User talk:Frank/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Chuck Hustmyre

Hmm. Well, I wouldn't say that he really met the criteria for notability as listed in WP:CREATIVE. If having a few books published was in itself notable, I'd have a wikipedia article myself. My main concern - though admittedly not the reason I gave for deletion - was that it looked terribly like self-promotion. The references were not independent. It had also been speedied previously. Deb (talk) 22:37, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'd agree based on the way I phrased the question. Perhaps instead of Amazon I should have checked Worldcat. I got 94 and 77 hits. Clearly we're not talking about John Grisham's 3000+, but at what point do you think notability is determined? I usually go by whether or not the title(s) are self-published and/or vanity-published, which these do not appear to be.

Regarding the previous CSD, it was a correct A7, more than a year before this recent recreation of the article, which was substantially longer. As for self-promotion - I totally agree, and throw in a helping of WP:COI as well...but are these reasons for CSD? (Some of the obvious problems were addressed to the author on the talk page as well, by others.)

I hope you take my discussion on this as exactly that - discussion. I'm a relatively new with the mop (4 months) and I don't claim to always be right. To me this is a borderline case; I'm not trying to badger you but really just asking for the sake of refining my own opinion on this. Frank | talk 01:28, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I quite agree with you that it is borderline. In my opinion it is on the speedy deletion side of the border, not because the author is not notable but because notability is not demonstrated by the article itself. The creator clearly could ask for a deletion review if he wanted. Lots of people do, and I would probably opt out of the discussion if he did. Consensus is always better. Deb (talk) 12:48, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for Welcome

I appreciated your welcome note and the helpful information for new users. It has certainly pointed me in the right direction! Thanks for all your work. Aclayartist (talk) 17:47, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

My pleasure. I did have a question about your edits to Mark - it seems you've created a redirect back to itself. Typically disambiguation pages list other pages in the encyclopedia, not back to themselves...at least that's the way I've seen it. Can you clarify what you're intending with that Maker's Mark page? Thanks! Frank | talk 19:44, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I intended to have the note redirect (at least the portion about makers' marks) to ceramic arts. I noticed there was no information about makers' marks which are a pretty big deal in the ceramics arts field, and I think is a pretty interesting topic. I hoped at a later date, when I am more comfortable working in Wikipedia, to add an article specifically about Marks. I am still learning how this Wikipedia system works and may have made a mistake through ignorance. If you have any coaching, I welcome it! Aclayartist (talk) 15:18, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I see two possibilities (there may be others as well): add a section to ceramic art about makers' marks (or "maker's mark", as appropriate), or create a new article, preferably in your own user space first, and then move it to the main space. Then we can redirect from the disambiguation page to the appropriate target. There's a link in the welcome message I sent you about "Your first article" but you might just start with a section in an existing article. If I can help, let me know. Frank | talk 15:35, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Square Enix Music Online

Hi Frank,

I noticed the deletion of Square Enix Music Online. I agree that the fansite is not notable and that its numerous copyright violations are problematic--the site is in no way affiliated with companies Square Enix or Square Enix Music. I was interested to know why it is listed in the number one or two spots in the external links sections of various composer pages.

For instance, this week links to Square Enix Music Online were added by IP address 129.67.117.245 to eight separate pages, including the page for Kō Ōtani, a composer who has not written music for any Square Enix titles in the past. This instance of deference to Square Enix Music Online seems somewhat unfair to other fansites that would honestly wish to treat Wikipedia as a repository of links, were it not for their consideration for respecting the greater online community.

Please allow me to thank you for your time. Jeriaska (talk) 19:53, 31 October 2008 (UTC)Jeriaska

That page was deleted over three months ago, after a deletion discussion. I was not the deleting administrator, although I did nominate it for deletion. The community consensus was that it was not notable. If you can establish that it is, then recreating the article would be appropriate. If you wish to contest the deletion of the article, please visit deletion review, which is the forum for reviewing deletions. Frank | talk 20:04, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the community consensus that it was not notable. I'm wondering why, if this is the case, the site is listed on the external links section of pages unrelated to Square Enix. Jeriaska (talk) 17:33, 1 November 2008 (UTC)Jeriaska

You'd have to check on those pages to determine if it was appropriate to add the link. I wouldn't automatically assume that because a site doesn't have enough notability to have its own article that it would not be appropriate to have an external link to it. On the other hand, it's quite possible that external links were added in violation of WP:PROMOTION; again, they'd have to be checked individually. I say go for it. Frank | talk 19:14, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the links were removed, citing WP:NOTREPOSITORY. The fansite undid the revision. User Semoderm just added links to Square Enix Music Online to the top of the external links sections of an additional twelve pages, including non-Square Enix composers Hirokazu Tanaka, Akira Yamaoka and Manabu Namiki. This makes a total of twenty pages in a week. Is there an admin that might possibly have time to take a look at this? Jeriaska (talk) 19:31, 3 November 2008 (UTC)Jeriaska

I'm not sure what you want looked at. If you think an editor is adding content inappropriately, you should contact that editor directly. Frank | talk 19:33, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Rollback

Thanks for your action Frank, and for the feedback regarding my two recent edit summaries. I've added another comment to the editor's talk page for the "chris shay" reversion. In regard to the second summary, I doubt there's anything I can do for "Rex", but hopefully that editor isn't heading for another block on that address. --Zigger «º» 17:08, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I saw your comment already; looked good. Now we need to check for sources :-) On the other one, I was amused; I was just pointing out that some editors think everything has to be 100% serious around here. I think it can be serious with a little humor every so often. Cheers! Frank | talk 17:38, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Thank you for participating in my RfA, which recently passed with 126 in support, 22 in opposition and 6 neutral votes.

Thanks for your support in my RFA!!
• If you want to reply to this message please use my talk page as watch listing about 150 pages is a bit messy •
·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 23:01, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Reply

I was assuming that it was the same user (and thus a sockpuppet of) Verystages (talk · contribs), who I had just blocked a few minutes earlier for vandalism. There could also be a connection to Metabane (talk · contribs). Khoi khoi 21:05, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I got an email; apparently User:Ohnoitsjamie did as well. Don't know if there's any relation. Was just commenting that I noticed; I kinda felt like blocking but wasn't sure about it. Just keeping in the loop, I guess. Cheers! Frank | talk 21:07, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Apparently so did GraemeL. So I could be wrong then, but regardless the account should remain blocked. :-) Khoi khoi 21:11, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

User:CAR Online

Hi Frank, not to step on your toes, but if an account is given a final warning for spamming, and returns a few months later to spam the same website, I don't think we need to "remind" them of what we told them earlier in the year, nor give them a pass because we didn't happen to catch it the same day he did it. In a similar situation a few weeks ago, I was kind of a dick to Tanthalas and just blocked an account he had commented on but not blocked. Don't want to do that again, so I'll ask if you've got a problem with me blocking the account? Your call, I'll leave it if you want me to. --barneca (talk) 17:53, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Bottom line/short answer: I don't object. Go ahead and block if you wish.

Explanation: I've been getting the feeling that I've been seeing more reports at AIV that aren't worthy; people want to shoot first and ask questions later...and often they aren't even interested in the asking part. (This is on the part of users, mind you, not admins.) Lots of "this is your only warning" or skipping straight to "this is your final warning" on really minor vandalism edits. (Not the blatant F-U sorts, mind you.) Here's someone who went away for six months and put one external link for a magazine; I kinda figured the reminder looks like it did the trick. I truly think of vandals as kids who do, despite our best efforts, need to be told "yes, we're serious" every so often. I also think that blocking the account has the chance of resulting in a sock, maybe 3 months more down the road, maybe a year...more complication for us.

Having said all that - again, the short answer applies: block if you see fit, I'm totally cool with it. I even considered if a username block was in order, edits aside. It's borderline on both issues. If you feel more strongly, I've said as much as needs to be said (more, probably) and won't raise any ruckus. Thanks for asking! Frank | talk 18:03, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree AIV gets a lot of too-early reports, and there have been a lot of {{uw-vandalism4im}} warnings for "hi mom" edits. Also, there are a lot of "you wimpy admins should resign if you won't block this IP address indef" complaints. But in this particular case, I'm going to block indef because it's not so much test edits, as a resumption of spamming another website; the same website they spammed alot earlier this year. Also, in general I don't agree with the "not editing right now" approach for accounts. it makes sense for Ip editors, since we have no reason to think the same person will be back. But for an account, we do. Thanks for the comments, and I'm going to block indef, with your kind permission. --barneca (talk) 19:35, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Not a problem at all. I should also have added that being relatively new myself, and not feeling strongly on this one, the opportunity to discuss and refine doesn't hurt either. Thanks! Frank | talk 19:54, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Cherokee Language Changes

Frank, I am still very new to editing and navigating through Wikipedia, so please do not take anything that I have done as vandalism, much less trying to post a message here for you to read. To that end, I have tried to research and deduce the correct procedure to respond to you and this is the solution to which I arrived.

However, my changes should hardly have been labelled vandalism by you, the Wikipedia definition being: “Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. The most common types of vandalism include the addition of obscenities or crude humor, page blanking, or the insertion of nonsense into articles. Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism.”

Regardless of what you thought of my changes, which were changing “more closely” to “closer” and “more widely” to “wider” could hardly fit that definition.

As to my changes, they were and still are correct and are grammatical fact, as opposed to two different ways to state the same thing. I noticed that your background is in Science and Industrial Technology, as opposed to English and English grammar. If the situation were reversed and you had made changes to lines of code in a program, I would have endeavoured to learn something about programming language and what you were changing before rendering judgment. Likewise, I provided enough information in my change summary to lead you to learn something about comparatives and superlatives and it is unfortunate that you did not.

Words fall into two different categories and none are in both: Words are either –er, -est comparatives and superlatives, or they are more, most. You probably would not and should not ever say “my ladder is more high than yours” and “my ladder is the most high.” You would say, correctly, “my ladder is higher than yours” and “my ladder is the highest.” Common mistakes among native English speakers are to say and write, “more likely,” “more widely,” and “funner,” and “funnest.” The word “fun,” funnily, is a more, most comparative and superlative, as opposed to funny, which is “funnier” and “funniest.”

Again, I do not write any of this with malice, but rather to follow the Wikipedia stated goal to “Wikipedia:Be_bold_in_updating_pages.” A simple search on the Internet will give you lots of information on comparatives and superlatives, or simply finding the words at www.Dictionary.com will also let you know into which category words fall when using them as comparatives and superlatives. If you find the word with –er, -est on its suffix then it falls into that category and if not, then it must be more, most.

I now ask that you return my changes to the pages. Shawnbgreene (talk) 20:28, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Shawn - thanks for your detailed, considered message on these edits. However, I must respectfully disagree on the point of English grammar. Please read the sentences in full by checking out your edit. The operative grammar rule here is that the adverb phrase more clearly is modifying the verb differentiates in the sentence. To change it to "differentiates clearer" is anything but clear and does not follow any English grammatical rule I am familiar with.

My characterization of your edits with the word "vandalism" is not based on any single edit itself; rather, the several changes you've made under the guise of "grammar fixes" are viewed as incorrect by more than one editor (myself included). Persistent introduction of errors or edits against consensus is a form of vandalism. Please make sure to remember that Wikipedia is about consensus as much as anything, and while none of us may be able to achieve the exact wording we want all the time, we do have to strive to achieve something that we can agree on. The best forum for a change in wording of this type would be on the talk page of the article.

Again, thanks for your message, and I would be glad to help you with any questions you have about using and contributing to Wikipedia. Frank | talk 20:48, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the support!

Thanks for supporting my successful Rfa! Hope to work with you more in the future! Your thoughtful comments were well-appreciated, I think.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 19:57, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Robert Conrad

Frank, I've reversed your deletion in the Robert Conrad entry for his friendship with mafia hitman/murderer Tony Spilotro. You deleted because it was "uncited". All you had to do was go to Google and Google " 'Robert Conrad' 'Spilotro' " and it is the very first entry - in an interview he gave. It's quite well known. You didn't even bother to do even a minimum of research. I notice this a lot in Wikipedia - people deleting things they know nothing about, on subjects they know nothing about, and not bothering to do any research. For the record, I don't delete or even modify anything if I do not know the subject matter quite well. I don't know why you edited this out - you obviously know very little about Robert Conrad. Anyway, I've put it back in, with the very first link I found, which was the very first entry that comes up on Google when you put in both their names. Duh. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.127.155 (talk) 15:07, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for finding a citation for that article so that the information could be properly added in a verifiable way. Since you clearly have way more experience with Wikipedia, its policies and the five pillars, I can see that you immediately understood why that information was a blatant violation of the biography of living persons policy which must be strictly adhered to, and that I removed it because it was uncited and Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. I appreciate your efforts to clean up the project; we're all here for the same reason. Thanks again! Frank | talk 15:52, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

No, actually, we're not here for the same reason. I don't have a lot of experience with Wikipedia, and I'm not here to do lots of work on Wikipedia, and I don't read their policies (would take too much time - not really interested - I'm an armchair reader/editor of Wikipedia). What I find with Wikipedia these days, is, to find out some detail/meat on a subject, one has to go to the edits and look at stuff that has been deleted. There seems to be a huge effort by people to delete stuff on subjects they know nothing about. I just got through going around in circles with a guy (I think he was also a Wikipedia administrator) where he deleted all sorts of stuff from the bio of Anthony Senter (a convicted Lucchese/Gambino mobster doing life for multiple murders). The whole bio was taken from a well-known book called "Murder Machine" and it was referenced at the bottom under "References", but this guy wanted everything deleted if it didn't have a citation at the end of each sentence. I had to tell him that the entire article came from that one book (and it's a good book, written by a well-known NY crime reporter). What the guy/administrator should have done is first known the subject matter then edit - that way, he would have known that the whole thing was in fact already referenced at the bottom. I tried putting in a few links but I couldn't get them to work (somebody else fixed them). It's really too much work to go around and around in circles with these guys (they seem to be "busybodies") as they delete and delete and delete, when in fact the items are either (1) well known to anybody that knows the subject matter (like Conrad's friendship with Spilotro), or (2) they are very easily found. The way you are running things here at Wikipedia, the only entries will be made by administrators like yourself who know Wikipedia's syntax, etc. You will either not get edits from people like me, or, if you do, they will be deleted. I have no interest in spending the time to become a Wikipedia administrator or Wikipedia edit expert. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.127.155 (talk) 16:12, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I guess I misunderstood your intentions. Perhaps you should avoid editing if you're "not really interested" in understanding our policies. Frank | talk 16:32, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I see must have touched a raw nerve with you - you are now following me around. Why not delete all the other stuff in Eddie Lampert's bio that is unsourced? Oh, I see, you are not really being professional at this - you are being a busybody and just want to follow me around. Fine, I'll go unplug my router for a few minutes and go get a new IP. It is people like you that limit the usefulness of Wikipedia. Oh, and by the way, I didn't get that bit about Lampert losing money from a "source" - it's original authorship - all you have to do is punch in SHLD and C in any quote site. How do you "cite" that - the link would just take someone to a quote site - they reader probably wouldn't even know the ticker symbols for Sears and Citicorlp (just as I am sure you do not know them). I hope the life you are building around what you are doing (you basically live on Wikipedia), following people around, is worth it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.127.155 (talk) 19:52, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

"Original authorship" is a complete no-no on Wikipedia. Please see the no original research policy for details; all you need to read is the nutshell on the top of that page to understand how that policy applies. And, I have over 500 pages on my watch list. If you create an account, you can automatically watch pages you are interested in as well. Frank | talk 19:57, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Geithner

We have multiple sources, some are Jewish sources, others are even news agencies. I've seen much worse sources used on WP before. Why is him being Jewish a fact that we need to coverup? Is it because it plays into people's stereotypes? That's the only reason I can think of. --Tocino 22:12, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

No coverup. We just need reliable sources. Blogs don't qualify, and the Pakistani editorial (I use the term very loosely) doesn't either. Those are opinions. We need citations from reliable sources, or it can't go in the article, per policy. Frank | talk 22:17, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

The Barnstar | My RFA | Design by L'Aquatique

		The Mizu onna sango15 Barnstar
		Thank you to all who participated in my RFA- regardless of whether you supported or opposed, all feedback is important to me. I look forward to proving in the coming months that the trust placed in me by the community is not misplaced. —Mizu onna sango15^Hello!

RE: Bored?

Yes, very :P Garden. 23:35, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you could cover the next week of my life for me. :-) Frank | talk 00:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Meanwhile...

I totally missed your RfA - would have chimed in and mentioned how indiscriminate you are in giving out barnstars...... Very belated congrats - hope you don't mind if I ask for help from time to time! All best Tvoz/talk 00:32, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

You're talking about ancient history, but please feel free to contact me for anything I can help with. Regarding barnstars, I don't think I've given even three...but you were well-deserving. (I'm not really about barnstars, and I don't think you are either, even though you do have a few. I get the impression you're really more about the content, as I believe I am.) Anyway, thanks, and all the best to you! Frank | talk 01:26, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

You have that right. But I appreciated yours very much, for what you said. And you can count on hearing from me! Tvoz/talk 02:38, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your careful consideration at my successful RfA. "clueful candidate" was generous and appreciated. Please let me know on my talk page if you have any suggestions for me. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 00:39, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Attention RfA regulars

Regarding this RfA, considering this, this, this, and this (admins only), what do you think about me blue-linking this? I'm not asking for a full review, but your quick general thoughts would be appreciated. I've asked a number of opposers from the original RfA to comment here...basically, do you think it's time yet? Thanks! Frank | talk 08:12, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I responded via e-mail. Ecoleetage (talk) 11:50, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I think the "Per Pedro" comments at RFA 1 would indicate where I sit on this.... Pedro : Chat 12:06, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

First time 'round, I opposed because policy experience was just too weak for me to be comfortable. Enough effort has been made in that direction that I would now support with only a reminder to take it slowly at first. — Coren ^(talk) 13:31, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Agree with those above. I opposed the first RFA due to lack of experience; she has improved since. I did find this, an incorrect db-nonsense tag that happened on November 24, but that's pretty minor. AFD contribution looks solid. Useight (talk) 16:45, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. Still not quite sure with this one. I might have to abstain. However, depending on the strength of the nom, I might be convinced to support ;) —Ceran^{»^«} 22:22, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I would probably Oppose again for the same reason as last time. I have high standards I suppose. I don't like the already slim Project space being almost exclusivley Wikiprojects and AfD. Just like how when I have waffles and syrup, I get the syrup in all the squares; not just two or three, unless I'm feeling silly and want to spell things or make a smily face. But I wouldn't make a smily face an admin.--Koji† 00:30, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Good morning Frank, and thank you for the message. I'm certainly very happy that you think I'm ready for another crack at adminship, but could we wait for another month or so? Although I'm happy with the progress I've made since the RfA, there are some things I'd like to do here before trying again, like perhaps getting my first GA under my belt, a bit more new page patrolling (I notice there's a major backlog there), and perhaps popping down to WP:3O to try my hand at dispute resolution. Also, would you think it'd be a good idea to put my name down for admin coaching, or is this not needed? Bettia (rawr!) 10:30, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, by the way Useight - I'm a dude, not a dame :) Bettia (rawr!) 10:32, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Whenever you think is an appropriate time is fine with me; I'll be ready to write a nominating statement. I'm not a real big fan of admin coaching, nor do I participate in such, but I'm not against it, either. If you wanted to find someone to do coaching, there are certainly respected choices. In the meantime, rather than having me act as a coach, if you do have any questions, feel free to simply ask and I'll do my best to answer or direct you to someone who can. My main interest in nominating you is that I thought you were ready the first time and I saw the primary reason for opposing was that folks didn't think you'd been around quite long enough for them to judge. Another month will help that even more. I'm not a regular RfA nominator; I think there's way too much politicking and I'm not into that at all. (That may be a plus or a minus; not sure.) There is perhaps one other candidate I'd be interested in nominating, but I don't have an agenda, a schedule, or even a to-do list. When you're ready, and if you would like me to nominate, let me know. And, if you'd rather ask someone else, or self-nominate, I'll gladly support. Frank | talk 13:27, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Just to chime in again. I agree that admin coaching is not the way to go - there's no need - you'll learn much more delving into to 3O and continuing project space work. However do bounce some queries around if you have any. Ask first act second. I also think you are very wise to wait a month or so - the last RFA was a bit too recent. Maybe I could suggest the start of 2009? Pedro : Chat 13:31, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I would support. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 02:25, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I replied...

I have replied to your comments on my talk page. Thanks for dropping by. :) NoSeptember 21:47, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

RE: Recent actions

I replied at my talk page. Regards, —αἰτίας •discussion• 20:28, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Replied again. —αἰτίας •discussion• 21:11, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Once again. —αἰτίας •discussion• 21:36, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Cloward-Piven Strategy

Hi Frank. I left a note for you at [[1]]. You're right. I wasn't thinking clearly. Revert if you want. Syntacticus (talk) 08:15, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Concerning a strange statement you made on a talk page......

Please keep in mind that Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. References are always useful, especially from reliable sources. Your motivation to improve the project is most welcome. Frank | talk 06:27, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

In other words what you are saying Frank is that you could verify a lie printed in a publication and you could list it here on Wikipedia as a "truth". That just does not make any sense at all. Dr CareBear (talk) 14:37, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

It's hardly a strange statement. It's a direct quote from Wikipedia:Verifiability (in fact, the very first line) which is official site policy. Why would a reliable source print a lie? "Truth" is subjective, so we have to rely on sources that we can trust, with a reputation for fact-chcecking and neutral reporting. GlassCobra 22:58, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Best wishes for the holiday season

Ecoleetage (talk) wishes you peace!

Spread peace and goodwill by adding {{subst:WikiPeace}} to other's talk pages with a friendly message.

My recent RfA

Thats fine, but I did NOT, I repeat did NOT set up that "Theplaystation3dude" account, and before I go could you please do me one more favour?, I heard that there is no way to delete a wikipedia account (which I want to do) BUT I heard Aministrators could do it and seeing as you are an Administrator, Could you please delete my wikipedia account for me, I am ABSOLUTELY POSITIVE about this and I do NOT want to go back, do not leave a comment on my talk page asking me If I'm sure I want it deleted please, I am sure about this, deadly serious, thank you!--John-joe123 (talk) 15:11, 5 January 2009 (UTC) And also when your deleting my user profile can you please delete all my edits, and eveything to do with my user, thank you.--John-joe123 (talk) 15:18, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

It is not possible to delete an account, and I'm not sure there is any reason to do so. If you feel you need to go away for some reason, you may be able to invoke the "right to vanish". However, I'd like to stress that a premature RfA is not really grounds for this sort of action; it is merely a reflection of the community's standards for adminship, not a personal opinion of your editing skills. Frank | talk 15:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of Visionaire (software)

Hi Frank, I dropped by to ask you if you contacted the Visionaire-team before deleting the article about their software? ("Visionaire (software)") I wrote that article. It was about a free software for non-commercial users with many fans who liked the old adventure games. Listing facts about that program should not be a problem for Wikipedia, should it? At least it would be nice to discuss possible improvements to the article prior to deleting it. The german article is perfectly fine and updated on a regular base. Since the software also comes in english and is currently in use for non-commercial english fan games it would be nice to have the information online again in the english Wikipedia. I would be happy to hear from you, Robert. --Shodan (talk) 16:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

The deletion in question was a crystal-clear case of blatant advertising. Notability for the product was not established or even asserted, and its entire content was a rehash of why you would want to buy/license/download the software. The fact that the software is free, open source, and/or non-commercial does not automatically confer notability and does not automatically preclude the article from being advertising. (You can certainly advertise a freely available product.) I make no representation as to the product itself; it is possible it is notable and worthy of an article. However, as it was written and nominated, it clearly met the criteria for speedy deletion. The existence of an article on de.wikipedia.org does not affect that decision; it was deleted on its own [lack of] merits. Frank | talk 16:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Help!

Please see this discussion Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games#Final_Fantasy_Legend_name_translation_woes.2C_mk._II

There is an ongoing issue with Kung Fu Man over an edit dispute which is getting out of hand, and I'm fairly certain the user is relying on sockpuppets to make revisions to the article. Check the revision history yourself to verify this. Also, I've been receiving harassing comments and threats from this user and am not sure where to turn for help. Please get involved and try to act as the voice of reason. Thank you. 74.242.123.2 (talk) 01:19, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I can offer anything in this discussion. I did look at the discussion and it looks largely like a content dispute, not a sockpuppetry case to me. Frank | talk 16:29, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (File:Reverbnation150x120black.gif)

You've uploaded File:Reverbnation150x120black.gif, and indicated that it's used under Wikipedia's rules for non-free images. However, it's not presently used in any articles. Wikipedia policy requires that non-free images be either used or deleted, so if this image isn't used in an article in the next week, it will be deleted.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 12:23, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Joke questions

Question (not a joke): if someone asks "Is the moon made of green cheese?" at RFA, should I leave a note on their talk page asking them not to ask those kinds of questions at RFA? As I mentioned at WT:RFA, some candidates honestly don't get that many voters like to take a serious, job-interview-style approach to RFA, and being flippant may provoke a flip response from the candidate. Perhaps we should put "ignore joke questions" in the instructions. (Watchlisting for a few days.) - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 22:50, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

My opinions on this are at WT:RFA, as you may have seen by now. Frank | talk 22:59, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you so much for stepping in as a third nom. It didn't seem to have the effect you (or I) would have wished, but then I also contributed in my own way to the failure. It's been, and will be, a great learning experience - for one thing I have met a whole load more excellent editors like you. Best wishes. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:01, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm dismayed as to how this turned out. I hope you won't let it affect your participation in the project, and if adminship appeals to you, we can try again in a couple of months. I really do believe you'd be an asset as an administrator if that's where your interest lies. Frank | talk 13:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

RfA thankspam

Thank you for your participation in my recent RfA, which failed with 90/38/3; whether you supported, opposed or remained neutral.

Special thanks go out to Moreschi, Dougweller and Frank for nominating me, and I will try to take everyone's comments on board.

Thanks again for your participation. I am currently concentrating my efforts on the Wikification WikiProject. It's fun! Please visit the project and wikify a few articles to help clear the backlog. If you can recruit some more participants, then even better.

Apologies if you don't like RfA thankspam, this message was delivered by a bot which can't tell whether you want it or not. Feel free to remove it. Itsmejudith (talk), 22:44, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Denbot (talk) 22:44, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Bernard Madoff Recovery of Funds

I cannot believe you deleted 2 hours of my time! the article was sourced and the topic was applicable. at the very least you could create a Recovery of Funds page for Madoff. i don't know why you have more power than i do, but you are doing a disservice to those who might get a lead to research their tax options. this is worse than a teacher telling you to write "I hate the wikipedia website" 1,000 times after school because the student copied from it! i am finished here for a long time --- you caused that---hope you feel powerful. go find someone else to torture!

Furtive admirer (talk) 20:03, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Editing of articles on Wikipedia is not about power. The Bernard Madoff article is about Bernard Madoff, not about tax strategy. The edit I undid was off topic. If you disagree, the appropriate forum is the talk page for the article. And, the work is not gone forever; it's all there in the history of the article, so if you can find an appropriate place to put it (perhaps a separate article as you suggest), you can certainly recover the work easily. Frank | talk 20:10, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Timothy F. Geithner

Regarding the vandalism by 75.249.224.138 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), can you do that delete and partial restore thing for the sake of WP:BLP? Grsz ¹¹ 22:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Done. Frank | talk 22:18, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! :) Grsz ¹¹ 22:19, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

RFA

Hiya Frank. I added a question for you in the current WT:RFA thread: "There have been many off-the-wall RFA questions, Frank, and many answers, so if you believe they tell us something useful about the candidate, please pick one and tell us how it helped make your decision." You don't have to answer, this isn't RFA :) Or if you'd rather bounce these ideas around privately, that's fine too, this isn't a "gotcha". What I'm hoping we'll get by the end of the discussion is a set of representative answers from everyone who has an opinion, so that when anyone posts a silly question at RFA, we don't have to go through all this mess again, we can just link to a summary of the community's response. (Watchlisting) - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 15:46, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Sr/jr. distinction out

Please, look at the talk page. Cassandro (talk) 21:44, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Apologies. I stopped after the first one I reverted, in some bit of confusion as to why they'd suddenly (at least to me) disappeared. Thanks for the pointer to the talk page. Don't know that it's resolved, but it's certainly out of my hands. Frank | talk 22:25, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I saw that too, and regardless of the distinction, I hope you don't mind if I try to emulate you in terms of the Edit Summary in differentiating good faith from bad faith edits. It's commendable to note the difference and can avoid bad blood. Spinach Monster (talk) 19:27, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Bernard Madoff

Thanx 4 your assistence. Perhaps we can insert the supreme court case as time goes on. please retain it in your notes so we can retrieve it once the legal strategy to avoid state charges is disclosed. Furtive admirer (talk) 17:27, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanx again. you are better at this than I am. I suggested adding new pages to link to on the Madoff talk page. perhaps you can do that for Cohmad and Fairfield Greenwich. It will help with cleaning the Madoff article. Furtive admirer (talk) 19:23, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

There are 2 antagonists who continue to want to make this page a jewish issue. i simply reverted it, and compromised with Laurelton. I doubt these two propagandists would write "muslim" or "arab" parents. i am just going to keep reverting it each time they add "jewish" to describe the parents. it is irrelevant since the page is about him, not his parents. the talk page cannot resolve it. if you are an editor, please do so, or refer to the editors for relevance. thanx.

Furtive admirer (talk) 21:53, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Confirmations of Barack Obama's Cabinet

Ok, you said you'd help. You're right in that those vote tallies are big and might be better in another article even if I don't agree on your assessment of their importance. Hopefully this will be a good solution. Spinach Monster (talk) 19:48, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Good job so far! One thing WP:HEAD says that links shouldn't be in the subject headers. I disagree, and I think you were right when you put them in there. If we could work together to get that policy changed, I think it would be a great benefit to Wikipedia readers. Spinach Monster (talk) 20:09, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I could invoke WP:IAR, but what the heck. I'll fix it. Frank | talk 20:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Nah, you should invoke WP:IAR on this one, IMO, but it's your call. I think you are right, but somebody gave me a hard time about this a few days ago in another article. Spinach Monster (talk) 20:15, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you work on the votes while I build the page? And, let's move discussion to the page's talk page. Frank | talk 20:17, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Done. If you think it's not a big deal, I can take it or leave it, but in the meantime i'll ask around to see if there's any problems with changing it. Spinach Monster (talk) 20:27, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Good Work!

With all the news lately, this could shape up to be a great article once we put a little more meat into it. Spinach Monster (talk) 01:47, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Come And Take A Look

Tell me what you think. It's coming along. The cite news tags need to go in later, right now it's mostly just a skeleton still, but each new day adds a little meat to that skeleton. Spinach Monster (talk) 02:09, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

thank you

My RFA passed today at 150/48/6. I wanted to thank you for weighing in on the RFA--I will do everything I can to uphold the policies of this site, and try to make it a better place. All the comments, questions, and in particular the opposes I plan to work on and learn from, so that I can hopefully always do the right thing with the huge trust given to me. rootology (C)(T) 08:32, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Syjytg and RfA

Thanks for giving Syjytg guidance on the RfA process, I obviously need to be quicker in contacting users when delisting RfAs :P Richard ⁰⁶¹² 13:35, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey, no problem...I had actually hit "undo" on that edit as well, and thought my edit took, so I was following up with him. It wasn't until I went back to the RfA and looked at the history that I saw you had done the same...apparently beating me to it! Cheers... Frank | talk 14:06, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

thanks!

for removing that trash from my talk page history! :) Thingg ^⊕^⊗ 02:35, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

No problem, although I do have to admit I noticed there were already 3 deleted edits, so something might have been restored that shouldn't have been. I'll have to be more careful next time. I know you coulda done it yourself, but I didn't know if you were around. Cheers! Frank | talk 02:41, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Frank. You have new messages at Mazca's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

RE: My RfA

Thanks for the note about the number of edits. I know the requirements are not set in stone but after doing some research about the other current RfA's I see I still have a lot of work to do. feel free to delete that RfA page when you are ready. I will call you if I wish to make another RfA.

P.S. I've seen the message via the change log and... I'll work on some more edits over the next months Doggie015 (talk) 23:34, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Done. Regarding your talk page, it's not usually necessary to strike out text once you've read it. People tend to keep their talk pages as a running history of conversations, and when they get too long, they archive the contents to another page. (There are automated ways to do this as well.)

At any rate, welcome to Wikipedia. Please jump in and find something that interests you, and if you have any questions, let me know! Frank | talk 00:19, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Smile!

A Nobody^{My talk} 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!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Regarding your comment on Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Aitias

While I am not quite sure what's wrong with my “characterization of our interaction” (actually I tried to sum it up as neutral as possible), I'd like to make a point I deem more important here. Whilst I still think my course of action back then was not indefensible, with hindsight I now agree that the course of action you explained at that time would have been better than mine. Just wanted to point that out. :) Best wishes, — Aitias // discussion 17:19, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

You have my sincere appreciation for this message. I look forward to continuing to move forward in improving this project together. Best regards - Frank | talk 17:55, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Any stalkers?

Can you please watchlist LeRoi Moore and keep an eye out for some blatant WP:MEMORIAL edits being pushed on it? I don't want to seem heavy-handed as the only (human) one warning editors over it. (And please let me know here if you have added it.) Thanks! Frank | talk 21:46, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi

Can you take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Jessemon111 and hopefully do something before he vandalizes wikipedia further? Syjytg (talk) 15:47, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Just follow the normal procedures; if a vandalism edit occurs, revert it and warn the user. When the user reaches a final warning (usually 4th warning), report to WP:AIV. That will get faster action than asking an individual admin. So far, the user has only 3 edits total, and the last one was 15 days ago, so I don't think we need to worry too much about this one.

Also, when you are linking to many internal pages, you can make the link shorter this way: "Jessemon111's contributions". (Edit this page to see the difference.) Frank | talk 15:59, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Please look at sections 2 and 3 of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Htrbrse. The unsigned comments are very rude. Look at the unsigned commenter's talk page as well as there are discussions about this topic as well. Syjytg (talk) 11:59, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Have you looked at it? Syjytg (talk) 14:20, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I have looked (twice now) but I don't see the need to do anything. Seems like some folks arguing a bit; it happens. Is there something you think needs to be done? Frank | talk 14:31, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Revisit revisited

Good afternoon Frank. Regarding this, would you say now would be a good time to turn that redlink blue? Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 15:52, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd be pleased to, but if I'm the primary one to write it, it will need to wait until the weekend. Will that work for you? Frank | talk 18:36, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Yep, that's fine by me. Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 09:06, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, take a look! Frank | talk 02:03, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Aw, what a lovely shade of blue that bluelink is! Thanks mate - with such a glowing recommendation, let's hope things go well. Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 11:41, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I was going to tweak it a bit but...doesn't look like it needs it. So far, so good! You might consider putting {{RfX-notice|a}} on your user page and/or your talk page. A check of current candidates indicates that some do and some don't; totally your choice. (It's 50/50 on the four other than yours.) Frank | talk 14:27, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's all very positive so far. I've gone ahead and put that template on my userpage - it seems to fit in quite nicely! Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 16:19, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Pharisees

Thanks! Slrubenstein | Talk 20:21, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

My pleasure. :-) Frank | talk 20:50, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: Jae Bryson deletion discussion

I merely used the admin recall of User:MBisanz as proof that Brrryce was Jae Bryson, in response to Dravecky's question. The fact that Jae Bryson was writen by himself is relevant, I would have thought, under WP:AB. Or am I mistaken? If you wish to reply I am watching this page. Oli ^OR Pyfan! 02:17, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Neither WP:COI nor WP:AB is a reason for deletion. These are mistakes I see at AfD often. If the article's subject is noteworthy and the article itself is neutral, it doesn't matter who wrote it. That the author of that article is highly likely to be its subject is not in doubt...it's just beside the point of the discussion. Frank | talk 14:08, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks Oli ^OR Pyfan! 19:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Viewing cases

I have seen http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wheel_war/Examples. I have seen cases of the Afb, but it is all pertaining to the wheel warring issue. Do you know where I can see all cases consisting of all types of issues? Also in the voting tally, there are 4 digits. I know the first one is accept. What are the other 3 headings of the vote tally? Syjytg (talk) 11:38, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you mean Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration? I don't really follow that drama stuff too closely, and I suggest you don't either. Work on building the encyclopedia; it's the best reason I know of for being here. Frank | talk 14:12, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Yup, almost there. This only show the current cases. What about the archives? Syjytg (talk) 15:31, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Help

90.196.91.202 has been vandalizing Template:2008–09 NBA Conference standings and Wikipedia:Admin coaching/Requests for Coaching. Please block him. Syjytg (talk) 15:11, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I am sick and tired of sockpuppets of Darvit Chundarai. He has created multiple socks. I see you have blocked one of his anon for harassing me, but it seems he created another one, so it will never end. I will be subjected to endless harassment and I have to keep on reverting his edits on various pages which is tiring and time-consuming. What to do to stop him from evading blocks? Syjytg (talk) 18:39, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Frank, can you please say something? Syjytg (talk) 07:09, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I believe you need to focus on content rather than individual users. If you start taking things personally every time someone disagrees with your edits, you will not find this to be rewarding for very long. There are many people around here and we all have to find a way to make things work within the parameters that already exist. Frank | talk 15:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I passed! Thank you!

		The Special Barnstar
		I'm very glad to say my RfA passed successfully earlier today, and it's pretty obvious a lot of that success was down to your excellent nomination. So, as a gesture of my appreciation for all your work, have a barnstar on me! It's the least I can do to say thanks Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 14:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Happy Saint Patrick’s Day!

On behalf of the Wikipedia:Kindness Campaign, we just want to spread Wikipedia:WikiLove by wishing you a Happy Saint Patrick’s Day! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 15:56, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Leroy Grumman

Hi Frank, nice talking to you via this electronic note. I really appreciate your edits on this subject and I would like to explain my reasoning behind the citations. The first being consistency, once I had established a format or bibliographic style, I tend to use the same format relentlessly, and the switch from ISO to Military-style dating was apparent as a conflict in the citation styles. What I use is a full text cataloguing of the citation into a Modern Language Association (MLA) style guide which is typical for works that are in the social sciences (bear with me, I was a former librarian) into which a biographical work would neatly fit. The second thing is that our Wikipedia templates for citations do not accommodate the MLA variations as they are written in a American Psychological Association (APA) style that is at odds with the MLA standard in a number of areas. As I indicated, nothing wrong with your references, just a matter of a reader seeing them in a consistent fashion. FWiW, I certainly understand you have a lot of passion for this subject. Bzuk (talk) 20:41, 20 March 2009 (UTC).

Don't worry, this isn't an issue of passion, although I do feel there is a whole lot of good work to be done on the article. Regarding APA/MLA...we're not writing school papers here. We're writing an online encyclopedia. When we use a template-based citation, there is some chance that dates can be formatted in the user's preferred format. When we explicitly write them out in our own preferred format (APA, MLA, or whatever), any such chance is eliminated. That's why I use {{cite}} exclusively, and that's why I have questioned the change. As for establishing a format or bibliographic style in that article (again, avoiding any WP:OWN discussion which might look like it would apply)...it looks like I'm the first one that actually put any citations in the article, so I'm kind of wondering how establishing "a format or bibliographic style" applies. I started with the citation template and used it for every subsequent citation as well. What you have done is completely change an existing style. Frank | talk 20:55, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Without going into details here, this article was suspect of being a copyviol and I was changing it entirely to remove any possibility that the work was plagiarized. There were also tiny errors inherent in the citations, mainly missing author, title, publisher information and use of the ISO dating as indicated previously. I noted the errors and then corrected the citation (more citations have again appeared introducing new errors). It has very little to do with the templates, you might have first started to use them, but they do not conform with the bibliography or notes now in use in the article. If you prefer templates, then go and change everything to a template and I will simply retire from the fray. It's not a big deal to me, it was mainly an article that I came across that indicated serious problems in structure and I tend to get involved in editing on that level. BTW, the template issue is entirely spurious as it is an optional format that was devised to help editors with little or no cataloging background to have a "drop-and-drag" system. The templates were never intended to be mandatory nor should they be. FWiW, I don't get the dig about school papers? you are not in favour of properly formatted bibliographic cataloging? Bzuk (talk) 04:33, 21 March 2009 (UTC).

No dig; it's just that the point is citation, not whether it's MLA, APA, or neither. The point is to get the info in there, as much as possible. As for the tiny errors inherent in the citations, here's the crux of the issue: when I got to the article, there were no citations. I put citations in, and they were correct, and you went and reformatted them completely, which irked me a bit. It's one thing to fix an article's content - this is a collaborative effort, after all. It's quite another to take content that was just put in there - carefully and consistently formatted and cited - and then hack it apart under the guise of "conforming with the bibliography or notes now in use". It just doesn't make sense to me, since there was nothing to conform to before I got to it. I most certainly didn't put any copyvio text in there, and I removed a bunch of stuff that really didn't belong anyway, and found and properly cited most of the refs in the article. I am not trying to drive anyone away from the article, nor am I claiming anything is required or optional. I'm giving a reason for using the citation templates and attempting to discuss why you changed them. Nothing more, nothing less, and certainly nothing personal. Frank | talk 20:10, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

To be clear, I mean no disrespect. I found there were errors in the citations. I corrected them, and in correcting, I used a full text bibliographic style. What you characterize as "hacking your work apart" is nothing of the sort, I meticulously maintained the information. The use of citation templates is entirely optional and was a system that was introduced as an aid to formatting reference sources. The citation templates have not been able to be rewritten to adopt to other style guides. If there was a template that would conform to MLA standards, I would gladly use them because of the ease of just dropping the information in. There is not a means to do that at present without an editor creating a unique template. One of the issues that has been addressed on numerous occasions in style guide forums is that the templates are written for an ISO dating standard that is not easily read or understood by all readers. The typical month day, year or (in the case of this article), day month year style cannot be worked into the template. Talk about a lack of consistency, with the body of the article written in one style while the reference notations are written in an entirely different style. There are also many small template issues that do not allow for multiple authors, publishing dates (not placed by author's name), lack of punctuation "stops" and many other niggling problems that continue to befuddle the template designers. Usually when I detect errors in formatting, I correct them, and as you can readily discern, I am not enamoured with the citation templates. When I first came upon this article, it was due to a disagreement over the naming convention which popped up on my watchlist. On first reading, I observed numerous verbatim copyviols that were present from the very first submission to the article's "string", and this discovery was the main reason for my interest in the article. I do not particularly care for the style of writing that is inherent in the article as it is mainly an amalgam of other author's writing styles and not even very artfully cribbed. My two options were one: suspend the editing regime of the article and begin the task of correcting the plagarism, by rewriting one sentence at a time or two: completely rewrite the article from "scratch", again indicating that a major rewrite was in progress. Although you may have begun the process, I attempted to inform interested editors of the problems "buried" in the article, but did not elaborate as I am not blaming any of the current editors on the copyviols. I added an "under construction" tag to highlight the upcoming efforts and began the first option, necessitating a longer and more comprehensive edit. When I saw that you and other editors were also making substantial edits and changes, I tried to incorporate those changes, but as I had noted earlier, this is not a "be-all" or "end-all" project for me. As opposed to many editors, I use Wikipedia writing and editing as a work exercise, honing and sharpening my editing skills. (In my other life, I am an author and editor, after a career as a librarian.) FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:52, 21 March 2009 (UTC).

We seem to have a difference of opinion as to what WP:CONSENSUS means around here, but the article is expanding and I guess that is the main goal. (I am still mystified as to what errors you found in the citations I added, however.) Frank | talk 14:38, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Now, I am mystified? what consensus is being challenged? The issues were explained clearly above. The article was under construction, editors were welcome to contribute and edits took place, back-and-forth. In order to see the difference in citation style, read the article in both "reader" and "edit modes" and you will discern that templates were adapted as much as possible. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:15, 23 March 2009 (UTC).

No consensus is being challenged; it just isn't being developed in advance. ("Edit-revert-re-edit-re-revert" isn't consensus.) Frank | talk 16:54, 23 March 2009 (UTC) PS: you still haven't identified which citations contained errors.

all of them The templates have an inherent formatting and programming problem, if you do not list author notations, in the proper order, it will spit it back, first name, last name, ISO dating is also used, the notations as to title were incorrectly made, not identifying each as primary or corollary title or confusing them. As to editing we are in a WP:BRD cycle, rather than what you characterized. As I indicated earlier, I am trying to be cognizant that all actions are above board. FWiW, keep this dialogue flowing. Bzuk (talk) 17:45, 23 March 2009 (UTC).

Well, I would say that what you are characterizing as "errors" are "formatting", not errors in the citations. The cites themselves are carefully researched and cited; understanding that you prefer them to be listed a different way is quite a bit different than understanding that they contained errors. (That may be somewhat my reception of the comment.) I am much more interested in getting it right as far as what we are putting in the article. As for BRD, well...let's not forget the D part of that. BRBRBR is the same as "edit war" and not constructive. I think discussion about the article probably belongs on its talk page, too. Frank | talk 17:57, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Frank, I honestly think we are both on the same side and as I frequently have said, our Wickywacky world operates best as a "collaborative" effort and I do not intend to do everything possible to adhere to that principle. Now to completely change the subject, can you look over vandal attacks (your forte, I hear) in the Manfred von Richthofen‎ article. I have gone as far as I can without invoking 3R concerns. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:07, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

SoulBrotherNumberOne

I hope you do not mind, but I have taken my own direction with this user's block. I think it is incumbent on this user to give some sort of indication that he understands that racist comments are not acceptable before he is unblocked. I have the user's talk page on my watch list and if at any time he gives his word to behave I will unblock him and hold him to his word.

I have used indefinite in duration not to mean "forever", but to mean duration not yet determined. This users editing pattern is a bit spaced out in time so it may be a while. Just letting you know where I am coming from. Chillum 13:59, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Different admins have different takes on this particular issue. This was definitely a borderline case. The editor was being disruptive and inappropriate, and had never been blocked, so I chose a block of 24 hours to a) stop the disruption immediately, and b) convey to the editor that the activity is not permitted here. (I believe many times that editors think "anyone can edit" translates to "anyone can do anything they want".) I chose 24 hours specifically to have the best chance of conveying b) to the editor, without appearing to be punitive (always a fine line to walk). A shorter block might not even be noticed by the student who has a free period at the same time every day, for example. I definitely saw the edit you referenced; that was the one I blocked for. My own opinion is that such vicious edits are most often worthy of an immediate indef block. In this case, however, since the user has demonstrated some desire in the past to contribute constructively, I thought indef was too harsh. We can always indef an editor "tomorrow" (figuratively), but we cannot always encourage a formerly contributing editor to return. Frank | talk 14:34, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Well said. I agree, and that is why I have let the user choose his own time of return. A simple promise to no act racist or abusively while on Wikipedia is all that the user needs to become unblocked. Keeping that promise is all the user needs to stay unblocked. This way the user can be blocked in less than 24 hours if he so chooses. It is also my motive to emphasize to the user that the block is preventative and not punitive.

That being said, I recognize the traditional right of "first dibs" when it comes to these types of decisions. If you think a fixed length block is more appropriate you have my blessings in reversing my decision. Thank you. Chillum 14:39, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm indifferent; let's move along. (And thanks for the notification.) Frank | talk 14:45, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi

Can you look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Syjytg_reported_by_User:Antti29? Syjytg (talk) 14:42, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-15

For future reference, take a look at the nightmare scenario of editing this article. You thought Leroy Grumman was tough, get a gander over here. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:15, 23 March 2009 (UTC).

madoff

i have no clue what you are referring to, the talk comment? all i did was copy a poem to get my point across, which is in circulation and copied in every classroom. you are "wildly" confusing and making something from nothing...which many on this web site tend to do.

Furtive admirer (talk) 18:57, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

We do not re-publish copyrighted material on this site, period. Please see WP:COPYVIO for details. (Whether or not "every classroom" is also committing copyright violation is quite beside the point here.)
Your edit summary was inappropriate. Please remember WP:BLP. Mr. Madoff qualifies as a living person.
In addition, you have surely seen by now that another editor independently said the same thing. Frank | talk 19:32, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

My dispute

Yeah well. The problem is that no matter where or how often I complain to him, he just ignores it and makes his changes. The only times I've seen him actually react to the issue were the two times I reported him, and in neither case did he address me directly nor tried to explain his case. I, on the other hand, have provided sufficient reasons for my case but like everything else, he ignores them and makes his changes.

Maybe it's because his case cannot be justified and he's just being an a**. Antti29 (talk) 15:11, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

No, the fact is that he is only making changes this week. For the previous few weeks or months, it has been 5 decimal places and nobody reverted it, either because they think it is correct or they are ignorant of it, so it the onus of Antti29 to gain consensus before he can revert the original version. The fact that my version has been there for a long period of time before Antti29 changes the format show that many users are supportive of my format. Syjytg (talk) 15:28, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Syjytg, I have replied in detail here (your talk page). I already gave Antti29 some advice, but I have far more advice for you and recommend you read your talk page (top to bottom!) very thoroughly. Frank | talk 16:04, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The user is ignoring all my warnings and now yours too and he continues abusing the two articles he's been warned about. A time for the admins to step in? Antti29 (talk) 12:34, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

An IP address (which to my great surprise resolves to Singapore, where User:Syjytg is from) just reverted the change by User:Richard Rundle. I won't change it back in fear of a block but it's fairly obvious that he's just gone behind an IP and continuing his abuse. Antti29 (talk) 14:10, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I've already reverted and blocked the IP. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 14:19, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Syjytg

I believe this user has gone too far, and he is openly disregarding the MOS, and making disruptive edits to prove his intent. I think he should be banned immediately. What do you think? Arbiteroftruth ^{Plead Your Case} 19:16, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I think that WP:BAN is a community-based decision, not based simply on what you or I think. I also think that, despite all evidence to the contrary (and there's plenty), we lose nothing by assuming good faith. I placed what I think is a pretty stern warning on his user page right above your note. If we need to initiate a WP:RFC then we can do so. But we certainly don't just go around blocking users for openly disregarding the MOS. Frank | talk 19:22, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

He just got blocked for 24hr's for 3RR. Frank - further reply on my talk. Pedro : Chat 13:23, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry - Frank I saw you did the original block. I was just reviewing unblock requets 2 when I note you declined - as the original blocking admin I don't think you should have reviewed it - would you leave it with me for a moment? Pedro : Chat 13:25, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

You're right; reverted myself. Figured since it was second in 5 minutes it would be OK. I'm leaving it alone for now. Thanks! Frank | talk 13:27, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

No problem with the block on Syjytg. Clear vio and user has gotten off before. The only thing I'll say is that ... well ... there was a good case for blocking Anti too, a case I shan't make since he's already been warned! Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 13:32, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

But at least he did atempt to use talk which is where this needs to be directed to. I've declined unblock and I'm sure Anti is aware of the situation. Pedro : Chat 13:34, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I'm fully aware of the situation. I've tried contacting Syjytg every way I could think of but he has never replied. I'm delighted to see that you admins have common sense and also use it, but I wish that one day people outside Finland got my first name right :) Antti29 (talk) 16:33, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Needless to say I'm sure, but he's at it again... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2008%E2%80%9309_NBA_season&action=history Antti29 (talk) 14:24, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Syjytg's Warning

Should I rescind the warning? This user did the things in question, afterall. However, I understand what you mean. What should I do?

That's what I would do. I don't think it's productive to threaten to block a user when they are already blocked. Also, I don't have any opinion on the sockpuppet accusation, other than to say that it might be best to get better evidence and a second opinion on the matter rather than placing the template. (I'm not qualified to render such an opinion myself.) Frank | talk 20:25, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, according to evidence presented at Syjytg's talkpage, it is apparent that Syjytg used an IP address to evade the block (he would deny it, of course). I think he is a sockpuppet of Shabushabu because of his edits, and his repeated appeal to be unblocked almost immediately after the block went into effect. Yes, the evidence is circumstantial at best, but it is evidence nonetheless under WP:DUCK. As for the warning, I will remove it for the time being. I will re-warn the user after he is unblocked. Arbiteroftruth ^{Plead Your Case} 20:30, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I have no comment on the sockpuppet stuff; it's not an area I'm very familiar with. On the warning, I don't see the need to re-issue the warning when the block expires. I think we can let it pass for the moment and see if Syjytg changes his editing habits when he returns. If so, no need to do anything else. If not, we can always warn again. I would also add that an "only warning" is not really useful in this case; Syjytg has been here plenty long enough that such a warning pretty much falls under WP:DTTR. I know, I used a template for 3RR just this morning, but somehow I still think this is different. Frank | talk 20:40, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Yep, I planned to do one revert and then watch if he simply created a new username but apparently you beat me to it :) Antti29 (talk) 13:17, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

And of course this comment went slightly to the wrong place, it was supposed to go under my previous comment a few lines up. Antti29 (talk) 13:19, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Quack

Good morning folks... Frank | talk 12:42, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Created 5 March, during the first block, but unused until today.

Quack, quack... Frank | talk 12:47, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:SSP Pedro : Chat 13:36, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Case opened...would appreciate a pointer to any templates used for alerting the user and interested parties. Frank | talk 14:53, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Mitchcoe

Hi, can you not delete this page please. The information posted is disturbing and I have sent details to the police for their perusal and referenced this page. I thought that was best as this user may be a danger. Smartse (talk) 15:34, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I have nominated the page for deletion and for the moment I am delaying any action. I am unconvinced that your attempt to resurrect the page is the best thing in this situation but as I have put it before the community, I hope the correct course of action can be decided shortly. Frank | talk 15:41, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: MfD

Looks like I was too late. :) –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:39, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Yep; I contacted several people because it seemed to warrant serious attention. Thanks for looking. Frank | talk 18:03, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.