User talk:Frank/Archive 6

Bill Bradley

Hello! I have reviewed Bill Bradley and found a few issues that need resolved. Please see the review page. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 18:59, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Will do, thanks.  Frank  |  talk  19:08, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

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

^Bongo_matic 23:34, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Gunstuff/Zeroing (guns)

Hi Frank. Re: Zeroing (guns)--- if we leave this as a start as a main page, many others will edit it, but moving it will mean it will be dead. Here is the new talk page comment on the previous deletion:

"You might want to check the millions of hits Google gets on zeroing, especially now before hunting season. Wiki covers the topic very poorly! There is little or no mention of it in ballistics, MOA (which also is poorly covered--- 6.9 million hits a week on a missing topic, yet Wiki covers the "moa bird" from New Zealand instead!!!).

We have no axe to grind and couldn't care less personally-- this is just poor service to Wiki users, because the top hit on zeroing on Google right now is a very inaccurate description from a guy with a web page in the UK! (Gunstuff, my tildes are busted). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gunstuff (talk • contribs) 19:00, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia and Google are two separate things. Your attempt to improve Wikipedia is welcome, but the article needs more work before it can go to the main space. There's just too much wrong with it now. See WP:NOT and WP:FIRST. Better to start with a very small amount of information. Also, it definitely needs citations from reliable sources.  Frank  |  talk  19:05, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

DropMind deletion

Hi Frank, DropMind article was deleted by you. I would like to know how the article didn't meet Wikipedia guidelines? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Biljana123 (talk • contribs) 13:41, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

The page as it was created fell neatly into the G11 speedy deletion category - it was unambiguous advertising. Also, it did not assert any WP:NOTABILITY at all. It was highly promotional, including the fact that the product name was followed by "TM" to make sure people understand it's a commercial product. It's not a problem to have commercial products here - we have many - but it has to be notable, and it has to be written in an encyclopedic style. There were also no citations from reliable sources independent of the subject, which is not surprising since the product was released only a month ago. Please see WP:FIRST and WP:CORP for more info, and let me know if you have more questions.  Frank  |  talk  13:57, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Frank, I am new to Wikipedia so don't take this the wrong way. Many articles here have the product name as article title MindMeister, XMIND, MindManager. The content that was written for DropMind was written based on what the other software (competitors) have written. I have used their pattern, so it won't be deleted once again. And yet it was deleted. As for the "TM", yes I want people to know it is a commercial product as much as someone who has a open source product would want the world to know it is an open source product. Please note that I have the greatest respect for Wikipedia and for everybody involved in keeping Wikipedia to be the leading source of knowledge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Biljana123 (talk • contribs) 22:34, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

There are probably thousands of pages where the product name is the title of the article; I'm aware of that. The issue is not the title; it's the fact that the article was promotional, period. If it can be rewritten - with citations from reliable sources that show it is notable - then it can exist. I provided some links above that should be helpful. You can try to recreate the article and see what other people think, but I suspect the result will be the same.  Frank  |  talk  23:11, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Kidnapping of Jaycee Lee Dugard request

Just as the news trucks have Walnut Street in Antioch to go on to other breaking stories, contributions to this page seem to have fallen off. As a newbie, I'm not sure what the process is here, perhaps request for review? I'm messaging several of the experienced editors who have contributed to this page and asking you to drop by. Some of the outstanding issues are (as discussed) are, but are not limited to: 1. How's the edit? Someone should review the newbie's work, yes? 2. Can we remove the tags now? Or does the page still need work? Being specific and constructive would be awesome. 3. How are we doing on BLP? In my edit, I removed quite a bit of private information and controversial/unreferenced materials, following guidelines. Too much? Should more be cut? (e.g. There is a Garrido rape case mentioned, for which he was not convicted. Does BLP require that it be cut?) All this and more... This is my first significant contribution: feedback appreciated (both on the edit, and the process). Nrehnby (talk) 20:19, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Happy Labor Day!

Dear colleague, I just want to wish you a happy, hopefully, extended holiday weekend and nice end to summer! Your friend, --A Nobody^{My talk} 05:43, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

advice?

Teddy Kennedy's false death report leading to Jimbo Wales editorial proposals are well verified (BBC and New York Times and others). The are also true. According to you above, truth is not required but another person said nobody is disputing this. I also asked Jimbo himself because if we found out they lied, I will be very unhappy with the BBC and NY Times.

Some say that it is not related to Kennedy. It really is because previous false information has not seen such a response.

Events and consequences are a part of wikipedia. See Richard Reid (shoe bomber). It says (in a wholly separate section, not just a tiny sentence)

Lorence G. Collins

Hi Frank,
thanx very much for helping getting the article into shape. Greetings from Southwestern France.
Rudi--Rudolf Pohl (talk) 15:42, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

No problem, but don't thank me just yet. :-) I think the article is overly technical and overly personal. It has something to work with but in order to be encyclopedic, it really needs to be trimmed down as to text, and beefed up as to references. (A personal web site should really only be supportive of other references.) At some point I will delete a bunch of text in the article; if there are issues with that, we can definitely discuss them on the talk page of the article itself.  Frank  |  talk  15:51, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Question

Hi Frank,

How do you know what are the guidlines for Wiki? What is useful and what is not. What warrants an article and what does not? Cheers Mike —Preceding unsigned comment added by GCALACL (talk • contribs)

The best place to start is WP:NOTABILITY.  Frank  |  talk  16:15, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Another question

Created an information page on a company Hey wondering why the page was deleted for Pelham Tile & Marble? I was not trying to advertise the business in any way, but rather provide information on what was available and the date it opened Rda526 (talk) 16:33, 16 September 2009 (UTC)rda526

Please see WP:CORP.  Frank  |  talk  16:35, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

ADHD

I noticed your comment at Literaturegeek's talk page.

The ADHD articles need an uninvolved admin to oversee them and bring some order to this dispute (which has already been before ArbCom). Perhaps you could start with this thread at my talk page... –xeno^talk 16:43, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps by making a comment I've moved toward inheriting a conflict. Alas, I do not have time to mediate at the moment. My comment was made in an attempt to ratchet things down a notch or two; I see there's a long-standing dispute, but making an accusation of a personal attack such as that was clearly inappropriate.  Frank  |  talk  17:05, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps not exactly a personal attack but neither do I see it as constructive to apply such wide brush strokes to fellow colleagues. –xeno^talk 17:29, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

SinSir The Rapper

Hi Frank this is SinSir, SinSir article was deleted by you. I would like to know how the article didn't meet Wikipedia guidelines? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sinsir31 (talk • contribs)

It was deleted twice. The first time it was clearly promotional, because all it did was list a twitter feed and a site to buy CDs. The second version was a few sentences that listed info about a rapper but did not explain why the rapper would be considered notable enough to be included in Wikipedia. That version was deleted because there was no assertion of notability. You might want to read WP:COI also.  Frank  |  talk  12:18, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

ANI

FYI, there's an ANI thread] about you, and you may want to comment. My free advice (worth every penny): I know you're trying to help, and what you're saying is reasonable, but when LG has said, fairly clearly, three times, that he doesn't want you to post to his talk page any more, it's unlikely that posting to his talk page is going to do anything good. Even if you're right, and s/he's wrong (which may or may not be the case here, I don't know). --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:59, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice!  Frank  |  talk  15:11, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

My edit to your talk page

Hi Frank, I've just fixed your talk page archives. On 17 and 18 September, MiszaBot III and Misza's other archiving bots had a bug where it would add sections to archives without removing them from the main talk page. Therefore it duplicated some text at User talk:Frank/Archive 5, and because it filled that archive with duplicate text, it created archive 6 of your talk page which just contained one section that was already in archive 5. I've deleted archive 6 and adjusted the archive counter in MiszaBot's configuration on your talk page. Hope you don't mind. Graham87 05:19, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Great, thanks!  Frank  |  talk  12:54, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Status of NY Lieutenant Governorship

I've responded at my talkpage. GoodDay (talk) 16:29, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Break bread with me at my talkpage. GoodDay (talk) 20:27, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: my RfA.

Hi Frank,

I'm a little distressed with the fact my Rfa nomination has been closed prematurely, without myself being given the opportunity to answer the questions put forward to me. The outline suggests that all RfA nominations are given a 7 day opportunity for debate. And this to me seems to have been over-looked. The case has been closed too early, with myself being denied the chance to answer the doubts that are on people's minds. Although I fully understand the comments people have made for opposing the request - I feel I have been penalised the opportunity to participate in a fair and open inquest. I would sincerely like to be given this opportunity to answer all the doubts people have on their minds about my lack of contributions, and hopefully allow them to see that in fact I am actually compatible and able to fulfil the role of administrator on a site as successful and important as wikipedia. Kindest regards in this matter - Pr3st0n (talk) 19:43, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

It is certainly your right to have your RfA re-opened, but I don't think it will give you the result you're looking for. I recommend you leave it as is and focus on building more content and learning more policies and come back at a later time. If you still wish for it to be re-opened, let me know and I can take care of it for you.  Frank  |  talk  19:46, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Got your message after already reopening. — neuro^(talk) 19:50, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Yep, I saw. It's out of our hands now.  Frank  |  talk  19:50, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I clearly understand what you have pointed out Frank, and I have read Wikipedia:NOTNOW fully. There is a paragraph in there that discourages early closure - Wikipedia:NOTNOW#Reasons_for_early_closure. Those points discouraging the action don't seem to have been abided, and as a result as caused a premature closer for an open a fair debate to take place. Surely this is an infringement of my rights to participate in a fair discussion while the case was in open discussion? (Pr3st0n (talk) 19:55, 22 September 2009 (UTC))

I don't see how the paragraph you linked discourages early closure. Nevertheless, User:Neurolysis has already reopened it. I think you'll begin to see some of the effects referenced in WP:NOTNOW; don't be discouraged if that occurs. Best wishes, and thanks for all your contributions to Wikipedia.  Frank  |  talk  20:01, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Frank, I would like to take this opportunity to inform you that I have added additional comments of my own for my RfA request, in the area set out for "questions". Feel free to take a look at these if you like. Regards, Pr3st0n (talk) 20:41, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Whale Killer

Do you mind if I ask why you deleted this redirect? It's a popular "folk etymology" term, the claim being that "Whale Killer" was the original and "Killer Whale" a corruption of it. I have no idea whether this is actually correct, but I have heard this claim often enough that I was surprised to find this redirect missing. I'd appreciate if you would undelete it. — Gavia immer (talk) 03:52, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

If you have citations from reliable sources, we can re-evaluate. Wikipedia is not, among many other things, a publisher of original research.  Frank  |  talk  03:55, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I believe you misunderstand the requirements so far as redirects go. In any case, this does not meet the requirements for speedy deletion, because I have given a reason why this is not implausible. If you wish to see this deleted, I would ask that you take it to WP:RFD instead. — Gavia immer (talk) 04:01, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

You haven't provided any citations, and I can't find any to support the idea that whale killer is a plausible redirect to killer whale. With citations from reliable sources, we have a firm basis for discussion of the subject. Without any, we have to resort to the "requirements so far as redirects go" that you are referring to; can you provide a link to them? That will help me understand your belief that I misunderstand them.  Frank  |  talk  04:08, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Since discussion here hasn't been productive, I have taken the discussion to the wider audience at Deletion Review. Please feel free to make any comments you have at that discussion, located at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_September_23. — Gavia immer (talk) 04:22, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Reply to statement on my user page.

Hi Frank, I have posted a reply to your statement on my user page via here. Regards, Pr3st0n (talk) 20:17, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Frank. Just wanted to let you know that it turns out this particular text was PD, not withstanding the copyright notice on the bottom. It was originally published in 1911. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:19, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Great - thanks for sorting all of that. Hopefully Gareth has a little more knowledge about our copyright policies as well. Meanwhile, how do we know it's PD?  Frank  |  talk  01:15, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Because anything published anywhere in the world prior to January 1923 is PD in the US. More or less. Since it was originally published in English, I think we can presume it to be safe based on our guidelines. But when in doubt, I generally consult User:John Vandenberg, poor guy. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:34, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Cookie-love

Pr3st0n has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Failed GA review on Society for Human Rights - advice please!

I have posted this on my talk page too, so its up to you which you want to reply to. Pr3st0n (talk) 15:02, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Already replied there; it is not necessary to post in both places. Best idea is to provide a diff linking to the original. I can then look at it in its original context.  Frank  |  talk  15:16, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Attack page on James Andrew Compton

Hey, could you put that page back up? It's a joke for that person, and we really wanted them to see the page. They know about it, so could you?

Thanks!

No. Please see WP:NOT.  Frank  |  talk  17:28, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

TPS

You stalker you! Thank you! Pedro :  Chat  20:12, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Guilty as charged. Least I could do after you made a nice comment about me recently, even if my involvement there didn't have the desired effect. Oh well. I try. :-) Cheers -  Frank  |  talk  20:14, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

T-chart

Regarding your edit, are you sure that WP:NOTBROKEN really applies to double redirects. Wikipedia:Redirect states "A double redirect is a title that redirects to another redirect – avoid these, as they do not work.". What is the advantage of someone clicking on on T-chart and seeing [1] rather than information relevant to the topic? Double redirects are also fixed by bots such as User:Xqbot ([2]). Guest9999 (talk) 01:00, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

If a user types in "T-chart" in the search box and clicks "go", they will wind up at the appropriate place. Also, notice in the link you show, there is the "redirect=no" parameter, which explains why that particular one doesn't redirect (although not why the first one doesn't). There is a legitimate reason to leave it in place though; it may well be that T-chart deserves its own article. At some point in the future, someone may be interested in knowing the number of hits it received. If we skip it by going from T-table to the other article, we would not have as accurate a gauge of what interest level exists. Also, note that T-table does have a history. Frank  |  talk  01:05, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, software's obviously changed, I didn't realise - sorry about that. Since Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/T-table ended with a result of "redirect" and T-chart would seem to be synonymous with T-table I'm not sure what difference it makes in this situation but I trust your judgement. Sorry to have disturbed you, regards Guest9999 (talk) 13:15, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

No apology necessary at all! That deletion discussion is a key consideration in my mind. There used to be an article and it was decided that the article was no longer appropriate to have by itself. If enough redirects pointed to the article itself rather than to its redirected location, that might be convincing evidence that it should be recreated on its own merits at some point in the future. That is, I think, what WP:NOTBROKEN is about. On the other hand, if having this redirect shows that there are almost never any hits, then that is an indication that the article does not merit its own entry. However, if we bypass T-table completely by going directly to its redirect, we can't get a good idea of what would be appropriate. This all assumes anyone cares...sometimes we find that folks do, and sometimes not. But at least there's a little more information available if someone does investigate later on.  Frank  |  talk  14:55, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

72 (Australian TV channel)

Could you undelete this please. This article clearly had content - e.g. launch date, channel numbers and broadcast areas. At the very least it was a valid stub. I was also in the process of adding two sourxes to it, namely [3] and [4]. Dpmuk (talk) 12:54, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I fully agree but I don't object to at least trying, so I have restored it per your request. Those two articles are speculative and in fact both say the company will not confirm the rumors, which makes it WP:CRYSTAL in my opinion, although that alone is not sufficient to CSD an article. (I deleted it per its CSD nom - no content; all it had was one sentence and an infobox.) I presume you will be making an effort to offset that with better sources. I cannot say if others will agree; it may well be nominated for deletion again...or not!  Frank  |  talk  13:08, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the restore. Small point but I'm not the original author; I came accross the page patrolling WP:CSD - I'd have created the page with the sources already in place. I'm not entirely sure whether it fails WP:CRYSTAL or not but in my opinion there's certainly enough there to avoid speedy although possibly not an AfD (I would object to a prod as I feel it would need more discussion). In my opinion it was never an A3 speedy candidate as the A3 criterion states "Similarly, this criterion doesn't cover a page with an infobox with non-trivial information." I feel that launch date and coverage areas are both non-trivial information although I accept that's a much more subjective view. Dpmuk (talk) 13:13, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

As you say, that is subjective; I interpret that more for historical or fact-based cases than this, which is still conjecture. However, if the channel does in fact launch, or if its launch is confirmed by the company in a reliable source, then I would consider the date and coverage areas to be non-trivial. As it looked when I deleted it, I saw a placeholder with no substantive content. At any rate, if you can add some decent sources there is less chance of it being nominated again.  Frank  |  talk  13:19, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I do definitely see your point of view and don't think either of our points of view are out of keeping with policy - they're just different intpretations of it. However I also think that coverage in two major newspapers makes the subject notable and so should be kept even if they admit it's speculating, although again this is just my reading of WP:CRYSTAL backed up by some knowledge of how some AfDs have gone. Sources are now added and we'll see how things go. If you feel the article should be deleted I have no problems with you starting an AfD (although I would nearly certainly vote keep), it was the speedy deletion I objected to as it didn't give editors a chance to improve the article (e.g. by adding sources) and I thought it deserved that. Dpmuk (talk) 13:31, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Pr3st0n

I'm surprised he had to ask you to stay off his talk page that many times. I understand you were trying to help, but it definitely doesn't look like it came across that way. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:05, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Now at ANI. --AndrewHowse (talk) 17:25, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you both for your notes. I have prepared a summary below that I do not need or expect a response to but you may be interested in reviewing just the same.

Notes in response

The discussion at ANI seems to be handling the matter, but just for reference, I hardly call "While I've got your attention, I'm going to put forward a question to you." a request to stay off one's talk page. Rather, it seems a request for input will be forthcoming, and a new section on his talk page was directly addressed to me. In addition, it was followed directly by placement of a nearly identical message on my talk page, with a header that included "advice please".

I thought better of responding, noting in my reply that I wasn't going to bring it up, but since he asked, I gave an honest assessment. It seems that reply was sufficient for Gareth to remove me from his "wiki-friends" list and decide I was persona non grata.

Whether there were any previous "leave me alone" requests, I consider the above two edits - directly addressing me on his talk page and then posting a section with "advice please" on mine - to be the exact opposite of "leave me alone". After those two messages, I see this and this. I did respond in between those two requests, but I "got it" after the second one and let all previous matters drop completely (there were three: copyright, talk page refactoring, and GA nomination).

My additional message was not on any previous topic but truly meant as support for Gareth to see that others have walked the RfA path he walked just last week. He didn't see it that way, claiming without substantiation that it was the 5th time asking to be left alone, and as was noted in my edit summary, I understood it was unwelcome and apologized in removing the thread.

I am including this summary here for several reasons: I don't feel the need to clog up the ANI thread when the context seems clear to those in that forum; I don't want Gareth to feel further pressured; and I do feel the need to collect these diffs while they're relatively fresh. I hope nobody sees any negativity here; I'm merely recording events as closely as possible the way I saw them, with specific diffs. If User:Pr3st0n feels the need to respond, that is fine with me and I hold no animosity whatsoever. That's not an invitation but rather a plain statement that I won't view it as antagonistic in any way if he desires to engage.  Frank  |  talk  19:04, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Read. No further comment at this time. Thanks for the expansion.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:11, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Aye. And oy. --AndrewHowse (talk) 21:14, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

hi

it's okay bro (Sm3a (talk) 00:19, 1 October 2009 (UTC)).

Hi

Hi Frank, I've requested semi-protection of your userpage. If you object, just comment over at RFPP. ceranthor 00:30, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I put a note that I think it's OK for now; I haven't seen any vandalism recently. The section above was actually in response to a page move I made.  Frank  |  talk  00:58, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

No, I reverted two vandals on your user page. ceranthor 01:13, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, that. Hadn't noticed. Thanks!  Frank  |  talk  01:59, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

vandalizing articles.

Ok i will bring up sources: authors, journalists, investigation reports, witness and documents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.162.189.235 (talk • contribs)

Please feel free to develop WP:CONSENSUS at Talk:Lyndon B. Johnson by providing reliable sources for any assertion that he was involved in planning JFK's assassination. Also, please sign your posts on talk pages by adding ~~~~ at the end of your message. Thanks!  Frank  |  talk  03:24, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Nachattube.com

Hi Frank. You may want to delete this again as I was placing a speedy tag on it just as you were deleting it, so it was re-created with just my speedy tag on it. ArcAngel (talk) 21:23, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the note; I have seen this before but I don't always catch it.  Frank  |  talk  21:25, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Pr3st0n images

Since you brought this to my attention, I wanted to let you know that this is now at ANI. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:03, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - I had no inkling, really, that there was more than just that one image. I hope this can be resolved with a minimum of drama.  Frank  |  talk  14:09, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Woops...

Woops. I recently placed the speedy deletion tag on Tubeworld. I now realize that, even though I meant to nominate it, I placed the wrong tag on there. I meant to give the one about it being blatant advertising. But it doesn't matter too much; as you have deleted it. ⊥m93 ^talk. 01:02, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Hussle Family

Frankly, Frank, I do not understand why you deleted the "Hussle Family" page. It's contributions to the social networking site, Facebook, are culturally significant, and your anti-facebook bias has pitted you against this article. I ask that you reestablish this article immediately. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.125.132.226 (talk) 03:04, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

The Hussle Family article was deleted under the A7 criterion for speedy deletion - essentially, there was no assertion of notability for the family in question. There were also no references. There is no bias here; it just didn't meet policy. You might try reading your first article for ideas about creating an article. I'll be glad to help you if you wish.  Frank  |  talk  13:06, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Issue

Thanks, I'll do that next time. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 18:43, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

67.165.198.112 (talk) 04:39, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

My page

Can I not have a Will Daniels page?

67.165.198.112 (talk) 04:40, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

The Will daniels page was deleted because it had no assertion of notability. In fact, it had very little except "Will Daniels was born in Los Angeles, California." If Will is notable and there are reliable sources to provide citations to indicate that, then perhaps the article is appropriate. You can also check out WP:DRAW.

Ding-Dong

You have new mail. Pedro :  Chat  07:29, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Who you calling a ding-dong? :-) (Thanks!)  Frank  |  talk  12:04, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

RE: 0408136145

I did not create the page on purpose, most likely it was deleted by the time I had tagged it for speedy deletion. Usually Twinkle detects this and stops the process but this time it didn't, and recreated the page, including speedy deletion template. Sorry 'bout the confusion. Best, TheLetterM (talk) 23:36, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Fastest fickle finger in the West.  :)

I just don't understand why people just keep posting nonsense over and over again and then wonder why they get blocked. My Italian grandmother would have called that person a "baccala-chooch," making them both dried codfish and a jackass.  :) Thanks for the fun note. Regards, PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:51, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, my Italian grandmother would have called them doosibatz, essentially meaning "crazy", as I recall :-) Cheers!  Frank  |  talk  01:55, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

ROTFLMAO! Tu si pazza! Yes, Nonna would have definitely used that one as well...and hoo boy, did she ever. PMDrive1061 (talk) 02:43, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Wow, was that what she was saying? Live and learn. She's been gone 15 years and I'm always glad to come up with a fond memory. Thanks for the translation :-)  Frank  |  talk  11:49, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Eric Ziegler

PLEASE DONT DELETE THE ERIC ZIEGLER PAGE AGAIN —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jiggyrocks35 (talk • contribs) 03:59, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the sources.

Annoying as the attention-@#$% was at the Jenniferwhatever article, I am glad we were able to rescue it... I simply could not extract the trees from the forest... I am just not a great searcher. I really do like to talk a lot. Thanks for the sources that let me yap (hopefully productively) some more. And I apologize for the name thing... Fred? Where did Fred come from? Ah well All the best and Happy Editing.- Sinneed 17:27, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

So QUICK! I wish "restore this version" gave edit conflict notifications... I see your rollback beat mine. Didn't mean to take credit for your work in the reversion.- Sinneed 18:27, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Not 100% sure what you're referring to here, but let me point out two things: 1) If you're using Twinkle, please do be aware of the fact that you are responsible for the edits made while using it, so you should be pretty sure of what button you're clicking, and 2) If two or more edits have been performed, you can still use "rollback (VANDAL)" and it will get all of them, assuming they are the most recent. Not sure if either of these applies to what you're talking about; apologies if not.  Frank  |  talk  19:09, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I wasn't clear.

You and I both made the same edit at the same time... I went to the user talk page and explained that I had reverted the user's work and corrected the problem]... but that was not true, you had done it. I just wanted you to know I was not intentionally claiming responsibility for your work.- Sinneed 19:17, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Bit of background, I did this once before and offended another editor.- Sinneed 19:18, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

No worries, mate. We're after the same result. I've been beaten to the punch many times, since I never use Huggle and those Hugglers can be pretty durn quick... :-)  Frank  |  talk  19:41, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• *nod* Ah, yes, Huggle: the Wikipedia FPS.- Sinneed 20:01, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi there Frank, I see that you helped on the Jennifer Nicole Lee article. I am trying to upload a JNL photo, but its not working, how do I become an autoconfirmed user?

thanks!Mrthomasedisom (talk) 19:08, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

You have to stick around for a certain amount of time and/or edits; I'm really not sure which. Do you have a photo of her that you took yourself? Keep in mind that we cannot accept a copyrighted photo.  Frank  |  talk  20:59, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Ahmed Ali (football)

Hi, you moved an article on the above player to Ahmed Ali (football) as it was "more appropriate". The correct disambiguator for articles on football players would have seen it moved to Ahmed Ali (footballer born 1990), to disambiguate from Ahmed Ali (footballer). Cheers, GiantSnowman 12:08, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I have seen this done both ways, although your solution would have been even more appropriate than the one I came up with. For example, see Bill Bradley (disambiguation); some name the sport itself, some name the person's activity. I guess I'll have to actually read the guideline or policy associated with this. In any case, Ahmed Ali (player) seemed for sure to be the wrong title. Cheers!  Frank  |  talk  12:32, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

As a general rule of thumb, most players will be Wiki Pedia (footballer), apart from players that come from nations that call the sport 'soccer' (i.e. Canada/USA etc.), where the standard is Wiki Pedia (soccer) (and not '(soccer player)'). If there are two players with the same name, primary disambiguation would be year of birth - Wiki Pedia (footballer born 1960) and Wiki Pedia (footballer born 1980). If date of birth is unknown or idential, nationality is used - Wiki Pedia (English footballer) and Wiki Pedia (Scottish footballer). If that still doesn't do the trick, then position is used - Wiki Pedia (goalkeeper) and Wiki Pedia (defender). And if THAT still doesn't work, then a combination can be used, ideally nationality and date of birth - Wiki Pedia (English footballer born 1940), Wiki Pedia (English footballer born 1975), Wiki Pedia (Scottish footballer born 1940) and Wiki Pedia (Scottish footballer born 1975)...hope this makes sense! Cheers, GiantSnowman 21:38, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Feedback would be appreciated

Since you recently went through finding a multiple point infringer and trying to muster assistance with it, you may be in excellent position to give feedback on the new proposed process page at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations. I plan to place it at village pump soon (like maybe tomorrow), but would like a fresh set of eyes that might help find glaring issues before doing so. Thanks for any input you may be able to offer. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:27, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: NoMorePost.com

hi there, new to the wikipedia thing.....can you tell me what i am doing wrong?...had a new page i created removed/deleted? regards gavin —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gavinmullins123 (talk • contribs)

The NoMorePost.com article you created did not meet our notability guidelines for article creation. It was also almost entirely promotional in nature, which would also qualify it for speedy deletion. We need citations from reliable sources apart from the subject to help establish notability of a subject. For more info, please also read WP:CORP. If you have any further questions, please let me know.  Frank  |  talk  21:34, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

how is what i inserted different from what the page titled Zumbox shows?....(totally new user and dont fully understand the whole process yet and i was trying to follow other pages of live info).. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gavinmullins123 (talk • contribs) 21:39, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

The article we're discussing is NoMorePost.com, not Zumbox, which is also not the best-sourced article around here, but it does have at least three links to external sources in the article which talk about the topic. An excellent place to start is WP:FIRST.  Frank  |  talk  21:42, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

ok, i understand, so i alomst had it....apart from the sources.....so when i do it again i just put atleast the 3 resources in there and it should be fine? can i create the page again or do i just edit it? sorry for the stupid questions. regards gavin Gavinmullins123 (talk) 21:45, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, first thing we have to determine is whether or not the company is even notable enough for inclusion. Do you have sources to support that assertion?  Frank  |  talk  21:46, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

ok, read the first post page...starting to make sense now...will put the necessary sources in and create a ub page first and work on itr over next few weeks. thanks for the help..Gavinmullins123 (talk) 21:49, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Re. welcomes, warnings & re-blocks

Greetings Frank. Just seen your message on PhilKnight's talk page responding to my request for a re-block. I fully agree with what you point out, and as you can see from my contributions, I spend much, if not most, of my wikitime reverting bad faith edits & slapping welcome/warnings on corresponding user pages.

Re. the case in point, I had just popped in there to post a warning when I saw that the user had already been blocked for a year with a date/time stamp prior to my revert. Suspecting that something strange was going on, I started jumping around between pages before it dawned on me that I had misread the year (2008 NOT 2009). Sorry you were troubled. Regards, --Technopat (talk) 22:06, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

No trouble; I don't understand the "misread the year" part since you made note of that in your message on Phil's talk page, but in any case, no harm done. Cheers!  Frank  |  talk  04:02, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

How long should it take to dry the clothes?

Frank, you are a great person to assist with proper input into Wiki and I hope you get proper recognition. Ugh, after looking over my post from today I think the reference to installation guidelines may be the culprit of your concerns that text needs to be verifiable. Could I inquire of you if I should provide links to one, a few or many manufacturers guidelines onling, or remove or reword it to sound like "generally the manufacturers prohibit foil flex", maybe that is even to forward. do you have some thoughts on how i should state that semi rigid is popular with the manufacturers guidelines?

Also, I can take out the word dryerbox if you feel that it is not used in the generic context, and just leave the "recessed dryer vent receptacle".

I do feel that viewers that came to clothes dryer may be quite interested in learning the safety aspects of it. Listing these points here may save a life or a lot of property damage. Here is the paragraph that you likely had trouble with....

The flex transition hose directly behind the dryer can be crushed and/or severely deformed. Generally this is the result of using the foil or vinyl wire bound flex hose, and the relocation of the dryer to far up against the wall. In all manufacturers installation guidelines it specifically recommends the use of the semi-rigid aluminum flex hose. This type of flex hose will contain a fire, exhibits much less friction for air flow and maintains the full 4” diameter within. The use of a recessed dryer vent receptacle or dryerbox will in most cases prevent the flex hose from getting crushed and allows the washer and dryer to be moved back safely.

Here is a rework of it for your review:

The flex transition hose directly behind the dryer can be crushed and/or severely deformed. Generally this is the result of using the foil or vinyl wire bound flex hose, and the relocation of the dryer to far up against the wall. Manufacturers' installation guidelines in most cases recommend the use of semi-rigid aluminum flex hose. This type of flex hose will contain a fire, exhibits much less friction for air flow and maintains the full 4” diameter within. The use of a recessed dryer vent receptacle will in most cases prevent the flex hose from getting crushed and allows the washer and dryer to be moved back safely.

Let me know if this is better, and thanks for your time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rickharp (talk • contribs) 22:04, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

You should discuss such a change on the talk page of the article itself. I reverted the change you made (as did other editors) because it was not encyclopedic (we are not a how-to directory), it had no citations from reliable sources, and it was original research. Note that nowhere did I question the accuracy of the information or whether or not people would be interested in safety information. It may well be true, and people may well want such information; it's just that Wikipedia isn't the place for it. Further discussion as to these specifics should really be on the talk page of the article itself.  Frank  |  talk  22:09, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Coldplayer

Hello Frank - You have deleted my page and i dont know why?? Please can you help me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coldplayeruk (talk • contribs) 02:15, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Coldplayer did not assert notability in any way. Please read your first article for more details.  Frank  |  talk  02:18, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Hyalogic

Hi Frank. I recently received a flag for my page Hyalogic for speedy deletion. I am currently working on compiling the information to make this article more complete. How long do I have before my article is deleted? However, if my article is deleted, how soon can I resubmit this content? Thanks. Dniccum1 (talk) 14:41, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Apparently, the CSD has been declined, so it won't be deleted soon.  Frank  |  talk  14:44, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Date formatting

I had no idea there is an "ongoing debate" on date formatting. It seems to me that the simple and concrete approach of saying "February 5, 1918" or whatever trumps the ambiguity of using "1918-02-05". Is that May 2 or February 5? Are you British or American? Not to mention the fact that people don't talk that way in real life...

Thanks for the catch on the 10 year judicial term, by the way. I probably would have caught that later this afternoon when I pulled Julian Jaffe's book, but maybe not. Carrite (talk) 21:07, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

What you view as a "simple and concrete" approach is not universally viewed as such. There is no reason to imagine that 1918-02-05 would be anything other than February 5. We Americans are stubborn in our insistence that there is some sense to putting things other than in their natural order: Y-M-D or D-M-Y. Why anyone would consider a date to be sensible in Y-D-M or M-D-Y order is beyond me.  Frank  |  talk  21:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

No problem on the judicial term; Panken was apparently quite a fascinating guy. I'm onto charges of fraud in the 1927 election. Forget hanging chads - there were accusations of workers "helping" voters in the booths!  Frank  |  talk  21:21, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Ack!

Does the unblock not remove autoblocks? Cripes... how long have I been an admin? Xavexgoem (talk) 21:57, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Nope, I don't think it does, although neither WP:NAS nor WP:BLOCK is very clear on that point.  Frank  |  talk  22:09, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

And, yes, the escalation refers to future vios, since the block remains logged at arbcom. Should've been more clear ^^; Xavexgoem (talk) 21:59, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I thought it was clear, but I wasn't getting "you can't edit" messages when I clicked around, so I can totally understand why someone in that situation might think otherwise.  Frank  |  talk  22:00, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Hall

Oh ok, no problem--Yankees10 17:03, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

What do you want to do with Charlie Hall (football player) and Charlie Hall (American football)?  Frank  |  talk  17:07, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll re-direct them to Charlie Hall (disambiguation).--Yankees10 17:10, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Community College Futures Assembly

Thank you...I put the winners in there because I saw "history" at other conferences...thanks for all the help! This will be very useful as I go on to the other four major conferences. I will actually go back and edit out the winners and keep it clean.

UTAPROF ZXQ (talk) 16:38, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I would suggest keeping the organizations separate from any conferences they hold. I think the organization is more likely to be notable than any individual conferences.  Frank  |  talk  16:41, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I give up with Wikipedia! One of you wants references so I add 58 references...the other strips them out and says it is ok to post it only to have another one of you delete it...this is ridiculous...if you cannot agree among yourself I am not going to waste my time anymore to help update the information on community college conferences, community colleges and vocational education.

The other people who I have been seemingly going in circles with are L’Aquatique, Nyttend, Queencake, Spartaz and some others. I started off with a very short wiki, but each administrator gave me different rules, procedures, things to add.

I have spent three days of my time just to post a short blurb about one of the major conferences in community colleges. There is no way in hell I am going to waste any more time trying to write some for the other conferences if I cant even get one written with a different set of rules, procedures, and things to do coming from everyone who looks at it…Good luck with your little site. This only further promotes the “cons” mentioned on the main wiki page.

Have a nice day.

UTAPROF ZXQ (talk) 20:00, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry you're frustrated. This "little site" you are referring to is actually one of the largest and most-visited on the entire Internet. There are 6,822,433 articles on the site, and since most of them have talk pages, and there are files, policy pages, discussion areas, categories, and more...it's a pretty big place. There are many policies to be aware of, and it's not reasonable to expect to get them all at first.

As to your particular frustration, I am familiar with at least two of those editors and they know what they're talking about. Further, putting over 50 references in a small article is probably far more effort than was requested.

I offered to help; the offer stands. Just let me know if you want to continue building the article. It may be helpful to read WP:FIRST as a starting point.  Frank  |  talk  20:33, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I still disagree. The wiki is no different from any other conference website...

Some background: This is one "child page" to a "parent page" on community colleges and community college conferences. It was my intention to write a wiki for each of the conferences on community colleges which did not exist already (a basic tenet of wikipedia). For whatever reason you, and all the other sysops/admins automatically "assume" that because someone posts a site it is automatically SPAM or advertising...there is nothing this wiki is selling nor is there any request for any funds, no request to attend...it is purely encyclopedic...Maybe you should ask for intentions

In response to all of the sysops/admins: I did read the WP:first...I did read the requirements for posting information on conferences...it is not an advertisement, it is not SPAM...it is written in a neutral voice...

Here are the wiki's I researched and modeled the wiki after: Here are similar wiki pages: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_Community_College_Trustees http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Association_of_Community_Colleges

Here are other education-related conference wikis: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Democratic_Education_Conference http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Democratic_Education_Conference http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interservice/Industry_Training,_Simulation_and_Education_Conference http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Computers_in_Education_Conference http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_India_Mumammadan_Educational_Conference http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regional_Conference_on_Higher_Education_2008 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Association_for_Jazz_Education_(IAJE)

Here are other non-education-related conference wikis: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_Communication_Congress http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DEF_CON_(convention) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiwicon http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notacon http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PhreakNIC http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ShmooCon http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summercon http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ToorCon http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hackers_Conference http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CodeCon

I only wanted to write a couple of quick paragraphs, just like the american association of community colleges wiki but all of you admins wanted me to keep adding more and more and more, until you chopped it back to basically where I started and then wanted me to do more once again...well spending four days to get a couple of paragraphs on one conference is not worth my time when it keeps getting flagged as advertising when I have nothing to do with the conference (that follows another Wiki rule on not publishing your own stuff) and effort...let alone trying to add in a couple of paragraphs here and there on all the other conferences...

I tried to use my expertise to improve the wiki sections on community colleges but none of you really seemed to understand what I am doing...which is follow what wikipedia was supposed to do in the first place...improve sections...in this case community colleges...

why the AACC or ACCT were allowed as wiki's without being "advertisements" or "spam" is beyond me...If you can show me how this wiki is an advertisement, what product I am trying to sell, or, for that matter how I have anything to do with that conference...I sure would be enlightened...

It is a shame since there are so many students who could have used a central repository on community college conferences, which, is encyclopedic content...Not to mention having them become users of Wikipedia and having them update the wikis...

So, like I said...if this wiki is not allowed (although I agree...just the first few paragraphs and a few cites is enough) then I am done with wikipedia...it is simply not worth my time to argue to get a bunch of conferences mentioned on wikipedia

Thank you for your comments and offer...it really is appreciated, but you have to understand my perspective too...four days of work to get a couple of paragraphs published about someone else's stuff is not worth my time and effort anymore...

I hope it can work out but if it doesn't thanks for your time and have a Happy Halloween.

UTAPROF ZXQ (talk) 19:42, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Happy Halloween!

File:Halloween Hush Puppies.jpg

Photograph of my Halloween-themed Hush Puppies plush basset hounds in my bedroom.

As Halloween is my favorite holiday, I just wanted to wish those Wikipedians who have been nice enough to give me a barnstar or smile at me, supportive enough to agree with me, etc., a Happy Halloween! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:25, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Marc Baril

I really don't understand where you think the assertion of notability for musicians is in that article. Can you explain? Toddst1 (talk) 13:04, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

He is best known for his compositions... is an assertion of notability. I'm not saying I think he actually meets our notability guidelines, but as you know, that's not what CSD is for.  Frank  |  talk  13:06, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I think that he was used in The Thaw (film) which makes him notable enough. Thx. I think I need some coffee. Toddst1 (talk) 13:11, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

CSD on Dênis

Hi. A quick Google search actually revealed that this is a duplicate article from Dênis Oliveira de Souza. I put the wrong csd category on the db tag, but it still falls under CSD guidelines for being a duplicate article. Thanks! Panoptical (talk) 01:51, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't know of any CSD criterion that supports deleting a duplicate article. The correct action is not CSD, it's a redirect, which I've taken care of.  Frank  |  talk  02:12, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion

Hello Frank - I just created a page for Image Space Media that was deleted quickly for not adequately indicating the company's significance. I believe however that the company is significant enough to deserve a Wikipedia page. Where can I go from here? Should I recreate the page with more evidence of its important place within the online advertising market?

Thanks for your help! Ceh2125 (talk) 19:14, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I moved the article to User:Ceh2125/Image Space Media so you can work on it. Please read WP:FIRST and WP:CORP and let me know if you have any questions.  Frank  |  talk  19:18, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Great, thank you. Thanks also for your advice! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ceh2125 (talk • contribs) 20:06, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Yvonne Koay

Although not widely published outside of Wales, Malaysia and Brunei, Yvonne Koay is considered an influence to many people, and i feel that her work has had an impression on me, and many of my fellow students. She is notable within her own fields, although not widely known outside of this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Minnysnatch (talk • contribs) 13:01, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

We need citations from reliable sources to support claims to notability. I'm not saying she definitely isn't notable; I'm saying we need to show it if she is notable. At this point, the best place to discuss is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yvonne Koay.  Frank  |  talk  13:04, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Frank Lorenzo

The article Frank Lorenzo you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Frank Lorenzo/GA1 for things needed to be addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:52, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

AUSC

Sorry that your candidacy wasn't successful. For what it's worth, I thought you were a solid candidate, and you got my support vote. Most of the candidates were largely on an equal playing field, so don't beat yourself up about it. :-) Best, AGK 22:14, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate it. I guess I can put up my banner now. :-)  Frank  |  talk  22:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I was pleased to be in the company I was, and indeed I felt that the committee could not help but be the better for selecting any three of the six candidates, so I'm not wound up about it at all. And, the voting nature kept the drama to zero, which is just my style. :-)  Frank  |  talk  22:39, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey, just wanted to say thanks for running along side the rest of us, and I'll do my best to do you credit. --Tznkai (talk) 03:45, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

My pleasure; see above regarding my feelings about the group as a whole. Best wishes!  Frank  |  talk  17:35, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in SecurePoll feedback and workshop

As you participated in the recent Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two requests for comment that relate to the use of SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Risker (talk) 08:08, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Hatred

We should not tollerate the level of racial hatred you are trying to pass off with a warning. This is not acceptable and it should not be up to you to make that decision. Please come back to ANI on this Polargeo (talk) 17:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I think Frank has acted entirely appropriately at the AN/I discussion and he left nothing uncertain should this user's conduct be questioned again. We now have, in addition to two ARBCOM cases dealing with the general issue of conduct in ex-Yu articles, a community concensus on the very specific issue of this user's conduct. The very next unhelpful edit by this editor will likely result in an indef block. I second Frank's suggestion that discussion cease at the AN/I board while leaving the option open for other uninvolved admins to take further actions as deemed necessary. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 18:08, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Poekoelan

Hey Frank, I wanted to stop by to thank you for keeping an eye on my talk page and responding to people when I am unable; I really appreciate all your help. If you don't mind, could you take a look at User talk:GlassCobra#Poekoelan and see about userfying the article for the user requesting it? Thank you very much again. GlassCobra 21:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

My pleasure; feel free to contact me any time.  Frank  |  talk  23:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I second the thank you note! I was a bit slow in replying because I forgot about the issue (forgot to put the pages on my watchlist!), glad it all worked out. Cheers!Calaka (talk) 04:23, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Young Legend

I don't understand why you moved the Young Legend music page back to a user page. The article is very accurate and about a notable musician. I'm new so any feedback would help. Thanks.JardenBooks (talk) 01:13, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

The article has no real references and does not assert notability of the artist. It's clear there was a lot of work put into the article, so I'm assuming good faith, but I'm not even sure the article merits inclusion in the encyclopedia.  Frank  |  talk  01:38, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Is this because you personally have never heard of the artist? He is a new artist signed to Atlantic Rec. undet T.I.'s Grand Hustle imprint. Radio play, internet buzz, street buzz is very high in demand. Im not disagreeing with you, I just don't understand. I personally do not care for "RAP/HIP-HOP" music, but I would consider Young Legend worthy of a Wikipedia page. Am I wrong?JardenBooks (talk) 01:41, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

There are 6,822,433 articles in this encyclopedia; I certainly have not heard of the vast majority of them. However, the point is that all subjects must meet notability guidelines, and this article does not seem to do that. If he is actually notable, we just need references from reliable sources to show that. It doesn't matter if I've heard of him or not.  Frank  |  talk  01:44, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I understand. Thanks for your info. I am just not clear on the usage of "notable". Some accomplishments are not "notable" in the underground music scene. This article may have been a bit premature.JardenBooks (talk) 01:49, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

The easiest way to become clear is to click the notable link and read the policy.  Frank  |  talk  01:53, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Please note that according to the userpage of the account User:JardenBooks, Jarden Books is a company which is being paid to publicize Yourng Legend and other musicians by creating Wikipedia advertisements about them. The COI is blatant; the role account has been blocked as a spamusername. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:38, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I noticed that too but was proceeding cautiously; I'm also concerned about socking.  Frank  |  talk  13:41, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Display name

Fine by me. "Andre" as a display name pre-dates Wikipedia and was an alias I used as someone underage online (I'm 20). "Andrevan" is even older though and is actually an AOL screen name from 1996. Now that I use my real name online, the remaining references to obsolete aliases are basically persisting via inertia and laziness, and every instance of my signature links directly to my userpage anyway. So it's a moot point to me, feel free to set my display name as whatever you want. Andre (talk) 03:45, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I didn't mean for it to be complicated; I noticed that's how your sig is, and accommodated that in the template. There was at least one other 'crat on that page (and maybe more editors on the unsuccessful candidacies page) where this applied, so it seemed appropriate to put it in there. It's not for me to decide how you display; I just didn't want the new format to eliminate the possibility of a different display name. Your choice!  Frank  |  talk  12:26, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Obama stimulus

If you read the article that was used as a source, you will notice that this is exactly what it says.

U.S. GDP rises 3.5% as stimulus kicks in. Gains in consumer spending, inventories, housing drive growth

The U.S. economy expanded at a 3.5% annual pace in the third quarter, as massive government stimulus helped drag the economy out of the longest and deepest recession since the 1930s, the Commerce Department estimated Thursday.

I can understand why it may be premature to say that the recession is over, seeing as how it has yet to be officialy confirmed. However, we already know that the economy grew at a 3.5% pace, and that the article used as a source states that the economy started growing again exactly when the stimulus started to kick in. Therefore, wouldn't it be appropriate to include these things that are already known to be true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joker123192 (talk • contribs) 01:36, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Please read WP:V and WP:OR. Also, note that "as stimulus kicks in" in a headline is not nearly the same as saying "caused by the stimulus package." Furthermore, the article actually states that the cash-for-clunkers program was largely responsible for 3Q growth, and that wasn't even part of the stimulus package. Barack Obama is one of the largest and most highly-visited pages on the encyclopedia, and it is definitely a WP:BLP article, and it's on probation. Edits of the sort you've been making must be very carefully sourced. Please also note that when BLP issues are concerned, it is not considered WP:3RR to continue to revert edits that are inappropriate. Finally, I would say the place to discuss changes to that article is on its talk page, not here. That's where consensus will be developed.  Frank  |  talk  01:41, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Strom Thurmond edits

Please read the most current comments on this issue by Jusdfax <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jusdafax">here</a>. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cplessinger (talk • contribs) 18:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Take care, Cplessinger. Remember, I'm no admin. My comments reflect only my own views! Deep breaths, man! Jusdafax 18:25, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Please see the following: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cplessinger#Strom_Thurmond for my to your comments Frank. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cplessinger (talk • contribs) 18:36, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

More comments - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cplessinger#Strom_Thurmond

Christopher Plessinger 18:45, 18 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cplessinger (talk • contribs)

Candidates

Heh, I just realized my mistake at the same time you did but you beat me to the correction before I. Sorry about that. :P -WarthogDemon 22:56, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

No problem at all. There may be others that are incorrectly listed.  Frank  |  talk  22:57, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Robert p. loomis

Please take more care when speedily deleting articles. You deleted the above article as G3 vandalism when it was nowhere near it (it was A7, non-notable person; G3 is only for blatant vandalism). Additionally, you did not notify the creator of the article. Mm40 (talk) 12:49, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Really? Loomis won the 1942 World Championship Yo-Yo competition was his famous behind the back double twist walk the dog move. With the $200 dollars he won, he decided to buy even more Yo-Yos and one Hula-Hoop. In the 1980’s he played back-up goalie for the Soviet Union hockey team, letting the USA team score the game winning goal by Mike Eruzione. After losing the Gold medal to the USA hockey team, Loomis returned to the states and he ran for President against Daddy Bush.  Frank  |  talk  12:52, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure vandalism is more a page filled with "penis". I suppose this may be more "blatant hoax", but I didn't read past the introduction. Cheers, Mm40 (talk) 12:59, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that CSD G3 also includes blatant hoaxes, and I did read past the introduction before I deleted it.  Frank  |  talk  13:03, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Rollback permission

You are listed as an administrator willing to grant rollback requests. Would you consider granting me rollback permission? Much of what I do is fixing vandalism, so it seems it would be helpful. Updatebjarni (talk) 20:31, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Your contribution history is kind of thin but I don't see any problems with it, so I've granted you WP:ROLLBACK rights. Please read the policy and use appropriately; any admin can remove it as well if your use of rollback is found to be inappropriate. Thanks for your contributions!  Frank  |  talk  20:52, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll use it carefully. Updatebjarni (talk) 00:10, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Farrah Fawcett

Hi! According to these two sites (www.statemaster.com, Accuracy Project site) Fawcett's birth certificate, which is usually the final word on this sort of thing, has "Ferrah" as her first name, although the Accuracy Project avers that this was a misspelling. Yours. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 15:28, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I am personally acquainted with a situation in which a birth certificate was recorded incorrectly. That is not to say that I know hers was, but it could have happened, and given the sources available on this matter, that does appear to be what happened. Having said that, it is pretty much a moot point; we are generally not in the habit of using WP:PRIMARY sources anyway, and that's one reason why. The reliable sources mostly report she was born Farrah; since there are some that report Ferrah, that is also reflected in the article. The suggestion that "Mary" was somehow involved in her name doesn't appear to be supported anywhere reliable, however. The talk page for her article already has some discussion on this matter, and I recommend any further question be placed there.  Frank  |  talk  15:35, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Casual Collective

Happyland123 (talk) 21:37, 21 November 2009 (UTC) Hi this is HappyLand123. I saw you deleted my post about the Casual Collective. I just wanted to explain why I made the post. The Casual Collective is a very popular gaming website, with tens of thousands of players. I think it has 60,000 players but I have to go check. It also offers a variety of games that are of excellent quality, and has been featured in the news several times. Its founders are very famous, for example Paul Preece was the founder of Desktop TD.

I'm going to recreate the Casual Collective page, and I will try to include why it is a significant company. If you disagree with me, then please feel free to talk to me about this! Or if you think that this website is not fit to be posted on Wikipedia then please delete it again. I think that I didn't explain its significance well enough though.

Thanks! Happyland123 (talk) 21:37, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

first page

Don't delete my first page Frank!! I'm a Newbie and still learning.will get on the mistakes i made,just need to practise.I'm a big Fan of Jen Dawson's and would like to be the one who created her page --Bessiya (talk) 14:57, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I didn't delete it; I proposed it for deletion. I don't see that she is notable enough to have an article here.  Frank  |  talk  16:01, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Richard William Aguirre

Frank, I am requesting to have the Richard William Aguirre page be published. I have added the Save Sunset Cliffs page to establish significance of "Richard William Aguirre" as being notable in itself. "Richard William Aguirre" is the founder of "Save Sunset Cliffs" in San Diego,Ca. and also a Democratic Candidate for Governor of California in 2010. Sdpolitics (talk) 06:48, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Notability is not inherited, although it can help establish someone's notability. In this case, I'm not convinced, because the group itself doesn't even appear notable. The article is not even about the group but about efforts to protect the park. I am considering nominating it for deletion; it reads much more like an essay than an encyclopedic article. Also, there are very few hits for it in the Google News archive, and some of them aren't even for this group. Finally, keep in mind that the article you are trying to create was deleted via a community deletion discussion that I didn't even have any involvement in, although I agree with the result. If he becomes more notable through his candidacy for the governorship, perhaps it will be appropriate to have an article at a later date. If he's elected, that will surely be sufficient. Right now...I don't see it.  Frank  |  talk  13:53, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. I will edit the Save Sunset Cliffs Article to read like an encyclopedia article. I will add the San Diego City Master Park Plan which names the group "Save Sunset Cliffs" as one of the major contriburors to the Sunset Cliffs Natural Park Plan. I will also add more articles that have been written on "Save Sunset Cliffs" to the refrences section. Sdpolitics (talk) 17:11, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

oops - thanks

Hi Franks, thanks for the advice with the 'move' tab. I'll take on board possibility that the article may be contested, but that is something for the article's talk page. Thanks, Darigan (talk) 15:37, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi

Hi, can you please help me file an arbcom case for SYJYTG to be unblocked? 121.7.203.152 (talk) 14:47, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

As someone who has been involved in previous blocks and a socking investigation of User:Syjytg, I'm probably not the right person to be involved in this request. On what basis would you be making a request to unblock this account?  Frank  |  talk  15:09, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I have changed. I am not asking you to unblock me. Please do not misunderstand. I am asking to help me file a case in arbcom as I cannot do so. Thanks. 121.7.203.152 (talk) 15:13, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Appealing a block, in particular the Appeal to the Arbitration Committee section.  Frank  |  talk  15:43, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Standard_offer#How_does_it_work.3F. 121.7.203.152 (talk) 16:44, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Do you wish to make a statement in support being offered the "standard offer"? I would consider unprotecting your talk page for you to do so if you are serious. Do keep in mind that the socking was only part of the problem - the "last straw" so to speak. The reason you were socking is because you were blocked for edit warring; that must all be taken into account as well.  Frank  |  talk  17:01, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes. 121.7.203.152 (talk) 17:02, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it appears you can already edit your own talk page. Have you tried?  Frank  |  talk  17:09, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Can you help me open a thread? "If they agree a review is appropriate, they'll open a thread at an administrative noticeboard (WP:AN or WP:ANI)." I can edit my own talkpage but I can't edit the relavant pages like the request for arbitration page. 121.7.203.152 (talk) 17:15, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm waiting for a suitable statement on your talk page, from your account, that indicates an understanding of what was wrong with your editing in the past and your desire to edit within guidelines if you were to be unblocked. If I agree that statement from you suggests a review is appropriate, I'll open the thread and ask others to review.  Frank  |  talk  19:00, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Syjytg 220.255.7.158 (talk) 11:20, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, why has my IP addressed been changed? Last time it wasn't this address. 220.255.7.153 (talk) 11:22, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Your IP has changed likely either because you're in a different place or because your provider gave you a new dynamic address the next time you connected to the Internet.  Frank  |  talk  13:07, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I have written a statement, so have you open a thread? If yes, can you give me the link please? Thanks. 220.255.7.159 (talk) 13:18, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Happy Thanksgiving!

Happy Thanksgiving!

I just wanted to wish those Wikipedians who have been nice enough to give me a barnstar or smile at me, supportive enough to agree with me, etc., a Happy Thanksgiving! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 06:39, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Joseph E Prince

Please explain why you deleted this page - this is a verifiable story at imdb.com under Liberation Saturday Deedee485 (talk) 03:32, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I deleted Joseph E Prince under WP:CSD#A7, because it listed a person who was a high school and college athlete but did not participate at any professional level. These did not seem to be assertions of notability to me. In re-reading the deleted article, I do see that there was an assertion: He is most noted for 2008 short documentary Liberation Saturday... which technically disqualifies this article for speedy deletion. That doesn't mean the subject is notable, but if you wish me to restore it I will do so. You may reasonably expect someone else to nominate it for deletion, however; being the subject of a documentary is not generally considered to confer notability. (Note that the film does not have an article either.) When you recreated the article two days later and a different admin deleted it, the same A7 reason was given, and that deletion was correct, as it did not even assert notability. Another option is for me to restore the article to your own user space so you can work on it and get advice from others before moving it to the main article space.  Frank  |  talk  12:03, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Frank, I thank you for your comments. Are you saying an athlete must be a pro to be notable? Is All-American not notable? The last last person to delete it indicated it may be a " non existent film.. really????? Photos of the premier can be found at liberationsaturday.com. Joe has limited access to the internet but I will try to get him in front of the computer this weekend as he would like to communicate with you. Please restore the article. Thank you, deedee 485Deedee485 (talk) 16:24, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Per your request I have restored the article, but I have also nominated it for WP:PROD deletion because I don't see that the subject is notable enough for inclusion. I am not saying an athlete must be a pro to be notable, nor that All-American is not notable. What WP:ATHLETE says, in general, is that if an athlete is a professional, then they are presumed to be notable. As for All-American, it generally isn't enough by itself to establish sufficient notability for inclusion. As for the documentary, I don't see how that makes one notable either. Regarding communicating with me, I don't think that's really necessary; this is a community and its standards are not set by one person. Also, the subject of an article doesn't determine his or her own notability; that's not how it works.  Frank  |  talk  17:53, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Frank, Thanks for your prompt response. Joe Prince has a lifetime of news clips covering his track career from Palo Alto to Eastern Europe. A couple of years ago he had the front cover of the Arizona daily Star because he was considered "notable" by Tommie Smith, one of the world's best known track athletes as well as Joe's coach. As for the documentary,very few people warrant that type of attention so we will have to agree to disagree on that one. Wikipedia standards are interesting to me as they do seem arbitrary at best. Are you really a better judge of notable than any number of large market newspapers? Joe is often invited to speak to school audiences about his career and disabilities. I was having lunch with him recently when a woman recognized him and asked him to speak at the next local Martin Luther King Day ceremonies. At a high school track event a young NFL player recognized him, walked over and described him as a "legend" in the Bay Area track community. We were at Best Buy when the young sales guy said " I know you, my father has talked about you." He was featured on the 700 Club and described as an "inspiration." Please consider dropping your objections to this article. I understand that a person cannot make themselves notable, but can two people editing Wikipedia truly determine that a person is not? Seems like an odd arrangement to me

Thanks again deedee485Deedee485 (talk) 22:37, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

My "objections" to this article are simply that I don't see that it meets any criteria for inclusion. If you can show otherwise, please improve it. Note that it is currently just listed as a WP:PROD deletion; if you object, you can simply remove that. The next step will be WP:AFD, which will generate a community discussion to determine whether or not the subject is notable enough for conclusion. It certainly isn't a unilateral decision, and I've already undeleted it at your request.  Frank  |  talk  04:34, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Many people from Joe's past are listed with very brief articles with little information. I feel that you have created an obstacle for this article that others have not had to endure. The "community " should not have to come into play at this stage of the process. Joe will be at the computer tomorrow, we will provide a list of press and appearances that he has made. The goal is to convince you that you may have been to hasty in taking the actions that you did. As I stated in my earlier post many journalists have found Joe Prince "notable" enough for inclusion in their publications, and a very small percentage of people are made the subject of a documentary film. Thanks again for your time. deedee485Deedee485 (talk) 22:53, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I have looked closely at the Wikipedia standards for notability, Mr. Prince's film Liberation Saturday and the following press clearly fulfill the Wikipedia criteria for inclusion. I have also found an article about the problem of misuse of speedy deletion and the damage that it causes to Wikipedia, just a thought. FYI these are some examples of Mr.Prince's notability:

Arizona Daily Star Feb. 21, 2004 ( front page) Fresno Bee Feb. 27, 1975 ( picked up by associated press) East Valley Magazine Feb. 1984 ( front cover) Phoenix Magazine June 1984 IAM ( Belgrade newspaper) July 18, 1978 ( front page) NBC KPNX news feature 1983 ( picked up by NBC network aired nationally) 700 Club Dec. 23, 1983( aired nationally)

We will provide many more if you remain skeptical.

Thanks again for your consideration deedee485Deedee485 (talk) 21:53, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Genteel

How stupid of me. Thanks for being so ... well ... frank! hydnjo (talk) 05:02, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

No worries. I pointed it out since you (probably correctly) noted the RfB is likely to be examined later on. There are only 33 34 crats, so it does seem plausible that folks could examine it in the future as significant. Posterity and all... :-)  Frank  |  talk  01:25, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for fixing the RfB tags.[5] I've updated my "cheat sheet" that I used so that I don't make the same mistake next time. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:41, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

No worries. Besides, at the rate these things succeed... ;-)  Frank  |  talk  16:54, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you.

I don't know if anyone has done this but, I desperately need an article on Jstor, I searched for a way to try to get that article for days and still no luck. I'm really sorry to bother you but could you do me this one little favor? All I need you to do is copy the article and send it to my email at <redacted>. And the article is http://www.jstor.org/pss/3027279

Thank you so much for your time... Demonlord319319 (talk) 00:57, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I cannot send you copyrighted material just for the asking. If there is an article you are looking to improve here on Wikipedia by using material from that article, I'll be happy to help.  Frank  |  talk  01:04, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Some lemon cookies in a cup for you! If you are allergic to lemon cookies, please return them for some File:Grasshoppercupcakes.JPG!

Thank you for quickly removing unsightly new pages!  fetchcomms☛ 01:31, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Lemon cookies...never tried them, but they sound delicious. And I spy raspberries in that picture too...a bonus!  Frank  |  talk  01:35, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for doing boring work, but I would only reward you if the attack were original or interesting. Please block user now. Another attack page at Timothy Bowron. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 07:11, 29 November 2009 (UTC)