, if an edit is otherwise stepping on some policy, such as edit warring or something that is actually counter-productive, that would be a different story, but this doesn't fall into that category.
Many of us who contribute to the project go through edits of others which are less than helpful to the project. Obviously there is outright vandalism, but in addition there are the edits that people really believe are helping the article, such as "I saw <insert celebrity name here> last week at the state fair." These are certainly a problem. But to say that eliminating a parameter and adding a formatting space are not up to par because they waste time of recent change patrollers doesn't square with any policy I know of, which is part of why I contacted you. (You've addressed the rest, at least to me, although I wasn't the affected party.) I'm also not sure what you mean by pages are regularly brushed up using AWB; that was what the edit you undid was, so it's not clear what you were referring to.  Frank  |  talk  12:28, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
It was a single moment of "getting tired of" on my side, and hope I have explained that to you and to the affected user. I understand your message above, but my issue is somewhat different: it is not about novices, it is between experienced editors, who know policies, real practice and have common sense how to apply those policies. I understand that newcomers should not be discouraged from editing. My point is that many experienced editors do massive sweep of the pages, either manually or using AWB. Their intention is good (I hope, there are cases when I suspect sheer hunting for edit numbers, again, without pointing to anyone), no slight there, but the results are often a couple of spaced added per article or alike. Article history swells, WP servers swell. I thought common sense should be exercised and such behavior discouraged. Materialscientist (talk) 12:43, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
I didn't get that impression, especially since your "single moment" was at least two edits that were aimed at the same editor. This isn't about discouraging newbies, and I think if you have a legitimate concern to raise, the best place would have been on the talk page of the editor you were addressing in the edit summaries. Also, you may be interested to read Wikipedia:Don't worry about performance.  Frank  |  talk  12:59, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Reply to your last message about Sixteen Cities

Can I show you a very polite, yet completely factual message I just wrote to one of the editors who deleted it? It is not rude at all, yet it is kind of long, but if you would allow me to show it to you, I would be very appreciative. Tell me if you would like me to post it on your talk page or mine. Swayze (talk) 16:21, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

No, it wasn't an email, it was on their talk page, but me and Ironholds are getting it worked out so nvm. —Preceding unsigned comment added by His warrior (talk • contribs) 17:27, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Meetup/DC 8

Update: apparently people are converging on Sept 26 as the date for the next DC meetup. I can't make it that weekend. I'll give you a holler if I see any interest in an NC meetup. - Dank (push to talk) 14:51, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't be able to make that one either; keep me posted. Thanks!  Frank  |  talk  15:38, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Will do. - Dank (push to talk) 15:47, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Are you sure?

There will probably be a couple hundred. I don't want to make a HUGE backlog to the CSD category. ZooFari 17:32, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Outside review and edit

Please see User talk:Allstarecho#Copyvio in Devin Britton, and then have a look at the article and see what you can find copyvio. The article was cleared from the checklist and I'm not coming up with anything but since it's being questioned, I'd prefer someone else look at it and edit it as needed if anything is found. Thanks. -     allstar▼echo     01:04, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Will do; glad to help if I can. Thanks for asking. May take a day. Frank  |  talk  02:22, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Ted Kennedy

Why did you remove the mention of the Chappaquiddick incident from the leader of the Ted Kennedy article? That was a major and transformative incident of Kennedy's life, and no rational person would think otherwise. Maybe liberals like you want to ignore Kennedy's defects, but readers of Wikipedia should not be deprived of that opportunity. You made a terrible mistake that shows your bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.13.213.117 (talk) 21:27, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

It's just not important enough to his life to put in the lede. It is covered in appropriate detail later in the article - including a section heading - and the event has its own separate article as well. Aside from that, there's no cite for it being the reason he didn't garner the 1980 nomination, as is currently being claimed. It's hard to prove a negative. We can say he didn't win the nomination, but perhaps it was because he was running against a sitting president rather than that incident. We just don't know. I made the judgment call that it's not worthy of the lede; others have since made a different decision.  Frank  |  talk  05:34, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Response

(regarding this message):

I am not new. I have been poking around for a few years, mostly reading but occasionally making a change. Of course, if the standard for being not new is hanging around here every day, I am new.

Everything I wrote is reasonable. If there is something you hate, let me know. I am not trying to make Ted Kennedy as bad as Satan or good as Jonas Salk. Dellcomputermouse (talk) 15:54, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

There's nothing I "hate". Edits need to comply with policies; that's my only interest.  Frank  |  talk  16:04, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Really? I hate being punched in the stomach. Or if people try sneaky ways to "punch" people in the stomach. I remember seeing a few months ago someone write something about his or her company. Very factual, not an advertisement. But there was some indication that the person was an employee. Maybe it was a mention on their talk page. Someone blocked them forever. It seemed that the blocking administrator seemed (by their edits) to be an anti-corporate person. I've forgotten most of the details but that's too sneaky in my book. Dellcomputermouse (talk) 16:25, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Editing against policy can result in a WP:BLOCK. Also, whether or not the edits were factual is quite beside the point. Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. See WP:V, one of our core policies.  Frank  |  talk  16:32, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Effects on airline security

Concern about bombs possibly concealed in shoes led to the new requirement of all airline passengers having to pass through security in socks or bare feet while their shoes were scanned for bombs.[12]

I am fearful that the real reason for opposition is that some people don't want anything mentioned about Wikipedia. However, this shows that Wikipedia is responsive and addresses problems, which is a good trait. It also shows how important Teddy Kennedy was. There are places where people report fake information so it happens thousands of times a year. Yet, when it happened to Ted Kennedy, it got things moving.

What is your advice? I think the advice is to let those who are aggressive win. Go do what you (meaning you and others, not just you specifically) want. Call Ted a Communist and a drunk. That would be bad but if some people want it and stick around enough, I won't fight them. Dellcomputermouse (talk) 20:00, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

My advice is to edit according to policy. Trying to show how important Kennedy was by quoting something about Jimmy Wales' response to an event in January is not within policy. It has nothing to do with people not wanting anything mentioned about Wikipedia. As for aggression, I'm sorry you see it that way; I don't consider that to be the case but I'm only one editor. Opinions may differ. It is true that people start and stop editing over individual issues around here; it happens all the time.  Frank  |  talk  22:05, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Frank/Archive_5&oldid=1143007688"