User talk:Frank/Archive 1

Hello, Frank/Archive 1, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} and your question on your user talk page, and someone will show up shortly to answer. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Editing tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style

We hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! --BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, contribs, odometer) 21:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

http://thomas.loc.gov/home/example.html

I've started compiling a list of Myron Cope's awards and achievements in my Sandbox. You are welcome to help me. I nominated Myron Cope for a good article, but it probably won't be reviewed for another week or two, so I've been trying to get it into top form, and nobody else has helped me much. Thanks and Good work so far! Blackngold29 (talk) 04:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for this; either way, WP:MOS says that section headings should be in plain text. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 18:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed; that's why I left it alone...but fair is fair. I thought s/he was cleaning up the article in useful ways. Regards - Isaacsf (talk) 18:48, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

quite welcome. it's a huge time waster, and i wish wikipedia would do something substantial to tame the vandals, but until they do...Anastrophe (talk) 03:44, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

It will be interesting to see your proof that Patterson is not a pale mulatto. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.44.109.105 (talk) 10:18, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

That was a great find on the year of the district renumbering for David Paterson Kudos to great sleuthing. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 03:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - it was bugging me that his district morphed in front of my eyes, which I didn't think was right.

Regards -

Isaacsf (talk) 03:23, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Curious if you knew that was the redistricting moment, or you eyeballed a lot of of maps. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 13:12, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

A little of both. The succession boxes at the bottom of the article listed his tenure in each district, apparently correctly, even while the text was being edited. It seemed highly unlikely that he moved to a new district. Knowing that NY is losing population and that it takes some amount of time after the decennial census for the state legislatures to redistrict, I guessed that was the reason and searched for proof of it. I also live in a growing state (NC) where districts changed after 2000. Isaacsf (talk) 13:59, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou

Hi I've had a look through the rules, procedures and guideliones and see where I went wrong. Thanks for you help!

Marcustheostrichfarmer (talk) 16:11, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

No problem at all. Welcome to Wikipedia! Isaacsf (talk) 16:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.70.26.237 (talk) 21:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Just wanted to point out that your templated warning to this user duplicated my edit above yours. While I didn't undo his edits to the N.O. article, I was talking to him about them. Do you mind undoing your edit so that he only has one message about his edit to New Orleans? Thanks, Darkspots (talk) 00:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

You have a point, but I felt the edit needed to be undone. I thought I was pretty careful not to bite...would you want me to undo the change on the main page as well? Or perhaps add a clarifying statement on the talk page below my edit so the user has a better chance of understanding what went on? Isaacsf (talk) 00:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course the edit to New Orleans needed to be undone. You weren't bitey at all. I just don't think we should leave duplicate messages about a single issue for new editors. If you remove your message, maybe I can work with this guy to get his sources into the article. Maybe we'll never hear from him again. Thanks for your attention to this, I appreciate it. Darkspots (talk) 00:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. [1]. Darkspots (talk) 01:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Geez, you beat me to my own talk page to comment :-) As you can see, I've stepped aside. Thanks for taking an interest. We certainly need all the volunteers we can find and encourage. Isaacsf (talk) 01:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

hehe. thanks much for the shiny star! Happy editing! Thingg^⊕⊗ 00:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Most definately! Allowed and encouraged. The only people who aren't allowed are anonymous (IP) users. xenocidic (talk) 21:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Rephrased based on your reply. It was meant more about groups stacking the deck with editors and admins, and publicly stating such a purpose, than on CAMERA alone. DarkAudit (talk) 00:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

A fair clarification, to be sure. I still wonder, though, if it doesn't smack a little bit of "when-did-you-stop-beating-your-wife," in that being a member of an interest group - even if it clearly has an agenda - doesn't automatically rob one of all ability to be balanced. Back to my original analogy, when a justice is appointed by a president, one presumes s/he will automatically stick to the "party line," but history has shown that not to always be the case. Anyway, I'm leaving the question alone. I said my piece; we'll see what response is generated either way. Cheers! Isaacsf (talk) 00:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I hope you're settling into your new username. You might want to tell what your previous username was somewhere on your userpage. P.S. I joined the WP:Disambiguation pages with links task force after noticing it on your userpage. Then I created a nifty usertop icon, you might be interested in using. xenocidic (talk) 14:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Sweet - thanks. I've added it (and rollback) above. I left the previous username off (at least for now) since there's a redirect from it to here...I'm still thinking about the whole identity thing. Frank (talk) 15:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure thing, that's your prerogative. =) xenocidic (talk) 16:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Insightful and thought-out comments like yours are most certainly always welcome... it's when editors stop questioning the reasoning of others that Wikipedia should start to worry. Thanks for your comment, and I hope I made a half-decent stab at replying. I wouldn't have posted on the RfA anyway, but I was following up the edits to the article in question, and discovered Thingg's RfA link on his userpage.

If you have a comment, don't be afraid to speak your mind — those who think less of you for doing so probably need to get back in touch with be bold, don't be a dick etc. Hope to see you around in the future. haz (talk) 07:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

RE: this. No, thanks for the input; I'm new with the mop, so I like to check when I don't go by the book in obvious ways. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 21:05, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I was actually looking at his edit when you removed it from your page. (I don't even remember why I watch your page.) While I was investigating, you blocked him, which seemed appropriate. The threat was most inappropriate. New user, immediately starting in with threatening edits...open and shut case to me.  Frank  |  talk  21:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow, am I dense. I didn't even notice you changed your username. (I was trying to figure who the "Frank" at my RfA was.) I guess now I know. *sniff* I miss your old username already..... ;) Thingg^⊕⊗ 18:55, 27 April 2008 (UTC) ...and to answer your next question; yes, I'm kind of bored right now...

Well, I could have voted twice but that would have been really poor form...I didn't exactly announce because who cares anyway. But yes, it's me. Sorry how it worked out. I watched closely in anticipation of going through it myself some months hence. Too busy right now, not established enough here, and honestly I was shocked at the stuff I saw written opposing you. Best I can tell it's as much a headache as anything useful anyway. Check out CobaltBlueTony (who, alas, opposed your RfA). He gets nothing but grief for cleaning up around here. Threats, too.  Frank  |  talk  19:03, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I added some references to David Benatar --Eastmain (talk) 20:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'm on board; switched my vote.  Frank  |  talk  20:51, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey, thanks! I just spent some time completely revamping the article - it was a mess, frankly. Lots of work needed to bring it up to anything resembling acceptable, and it still needs a lot of work. Unfortunately some people really seem to have no clue about what's ok and what's not - for example, those long quotes were ridiculous. Oh well - it's a start. I appreciate the barnstar - much nicer than the arguments! Cheers Tvoz |talk 04:54, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

See the R. Bailey talk page for reasons.

All these kids are the same. Same type of articles in one AFD is allowed. Note that Michelle Obama (wife) was included but not now.

Also note that Graz11 added an article to the AFD. You can't support that and delete the others. Actually Graz11's article was different from the others because it is a compilation. Please cooperate. Watchingobama (talk) 15:18, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure? I compared it with Nixon's page first, and a quick google search turns up these from cbs, the post, and the army, but none of them clarify whether Nixon's was a 'state' funeral or not. All I can read from the army one is that just because his funeral wasn't in DC doesn't mean it wasn't a state funeral.

Like you said though, point of trivia. Rich (talk) 21:55, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I know this is WP:OR, but I recall at the time there was kerfuffle about it due to him resigning. He did not lie in state and it wasn't called a state funeral, and in fact it wasn't in DC, as I recall. Also, his page here on wikipedia specifically notes that it wasn't a state funeral, but of course that is not exactly proof. I'm sure it can be sourced, though. It wasn't that long ago, and I am 99+ % sure that there is no ambiguity about it. Does that translate to <1% ambiguity? :-)  Frank  |  talk  21:59, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Frank,

I noticed that you re-added the Raleigh disambiguation link to the top of the Walter Raleigh article. Please see these guidelines for the reason why this hatnote is inappropriate in this case. The guidelines state:

While there is no specific prohibition against it, adding disambiguation links to a page with a name that clearly distinguishes itself from the generic term is discouraged. For example, Solaris (1972 film) is clearly about one specific movie and not about any of the many other meanings of "Solaris". It is very unlikely that someone arriving there would have been looking for any other "Solaris", so it is unnecessary to add a link pointing to the Solaris disambiguation page. However, it would be perfectly appropriate to add a link to Solaris (novel) (but not, say, Solaris (operating system)) to its "See also" section.

Another clearer example of this type of hatnote error can be found here. This is a very common error, but the rationale behind omitting these hatnotes makes sense. If we were to add these types of hatnotes, then we would have to add a link to Smith at the top of every article about someone with that surname. In the case of Walter Raleigh, no one would type "Walter Raleigh" into the search bar when searching for Raleigh, Illinois or Raleigh Bicycle Company.

I hope I have stated my case clearly. I tend to have to straighten out this particular misunderstanding fairly often. Let me know if you have any further questions.

Neelix (talk) 00:24, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Frank; I wanted to say thank you for supporting my request for adminship, which passed with 100 supports, 0 opposes and 1 neutral. I wanted to get round everybody individually, even though it's considered by some to be spam (which... I suppose it is! but anyway. :)). It means a lot to me that the community has placed its trust in my ability to use the extra buttons, and I only hope I can live up to its expectations. If you need anything, or notice something that bothers you, don't hesitate to let me know. Thanks again, PeterSymonds | talk 22:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

My pleasure!  Frank  |  talk  22:33, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you are misunderstanding me. I think you may be afraid that I will say "I am a doctor, therefore my opinion is the final word". Nothing could be further from the truth.

It's just that there has been so much opposition to verifying credentials even if it's a less than 100% verification that I am writing from a medical office (and if not a doctor, then medically related) and that I am not a convict writing from prison or a pharmaceutical company trying to promote the company's drugs.

If the conclusion is that impersonating a doctor (while bad and not to be done) is not a Wikipedia offense, just say so. I can live with that but I would like to know. Doctor Wikipedian (talk) 22:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

There is no opposition. It just isn't part of what Wikipedia does. And putting "dr" in a username does not mean a person is impersonating a medical doctor.  Frank  |  talk  22:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Get an administrator to write "impersonating a doctor is discouraged but is not punishable in Wikipedia. Only the quality of edits count" and I will be satisfied and begin writing articles.

An alternative is for a checkuser to say "You are a doctor or at least medically related based on what IP information suggests. Your IP is not that of a prison or drug company". Either way, I'm happy and ready to begin typing away. I didn't know it would be so difficult to get started. Doctor Wikipedian (talk) 22:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

You can ask administrators to write that, but I doubt they will do so, for several reasons:

1. A username does not indicate impersonating a doctor (or lawyer, or whatever), any more than Dr. J or Dr. Demento are impersonating doctors.
2. Wikipedia does not punish anyone, for any reason. Steps are taken to protect the project from vandals, but they are not punishment.
3. An IP address can be spoofed, and you cannot ever verify who is using the IP address anyway.
4. You have been told numerous times that it is only the quality of edits that counts, and you find reason to spend your time editing talk pages instead of actually improving articles. You are highly encouraged to just jump in and get started! The only difficulty is apparently in taking the first step, which you seem very hesitant to do.  Frank  |  talk  22:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey thanks, you too. Hopefully we can defend it from all those pesky vandals out there now, lol. Not that anyone out there has much to pick on Myron for. Thanks! Blackngold29 23:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. He was a one-of-a-kind. He's high on the list of people I'd like to have met. BTW, on a related Pittsburgh-one-of-a-kind note, I met Sophie Masloff once. Every bit as nice as you'd think, if you have any idea who I'm talking about :-)  Frank  |  talk  23:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know very much about her, but I did encounter her name during my re-write of PNC Park; which coincidently is also under GA review right now. She was the original person to have intrest in a replacement to Three Rivers Stadium, she even picked out the site where it ended up being built; I giver her props for having such fore-sight. Blackngold29 23:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, there's an article, of course, but I haven't read it. I'll tell you my take on her: took over mayoralty in a difficult time when a much-loved mayor died of an unusual disease (that coincidentally claimed PA Governor Bob Casey's life not so long after, and the life of the mayor of Erie, too). Anyway, nobody expected her to be mayor...not unlike the current mayor of Pittsburgh, eh? Still, she won re-election (as he has done, sort of) and is the reason all the blue-and-white signs in the city exist (even today, 20 years later). Classy lady.  Frank  |  talk  23:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

To follow up on your AfD note: It's reasonable to redirect hypermenorrhea to menorrhagia. They are both cases of "too much" (in volume and/or length, and a distinction between total volume and length is not usually drawn, because the one can easily cause the other).

By contrast, the combination of normal volume/length with too frequent appearance (≤20 days total cycle length) is polymenorrhea. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, you could not have found my article so quickly. People like you are one of the reasons I hate Wikipedia. You just automatically assume something, delete an article of a product that hasn't been noticed by many, and say that I'm making an article of an advertisement. Okay, let's go delete the Pizza Hut article. It tells us what products they have and the history and how they expanded. That's obviously advertising.--Xxhopingtearsxx (talk) 15:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC) Okay, I'm sorry for being soo rude but I think you just made a mistake. I got the information from the website, that's probably why it sounds like an advertisement to you.--Xxhopingtearsxx (talk) 15:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I understand your frustration, but there are at least two reasons why this page does not meet criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia:

1. The notability of the business has not been established, or even asserted. Pizza Hut has a long history in the United States, is a large corporate entity which is notable for its design, its advertising, and its reach, and there are independent articles about it over time.
2. There are no references at all in this article. One of the key features of Wikipedia is that it is about verifiability, not truth.

There are many, many articles on Wikipedia that can use improvement, and there are many requests to create articles. Your efforts are highly encouraged and welcome, but the project does have guidelines as to what may be included, and also what Wikipedia is not.  Frank  |  talk  15:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd appreciate if you did not touch my userpage. Also, I apologize for being such a jerk earlier ...--Xxhopingtearsxx (talk) 17:31, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I was reverting vandalism, as I'm sure you can see from this diff.  Frank  |  talk  17:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

But I was the one who typed it.--Xxhopingtearsxx (talk) 20:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Huh?  Frank  |  talk  20:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe the reason Frank may have inadvertently reverted your own edit was because you use the "infobox musical artist" on your user page, therefore, at a quick glance, it looked like vandalism to a musical artists' article. xenocidic ( talk ¿ review ) 20:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I get it now. I did not inadvertently do it - I did it on purpose because it was vandalism, plain and simple. The edit was inappropriate.  Frank  |  talk  20:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I tweaked it for you. Do you want it to show you online for 50 minutes after your last edit, and recently online for 2 hours after your last edit? If so, then it's correct now. xenocidic ( talk ¿ review ) 18:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - I think I had the parameters reversed. (I was actually looking for 5 minutes.)  Frank  |  talk  18:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Hrm, unfortunately I don't think the template will allow you to change the lower limit of status bot's updating window. It will show you online for at least the 15 minutes that StatusBot does (since StatusBot only updates your last edit time when you go offline). Anyways, happy editing, xenocidic ( talk ¿ review ) 18:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'll try 15 then...thanks!  Frank  |  talk  18:50, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

=) xenocidic (talk) 19:27, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Here's one for you: [2] Sugarbat (talk) 21:57, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure, like Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan... :-)  Frank  |  talk  22:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Totally. Sugarbat (talk) 16:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your support in myRfA, which closed successfully this morning. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 19:10, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

It looks like you uploaded this image and others like it. Can you tell me how to create such images, or whom to ask to do so? I'm looking to create images that highlight more than one county. Thanks!  Frank  |  talk  03:27, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Try downloading the image and opening it in a text editor. It should be easy to figure out how to highlight more than one county. User:dbenbenn 03:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Sweet, thanks!  Frank  |  talk  12:11, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

What makes you think that the Artcle 'Rose confectionary' needed to be deleted, there was no problem with it and the information wasnt copied from anywhere else. Falcon-eagle2008 —Preceding comment was added at 13:12, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

As I noted in my CSD nomination, it is a pure advertising page. Notability for the company was not asserted in the article, and attempts to independently find information about the company in reliable sources were unsuccessful. That does not mean the article cannot stay on Wikipedia; a nomination for deletion must be reviewed by others, and you can, of course, add content to it and discuss it on the talk page for the article if you feel the nomination is unjustified. Also, add the {{hangon}} template to the article so an administrator will know to look at the talk page before deciding what (if anything) to do.  Frank  |  talk  13:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

SoxBot V has been taken offline indefinitely, therefore {{Statustop}} now uses a semi-manual updating method taking the status from Special:Mypage/Status. You can use the Qui monobook script written by TheDJ to update this page at the click of a button.

Certain parameters are no longer used, so you may wish to check the documentation of the Statustop template to ensure you are using it properly. Please feel free to drop by my talk page with any questions or concerns or to report problems with the template. Happy editing, xenocidic ( talk ¿ listen ) 13:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

BUT ITS TRUE... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.1.32.7 (talk) 22:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

frank, thanks for dropping by my talk page to congratulate me on the RFA. your support was much appreciated. I've left some thank spam below for you. your comments are also invited at my in-depth RFA analysis. cheers, xenocidic (talk) 23:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Frank, and thank you for your recent participation in my RfA, which was closed per WP:NOTNOW after reaching a vote tally of 5/15/2. While I am disappointed in the outcome, I understand that it - as well as the comments left by yourself and others - was in the best interests of Wikipedia at this time. I plan to take everything that was written to heart and improve myself here on Wikipedia with a goal of perhaps accepting a nomination again in the future, should someone choose to nominate me. As a way of gathering further feedback, I have created a page in my user space for other editors to leave comments about things that they might have observed during my RfA and to continue my "education process," as it may be considered. If you would like to contribute to that page, it may be found here. Again, thank you for participating and I appreciate your comments! --InDeBiz1 (talk) 18:08, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

This offers a good rationale for the move. I think it's important to note that the article was moved from Harland Sanders to Colonel Sanders without discussion. When I raised the issue over a year ago, there was one supportive comment and no objection, so I assumed the move would be uncontroversial. fishhead64 (talk) 14:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I think Colonel Sanders is the more appropriate place for the article, with a redirect from Harland. This portion of that page spells it out clearly, in my opinion. I think people are far more likely to search for "Colonel Sanders" than for "Harland Sanders", just as they would search for "Bill Clinton" rather than "William Jefferson Clinton." This is especially true now that he is dead and current pop-culture references to him are pretty much exclusively "Colonel Sanders". You've got the Colonel's Crispy Strips and Colonel's Secret Recipe on the menu, not to mention a bucketload of references to "Colonel" and zero for "Harland" in the shopping area.

Sure, having a redirect solves the problem, but I think it is more appropriate (and more consistent with overall practice on Wikipedia) to have the main name by which a person is known be the title of the article, and then have their other name(s) in the introduction.  Frank  |  talk  15:01, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Except that it's not a name, it's an honorific. Or, viewed another way, the references you cite suggest a persona or a character that Harland Sanders played rather than the man himself. By the same token, Calvert DeForest was almost universally known as Larry "Bud" Melman, but the latter redirects to the former. Whether one views it as an honorific or character name, however, the point remains that WP naming policy suggests they be avoided in favour of the individual's actual, best known name. I am certainly open to taking it back to the talk page for a discussion, if you feel strongly about it. fishhead64 (talk) 21:05, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I do, because his "best known name" is most certainly "Colonel Sanders". But let's see what discussion of the subject brings (if anything).  Frank  |  talk  00:17, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for a comment on my RFA. I will do my best to prove myself and address the concerns others have raised. Thanks again for the comment. :) <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 21:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey, how's it goin? If you've forgoten we worked on Myron Cope together. I spent some time and completely re-wrote the article about the Terrible Towel, since the two are closely related, I was wondering if you would mind taking a look over the article. I put it up for peer review, so if you want you can leave comments there; or if its easier to just correct the article, then go for it. You can leave any questions on my talk page. Thanks! (If you're busy, it's no big deal.) Blackngold29 00:09, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

'Course I remember - we got it to GA status! I took a look; made a few punctuation edits, but it looks good to me. I'm sure it can use a bit more; let's see what others come up with.  Frank  |  talk  01:30, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Awesome sounds good. I'm gonna leave a messege over at the Pittsburgh WP, maybe someone over will pick something up too. Blackngold29 01:36, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Just wanted to say thanks for coming to my support on that recent RfA. You were right in assuming that I didn't mean anything even remotely offensive by it; I didn't think my !vote would make such a splash. Lesson learned: be explicit in language always and everywhere. As a side note, you totally stole my name :) -FrankTobia (talk) 01:45, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

No problem! And, I had it first, although in truth I usurped it relatively recently...  Frank  |  talk  02:01, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, you expressed an opinion by answering me after I suggested the conversation be taken elsewhere. Please don't continue a discussion in an inappropriate place, especially when it turns out you weren't even involved in the discussion. --Blechnic (talk) 01:55, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I was answering the comment above yours, which is why I didn't indent further under your comment. I certainly was involved, though; I made a comment in an apparently vain attempt to smooth ruffled feathers. Sorry if I wasn't clear enough about that.  Frank  |  talk  02:00, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

For future information, the first moment you accuse another editor of having a temper tantrum you've blown any chance of smoothing ruffled feathers. In fact, if there were no ruffled feathers, the best way to ruffle them is to accuse people of having temper tantrums. In general, stick with the facts, not your assumptions about the personalities. That's my opinion, and it's just as legitimate as the oppose I posted. --Blechnic (talk) 02:06, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think "...tempers were flaring a bit..." qualifies as "accus[ing] people of having temper tantrums". You are absolutely entitled to oppose, and I haven't questioned that at all.  Frank  |  talk  02:16, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Mince words all you want, as soon as you start talking about your read on other editors' state of mind rather than on the content of the discussion you've thrown overboard any chance you have of unruffling feathers, and have, in fact, headed down the road most certain to ruffle them. The easiest way to smooth ruffled feathers, if that is your intention, is to simply focus on the content, not on the personalities. It ought to be a rule on Wikipedia, as it would save many words from ever being spoken or feathers being ruffled. --02:29, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Give it a bit before getting discouraged as it needs a full 24 hours for the course of an RFA to be clear. Perhaps it will go badly but its not unknown for them to start badly but steadily improve as commentators look at the contribs rather then relying on kneejerk metrics. 3/4 months activity and 3700 edits with good policy based contribs in AFD would have been a shoo-in 2 years ago and a likely pass a year ago. If it does self destruct its only keeping up the good work and investing more time as you clearly understand the policy behind deletion. Good luck. Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:28, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

See! Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:47, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I just wanted to let you know personally that I really did want to support you, since I think you'd make a good administrator. If the incident had occurred far enough in the past, I would have noted it, but let it slide. And I'd be happy to support you in the future. Otherwise, continued good luck. Mahalo. --Ali'i 14:21, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you see it, but oppose #7 by Serviam looks like you can assuage his concerns. I did my best to step in on your behalf, but really it's up to you. Good luck. -FrankTobia (talk) 08:46, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, congratulations. Bwrs (talk) 22:28, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for !voting on my RfA. If you supported, I'll make sure your confidence is not misplaced; if you opposed, I'll take your criticism into account and try to adjust my behavior accordingly.

See you around the wiki!--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

why did you delete this brother?

i am a journo now and they are lots of other journo in the wikipedia i should be here too this is unfair dude

please reconsider changing it back in please brother —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crannypete (talk • contribs) 11:36, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Wow that was fast. I was just about to hangon the redirect of Edithmead as I was writing the Burnham Without article which is the parish it is in. If I recreate the Edithmead redirect will it be speedy deleted again as recreated a previously deleted article?— Rod ^talk 20:35, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Speedy delete for recreation of a previously deleted article only applies if it went through AfD or PROD. If it was previously speedy-deleted, then that's not a reason for subsequent speedy. However - not asserting notability of the place in question is a reason for speedy. Why not try creating the article in your own user space, then move it to the main article space in a more completed form - at least asserting notability - to avoid most questions of deletion (at least speedy)?  Frank  |  talk  20:40, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I was only doing Edithmead as a redirect to the parish it is in - but my understanding is that Speedy is not normally used for places & the village of Edithmead definitely exists (see on streetmap) & could be insulting to the people that live there. Also the site of a speedway track. I'm currently trying to complete all the article requests for WikiProject Somerset. I will recreate as a redirect.— Rod ^talk 20:48, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I can undelete.  Frank  |  talk  20:53, 5 July 2008 (UTC) Or not...  Frank  |  talk  20:54, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

As a clarification, the reason I deleted the article in the first place is that it was a redirect to a non-existent page. No insult was intended to residents; the page redirected to nowhere, and was nominated for speedy deletion on those grounds. If they'd been created in the opposite order, there would be much less chance for any notice.  Frank  |  talk  21:51, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

  Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did to New Orleans, Louisiana, is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you.  Frank  |  talk  19:24, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your input and interest. I appreciate your editing help. I've placed a new draft below FYI. References to the U.S. Constitution, and the Judge's order in the shouldn't be necessary. Thanks again. Sincerely, Rusty Dr. B. R. Lang (talk) 21:39, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

===Unlawful Confiscation of Firearms===

In 2005, the National Rifle Association (NRA), the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), and others successfully sued the Mayor of New Orleans and others to stop unconstitutional gun seizures in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. As of March 2006, documents have been filed by NRA, SAF, et al. seeking to hold Ray Nagin and others in contempt of court for violating the consent order. The case is “National Rifle Association of America, Inc., et al. v. C. Ray Nagin et al.”.^{[1] [2]}

References:

• [3]CNN transcript of NRA video interviews, aired on July 2, 2008 by Glenn Beck
• [4] NRA video on You-tube of Katrina victims describing of illegal confiscation of personal firearms.

Rusty - the edit I reverted was not sourced, and contains material that I think many readers would consider controversial. This isn't about whether or not it is true, but rather whether or not it is verifiable. I don't need you to provide references to me, but rather to include them in the article. The references you provided above are questionable. A Youtube video generally does not qualify as a reliable source, and the CNN transcript does not seem to mention anything about a 2005 lawsuit, although I might have missed it. If you were to put the same material back into the article, I believe it would be removed again fairly quickly. That is not to say it can't be put in - but it does need reliable, verifiable sources to be included.  Frank  |  talk  21:49, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I saw that you had added the admin userbox, so I assumed that you intended to change that at some point. (Also, it's just weird seeing the "rollback" icon right above a userbox that says "this user is an administrator on the English Wikipedia. Stuff like that drives me insane :) Maybe I have OCD.... ;) ) J.delanoy^gabs_adds 02:26, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations, you are now an administrator! Now is the time to visit the Wikipedia:New admin school and, if you haven't already, to look through the Wikipedia:Administrators' how-to guide and Wikipedia:Administrators' reading list. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me, or at the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Warofdreams talk 22:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Congrats! Good work so far, now make me proud :) -FrankTobia (talk) 23:40, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Congrats. Sorry, but I accidentally voted twice for neutral. Bearian (talk) 00:26, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

It's cool...you were apparently strongly neutral :-)  Frank  |  talk  14:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Feel free to check out {{admin dashboard}}, you may find it helpful. Congratz! –xenocidic (talk) 12:43, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm delighted with the outcome and it restores some of my faith in the RFA process. It just goes to show that we can still recognise when an editor is ready for the mop without needing to resort to crude metrics instead of common-sense. I'm certain you will be a fantastic admin. Remember I'm only ever a talk page away if you need a reality check or second opinion. Us oldies need to stick together against all the kids anyway. ;) Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't care much for the whippersnappers. Why, in my day, we didn't have any fancy mops, we had to do it all with a toothbrush. And we liked it! - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 14:15, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I know, uphill...both ways!  Frank  |  talk  14:18, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Congrats, Frank! Ecoleetage (talk) 13:34, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Replying: you're quite welcome, best of luck. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 14:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Same, best of luck. America69 (talk) 14:43, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

\o/ Frank! Gwen Gale (talk) 15:37, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations on your successful RfA! Do everything you're supposed to and nothing you're not! :) Make sure to check out the new admin school. Good luck and feel free to ask me if you have any questions. GlassCobra 16:00, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Clever thank-you note. :) You're welcome for the support. Acalamari 16:35, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

If I may be frank, (I'm sure you've never heard that before), I think your RFA went swimmingly. Congrats from me too, you'll do well. As a non-whippersnapper myself (proof being that I know what "whippersnapper" means), glad you're on board with the toolbelt. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:22, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations on succeeding! Best wishes and happy editing! Make the most of the admin school. Lradrama 22:31, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I would also congratulate you on your recent adminship. I noticed you thanking PhilKnight on his talk page, he is a very helpful admin I agree. Tyciol (talk) 23:52, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

A belated congrats on your successful RfA!!! Use the tools well..... Thingg^⊕⊗ 17:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I am an admin and I got no dang t-shirt from anyone. Welcome aboard! --Kukini ^{háblame aquí} 19:01, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Dear Frank, Felix Butterweck is important as a director of children ensemble. I could not understand why you act like this. Please explain. Best --Weissmann (talk) 15:45, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

The article did not assert notability of the subject, and I could not find any evidence of notability independently in any reliable sources (I checked before deleting the article - both times). For a longer discussion of these (and other) points, please see a fellow administrator's page on the subject.  Frank  |  talk  15:54, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello, if the article that you deleted on Louisiana Red was about the blues singer, I'd be grateful if you could reinstate it. I'm sure we could build up a decent article - see the allmusic entry (and the huge list of albums he's released) for example. Even if the article that was deleted was rubbish, he's obviously notable, so could you roll back your removal of backlinks as well please. Thanks.--Michig (talk) 18:30, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

The entire content of the article was: Louisiana Red was born in Besmer ,Alabama in 1932.In his more then 50 years spanning career, he recorded 51 albums.In 1983 he won a W.C. Handy award. He lives in Hannover,Germany. There were no references whatsoever. If you want to create a better article, go for it!  Frank  |  talk  18:37, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

OK - I'll give a new article a go - seems a bit unnecessary to have removed the backlinks though. A crap article doesn't always equate to a non-notable subject.--Michig (talk) 18:39, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Let me look into that aspect of it. I'm new with the mop...  Frank  |  talk  18:41, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted those backlink removals.  Frank  |  talk  19:06, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - I've created a new article - it's a bit stubby as I don't know much about him, but should be sufficient until someone else comes along to improve it.--Michig (talk) 19:21, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

...I feel so important now :-)  Frank  |  talk  18:57, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Was it your first attack? If so, welcome to the clean side of the war against sanitation! --Kukini ^{háblame aquí} 19:00, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I think so, at least as far as blanking. Crannypete was a little torqued, though (see above) :-)  Frank  |  talk  19:07, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

No worries, mate! I completely agree with your assessment of 68.124.23.134 (talk · contribs), and ponder how someone could in good faith report an editor to WP:AIV without giving them any warnings. Sometimes there are extenuating circumstances (like sockpuppets, IP-hopping vandals, etc.), but this looks like a pretty cut-n-dry case of the reporting editor ignoring AIV criteria #3. --Kralizec! (talk) 02:49, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Both {{Charlie Chaplin}} and {{Buster Keaton}} have been restored. Happy editing! - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 12:40, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Just to say thanks for figuring out what I was trying to do on my user page (make a link to the category page) and, with the help of User:Admrboltz, making it happen for me. I think I understand what I did wrong; thanks for your time and effort. Accounting4Taste:talk 01:55, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

NP - the : before the word "Category" does the trick, I've found. I wouldn't have guessed that omitting it would actually put your page in the cat, as it did...  Frank  |  talk  01:56, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

D'OH! (slaps forehead) I certainly didn't know it would put the page in the category either. I understand it's the same way for images too. Thanks again. Accounting4Taste:talk 02:01, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for alerting me on the spelling errors, I'm usually on top of those but I guess they slipped through. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 19:15, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Your SUL request on Meta has been fulfilled by a local bureaucrat. Please update us on that page if there are any further requests related to that account. Kylu (talk) 04:22, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Hahah... This is actually really funny. It's great to know people are watching over my userpage, but... I should explain- I decided to take a wikibreak, and used the Wikibreak enforcer. But I, ahem, broke down and decided to come back. Since I couldn't sign in, I've been having to use my IP addy. I was sort of hoping I wouldn't have to admit it, but c'est la vie. Anyway, thanks for keeping an eye out, sorry about the confusion- L'Aquatique[review] (70.41.234.190 (talk) 06:34, 13 July 2008 (UTC))

I see!  Frank  |  talk  10:17, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

How can I best handle User_talk:84.9.53.199 which removes a lot of infoboxes [5]? Nsaa (talk) 18:03, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

This user has been warned only once, and hasn't edited in over 30 minutes, and most importantly, does not seem to have made any edits since the warning. I think you can move on to something else.  Frank  |  talk  18:11, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Great. Is it ok if I ask you more questions? Nsaa (talk) 18:12, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I highly encourage it. I've been looking over your contributions and I have found two more AIV reports that were declined; if I can help you out I would really like to do so.  Frank  |  talk  18:24, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Great. I will try to better understand the AIV process (i.e. whats considered WP:VAN), so I don't misjudge again. Nsaa (talk) 18:41, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

My main comment is the process of dealing with it. We generally don't block users as soon as they make a single vandalism edit. (It does happen, but not usually.) Also, there are editors around here who take a very dim view of Huggle users. I don't have an opinion one way or the other myself, but some really don't think it's a good thing because it leads to lots of errors. I'd say just be careful. If a user really is disrupting Wikipedia, s/he will be dealt with...if it takes 5 minutes instead of 2, but we get it right, that's better than blocking someone who really doesn't know what's going on. We do advertise as the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, after all.  Frank  |  talk  18:47, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes I've seen that. Besides the request I did on AIV, I've got two comments on reverting done by me that was not god (but out of 1000 edits it's not so bad), but I should be more carefully and only revert with the tool when it's obvious vandalism. Nsaa (talk) 18:55, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your efforts at dialogue, and the fact that you are listening. But I do have two things to say to the comment above: 1) Just because you have "only" two comments doesn't mean that other users weren't puzzled, upset, or turned away from Wikipedia because of mistaken reverts and warnings; and 2) I already mentioned that I found two more AIV reports you sent that were declined (for a total of 3). Three inappropriate AIV alerts out of 11 since you were granted rollback is not a great average.  Frank  |  talk  19:04, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

1) you're of course right. As a new AIV requester I should have been a lot more careful. 2)I will be very carefully to submit an AIV. Already learned a lot about first giving warnings, thanx :-) Nsaa (talk) 19:23, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

[6], or is it just misguided additions Nsaa (talk) 18:45, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

By itself, that one is a close call. However, looking at the user's other contributions, I would say it's vandalism. I've already warned twice more for edits. Go ahead and revert this one and warn again (final warning). Then if another vandalism edit comes from this user, he can be blocked.  Frank  |  talk  18:51, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Added {{subst:uw-vandalism4im|http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Perry_the_Platypus&diff=225438850&oldid=225074032}} to the userpage. Isn't it a warning only admins can use (last warnings)? Nsaa (talk) 19:07, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I was just going to write you about that warning. First of all, anyone can give a warning; only admins can actually block a user. But that warning was incorrect; instead of an "only warning" you should use the "final warning" template (uw-vandalism4 instead of uw-vandalism4im that you used; I think the "im" at the end means "immediate").  Frank  |  talk  19:08, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I didn't see the difference before now in Warnings_and_notices. Hopefully this was not disruptive for the user getting it. Nsaa (talk) 19:25, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the block I gave the user in the meantime will be more disruptive.  Frank  |  talk  19:27, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Twice [7] [8] this IP address has inserted another birthdate. On the second one I gave him this message. Is that okey? Or should I have given him a welcome message first? Nsaa (talk) 21:57, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, first let me say that this article seems almost a candidate for WP:CSD as failing WP:PORNBIO (at least according to how the article is written, which is quite poor to start with). But that's a different discussion. Anyway, her birthdate is listed as 1983 at IMDB, so it seems unclear. The reference you gave is seems no more reliable to me than IMDB. If I were the one patrolling this change, I would try to investigate and find a reliable source with an exact date, or perhaps choose one of the dates and put a (?) after it, and maybe even list both sources to clarify why the date is not sure.

As for the welcome message, that's a judgment call. If edits look like test edits, I sometimes welcome. If they look like pure vandalism, then a warning (starting with a relatively friendly one) is fine. But I would say you could look around at what happens around here as well; don't just take my word for it. Different editors handle things differently. As an admin (very new at it), I don't have a problem blocking a user who is vandalizing Wikipedia, but I also don't necessarily block indefinitely immediately like some admins do. I am willing to give the benefit of the doubt, at least so far. I think Wikipedia is a large and intimidating place, and noobs really can get lost very quickly around here.  Frank  |  talk  22:10, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Getting lost is easy. Just look at me. I've only done some work on a small corner at en-wiki (a lot of date template thing for example). Now starting patrolling a lot of articles (in seconds by Huggle) creates both a lot more insight and situations difficult to handle correctly. I'm very glad that you helping me out here. Nsaa (talk) 22:45, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

What about edits on highly controversial/public persons like Yasser Arafat. Is it here ok to revert like this [9] (in articles like this a sentence like this should first be added after a (lenghty) discussion on the talk page?)? Nsaa (talk) 22:48, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed; your revert there is great.  Frank  |  talk  22:49, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

To this one. Three messages: [10] (wwill you take it if ..)? Nsaa (talk) 23:04, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Again [11] (and I tried an AIV)Nsaa (talk) 23:05, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

4chan trolling. Darkspots (talk) 03:07, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I've semi'd it. Frank, when you downgrade the protection ensure you leave "move" protection set to sysop. –xenocidic (talk) 03:10, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks guys. I was reverting some page move vandalism. The encyclopedia comes first. But there's some ugliness left on Texas because it has more than 5,000 edits (we can talk about how genuine that error message is later). Any ideas? (Look at the history...)  Frank  |  talk  03:11, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

In this article [12] there's information about children and grand children. My first instinct was to revert it, but I just added a {{fact}}. What is the policies regarding this? (WP:BIO may say something I assume). Nsaa (talk) 12:09, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

In the middle of somehting. There redundancy and I am fixing it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Howdythere (talk • contribs) 12:23, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Nothing has been deleted. Nothing. Most of the items in the list have been moved to the article. All of it, including new references I have found are in the article. I was one of hte ones who did a lot of the work on this article. . . I just want it to keep the same information. Howdythere (talk) 12:37, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I provided 7 diffs with deletions and no edit summaries. There were a couple of additions too but the net was delete when I reverted a group of your edits. I'm not overly concerned about the article; the history is there. But it would be helpful to others if you let people know why you're deleting the content. If it's going to be put back someplace else, it's probably better to move it rather than delete in a bunch of edits and then add them at a later time. Mass deletion makes other editors (and bot accounts) nervous.  Frank  |  talk  12:41, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I didn't delete anything, I moved items from a list to the text ofthe article. Nothing bas been deleted. Nothing. If you see the items, they are now all in the text of the articleHowdythere (talk) 12:44, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

please excuse me if i have made an error by trying to reach you here,but ,i am unsure how to respond...THERE IS NOTHING LBELUS OR IN ANY WAY DEROGITORY IN MY REMARKS ABOUT BOBBY MURCER....I AM 51 YEARS OLD ,AND HAVE BEEN WATCHING BOBBY AND THE YANKS SINCE 1962... I KNOW MORE ABOUT BASEBALL THEN THE SO CALLED EXPERTS PON YOUR PAGE !.../MY REMARKS ARE SINCERE,ANMD RIGHT ON THE MONEY ! YOUR INABILITY TO PRINT THEM IS ,QUITE FRANKLY ,A "DISCONNECT ", ON YOUR PART.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by CRUISINLOU (talk • contribs)

I understand where you're coming from; Bobby was a class act. But Wikipedia is not a memorial service and not a place for original research. Please take a look at the welcome screen for more information.  Frank  |  talk  19:28, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I've just seen an IP adding a lot of external links: I'm a bit suspicious about it by the way it's added Ex1 (especially linking to the main page also). Currently there's some 70 links to this site (www.honesttune.com) [13]. I can't find anything about the site here either. Nsaa (talk) 19:00, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

What I said was true. You were completely right, and if I did write something, I would ust be copying you. Keep up the good work. :)America69 (talk) 19:05, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Could you please look at 84.134.125.114. I warned him for reverting edits by another user who he may have problems with. Could you please review? Thanks. America69 (talk) 19:17, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

In the german wiki Tocino would be blocked for a long time by now for his POV statements and I think we can call it Propaganda.84.134.125.114 (talk) 19:25, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Frank, I appreciate your helpful input. I'll play with the version in my Sandbox, rather than the one you kindly provided (I must develop the habit to use the Sandbox before creating any page), but I'm beginning to wonder if that is an earlier version, as I thought I had peppered it with sources. I must have been half asleep. Another reason for playing in the Sandbox. Could I ask you a couple of questions? 1. When I get a message on my Discussion page, should I answer it there, or follow the TALK link? 2. Presumably there is no need to provide a source for anything that is stated in the book, as most other book articles state these things as matters of fact, but in the light of the instant deleting, I think it only prudent to check. I intend dealing with other wine writers, if my first experience with Wikipedia is pleasant and rewarding, but I have to finish off Stevenson's links first. Mr Meticulous (talk) 15:44, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I personally think that discussions should be kept together. The wikipedia software is less than ideal for this. The reason for putting something on someone's talk page is that they get the nice "You have new messages" banner at the top. But if I comment somewhere and expect that there might be an answer, I simply look on my watchlist. So my opinion is to answer wherever the previous comment occurred. Not all editors agree on this point.

There is always a need to provide a source for anything that might be challenged. Also, if anything is quoted, it should be properly referenced and sourced. This is more important when the source isn't available online. I always try to provide as complete a reference as possible. I have access to a university library which has newspaper articles that show up in google hits but are not available without paying for them. Rather than leaving them unsourced, I will put the full reference information in the article anyway. Some users can still check them, and anyone is free to go to a local library if they don't have the resource available online. A recent example is Jack Swarbrick, which I saved from deletion yesterday and then expanded with more references.

Once again, I'd recommend you get in contact with some of the people on the wine portal, because they will not only be able to answer some of these questions, but they'll also be able to get specific regarding wine, wine books, authors, etc. Keep in mind that not every book qualifies for a page in the encyclopedia. It's probably best to consult with more experienced editors rather than put a lot of work into a page only to have it deleted. I've been thinking about a particular article myself...I created it but I'm just not sure it's ever going to be worthy of inclusion.  Frank  |  talk  15:55, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Frank, I'll direct any future questions to wine portal as suggested. Mr Meticulous (talk) 18:39, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the move! --Slashme (talk) 04:49, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I believe that somehow, 84.134.125.114, who you asked to stop stalking a user, is now using 84.134.108.183 per this edit. It seems to me at leats they are related. Could you please take a look. Thanks. America69 (talk) 12:38, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I hope you fucking die and shallow ur own pride while I hit your head with my fist. You wirthless piece of pussy. You are a pussy that sticks out. You fucking geek! Get a fucking life and a girl you tight asshole. PS I am going to fuck ur mother.

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my talk page!

I was wondering if you could take a look at May 16th 2011. I was originally going to tag it under CSD G3 as a blatant and obvious hoax, but I tagged it for speedy deletion as patent nonsense after seeing the image included on the page. In the article, the author claims that National Geographic has stuff about it, but I searched their website for many combinations of various terms in the article and found nothing. Can you review the article, please? J.delanoy^gabs_adds 21:53, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

nvm, someone already got it. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 22:07, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Frank. I just wanted to pop in for just one second to let you know that I reverted a Grawp page move on your userpage. SchfiftyThree 00:11, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I've protected it now.  Frank  |  talk  00:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

hey frank just thought I should drop in and let you know I restored this page as it doesn't quite meet WP:CSD#R2. also it's got incoming links. if an article needs to go here, so be it, but then a dablink would need to be added to where the redirect goes. xeno (talk) 01:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Whoa, did I really do that? You shoulda slapped me, man.  Frank  |  talk  01:19, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

meh, simple mistake. I only noticed because I use it heavily. xeno (talk) 01:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Frank, thanks for the info about the Brookes Ultimate Frisbee page. I have no problem with the deletion, however I am now sure what you mean by "establish notability for the club"; can you clarify? Thanks again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JerzyUk (talk • contribs)

There are a number of links on your talk page which are very useful for new editors. In particular, I would direct you to the five pillars of Wikipedia. In addition, regarding notability specifically, please read about notability, which covers whether or not a subject should have an article on Wikipedia, and, in particular, this page on notability of organizations. There are many people, places, and things which exist, but simply aren't notable.  Frank  |  talk  10:31, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I saw you revert my edit at first and the words "Oh hell no" actually escaped my lips. Glad to learn we are on the same side. :) Thanks for the help with LGRdC's page. Protonk (talk) 23:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry; I spent some time investigating if it was actually vandalism, and when I finally decided it was, I was a hair too quick on the rollback - you'd already reverted. Glad you looked over what happened; we're definitely on the same side :-)  Frank  |  talk  23:50, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks both of you for protecting my page from vandalism! I wonder if it was just a regular vandal or a sock of someone? --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:49, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

From the looks of it, someone who doesn't care for strunk and white. :) Protonk (talk) 20:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Given its contributions, which seem to be articles I haven't edited, I really do wonder if it's someone else. I wonder if it might have any association with some of the other single-article edited accounts that edited the same pages, such as this, this, this, etc.? --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:28, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Can you please point me to where if a speedy is declined for one reason that the article HAS to be prodded or AfD'd instead of speedy deleted for a different valid reason. Thanks. Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:13, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, apparently I cannot at this time. It's one of those things I thought I "knew" that may turn out to be incorrect. I'm still looking and will update.  Frank  |  talk  15:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Sorry if my request came across as harsh (bad day). If it does turn out to be incorrect would you replace the CSD tag on the article? I'm okay with it going to AfD if that is the more appropriate route though so if you want to put it there instead feel free. Thanks either way for responding and being both honest and courteous in your response despite my terseness above. Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I didn't take it that way; it was a reasonable question. The first (and only) answer I got was that it should be ok to have a different CSD tag. If I don't hear anything back reasonably soon, I'll undo my edit and step away, letting someone else make a decision. (It would be probably be silly for me to act on it in that case, either way.)  Frank  |  talk  16:00, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

No answers were forthcoming; I've restored the version with the CSD tag on it. Apologies for muddying the situation. Thanks for assuming good faith on my part (which it was). Regards -  Frank  |  talk  16:48, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

No problem and thank you for your help on the whole thing. Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:04, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Please Re-add my additions to the KGEZ Z-600 page as they are accurate. There are NO Citable sources to show when they switched from music to talk radio other than a high school newspaper that isnt published on the internet. All the information I added was accurate, On topic/point and true. In short, Reverting it is actually taking away information about the station and its history. I figured that instead of being a stub and offering NO information, adding some information would be good as I am a local to the Flathead valley and do know about the station. *Edit, Ive sense regestered for an account and still would like my edits about KGEZ Z-600 to be re-applied. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.160.49.11 (talk) 02:44, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the key point here is that Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. I am not disputing that the information is true or correct; I reverted it because it was not verifiable. I especially noted your summary of your edit, which specifically noted that you were adding information that you knew, which is contrary to Wikipedia's policies.

As for whether or not there are citable sources, that may or may not be true; they don't have to be published on the Internet, but they do have to be reliable sources, for which a high school newspaper probably wouldn't qualify. But that doesn't mean none can be found. I'll take a look; please feel free to look around yourself. I'll be more than happy to help you cite and format any citations if you can find them.  Frank  |  talk  02:59, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I had to revert you, but is this a mistake, a bug, or what? --Bongwarrior (talk) 04:01, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Bug, for sure. I was investigating when you reverted; not sure what I would have found, though. Very strange.  Frank  |  talk  04:04, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Further info: did you look at the history for the page? The bad edit shows that it is the same number of bytes as the good one (I copied and pasted from my cache to get the exact same text). Yet, on my watchlist, your revert added 95KB to the page. Internet gremlins, I guess.  Frank  |  talk  04:12, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I did notice that your "bad" edit was the same size as the good one, which sort of perplexed me. The content in the diff appears to be the Henry Cavill article, which only amounts to about 4,800 bytes, far less than the 100 KB+ that shows up in the RfA history. Some sort of hiccup in the software, I guess. --Bongwarrior (talk) 05:14, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I just wanted to let you know that a few other people have had this problem as well. There's currently a thread on ANI here. Take care. --Bongwarrior (talk) 09:44, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

In a recent edit to RSS, you removed a backlink to filteredrss dot com (new article about new commercial product) stating that the article was speedy-deleted. I just removed the link, reinstalled by somebody, because I don't think the product described belongs in a list of mashup creators. The article is not deleted, however, nor do its history or discussion suggest that it has been AfD-ed.betsythedevine (talk) 01:16, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I deleted that article earlier today without even a CSD tag. Your note above alerted me that the article had been recreated. This time it was CSD'd and I deleted it again.  Frank  |  talk  01:38, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your support in my RFA, which passed with 140 supporting, 11 opposing, and 4 neutral. I will do my best to live up to the trust that you have given to me. If I can ever assist you with anything, just ask.

Cheers!

J.delanoy^gabs_adds 20:25, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey there. Generally when an AfD is closed as a merge, it is up to other Wikipedians to do the merge and then, when they think it's done, make the article a redirect (this preserves the article history per the GFDL). If this merge clearly isn't happening the article can be nominated for deletion again. The closing admin (i.e. me) doesn't usually have a lot to do with this merge as it's better for experts on the subject, or at least those who have been editing the articles for a while, to do the merge in order to get it right. Until then, feel free to edit the article as you would any other: challenging unsourced material etc. —Sean Whitton / 10:59, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Great, thanks for that explanation!  Frank  |  talk  11:36, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, and I totally understood everyones complaints and will do my best to ensure the success of whenever I get around to another nomination, which won't be for awhile.--  Darth Mike  _{(Talk • Contribs)} 19:51, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Take a good long look at that section of that article again and try and tell me that isn't a giant crock of bullshit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.210.143.145 (talk • contribs)

It's not really for us to attach an opinion to. The material is cited. If you feel it is biased, unfair, incomplete, or otherwise problematic, all that is necessary is to find some citations that support another point of view and expand on the section in some way. It's not acceptable to just delete an entire section of an article that is properly cited because it's a "giant crock of bullshit." Remember that Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth, so it doesn't really matter what we think or know - it's about what we can cite.  Frank  |  talk  02:30, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank-you for your support of me at my recent RFA, which was successful. I have appreciated everyone's comments and encouragement there. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I take it you found it via Keeper's page? ;-) —Giggy 04:04, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes; I'm still looking it over. Late for me; I think I could do a lot for this article but not all tonight.  Frank  |  talk  04:06, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Much appreciated. Could I just please ask that you don't change the references to citation templates; I really dislike those, they add to page load time, and they result in WP:DATE issues. —Giggy 04:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Picky, picky. ;-) I prefer them because the cites are formatted uniformly, but I'll stop per your request. (No biggie to me.) I'm ready to learn; what WP:DATE issues are caused?  Frank  |  talk  04:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I formatted all the refs myself so hopefully there aren't any issues :-) There were some recent changes relating to wikilinking of dates - it's now no longer recommended. The citation templates still wikilink the accessdate parameter, and it looks really odd on the article to have everything else in MM DD, YY format, except for the "accessed 2008-01-01", with the numbers in blue. It's confusing for readers and adds nothing for the majority of people (since logged out folk don't have dates autoformat anyway, nor do people who haven't set an option in preferences) - it really only helps a few editors and confuses a lot of others. Hence, a strike on date wikilinking! :-) —Giggy 04:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow this, but as I said, I am leaving them as you requested. It seems to me the problem you describe should be fixed in the template, not by rewriting millions of cites on Wikipedia. (Unless of course I'm misunderstanding.) You're an Aussie, ain't ya? Don't you prefer dates DD-MM-YYYY, or YYYY-MM-DD, as they should be, rather than we Americans' brain-damaged MM-DD-YYYY format? Your method, while allowing control, doesn't allow a user's prefs to be honored at all, does it?  Frank  |  talk  04:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, Aussie, so I'd use DD MM YYYY if writing something personal/for school. For WP though, I use a date related to the article's topic - when writing about Australian music I use DDMMYYYY, when writing about an American video game it's MMDD,YYYY. The thing is, if I logged out and looked at an article where it was linked, I'd see the author's preference at work, which would be especially annoying if multiple people had edited it with different date formats on the basis that "it's linked so it shows up the same"... when it doesn't.

Anyway... much ado about not much, when you reflect on it! —Giggy 04:41, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

As a computer professional, I think it is much important! We went through this with Y2K, because assumptions were made way back when. I would think a reader would find it confusing to have to translate dates depending on the subject of the article. I mean, for example, what about the Rolling Stones? Yes, of course, they're British, but...they spend an awful lot of time among us Yanks. How should dates be represented in their article? I say it should be the reader's choice, not the writer's. My two pence. ;-)  Frank  |  talk  04:46, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

If it was possible to have dates format themselves for not logged in people, I'd agree with you 110%. Such is life. —Giggy 04:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:TALK#User talk pages specfically states that users are allowed to remove warnings on their talk page, as it is evidence that they have read it. Please cease reverting users for removing previous warnings. Thank you. SashaNein (talk) 12:26, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Are you referring to a particular edit that troubles you? I usually only do this to serial vandals who appear to be trying to prolong their fun.  Frank  |  talk  12:28, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I usually let them go off on their own talk pages, unless they're flooding recent changes or abusing the unblock template. My angle is that they'll hopefully get bored and maybe not bother returning at all. Technically the only thing they're not allowed to remove is declined unblock notices, shared IP notices and confirmed sockpuppetry notices. –xeno (talk) 12:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Some more food for thought: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive150#IPs removing their block templates while the block is active, Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 42#Wikipedia:User page and IP.27s. –xeno (talk) 13:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Is there any way to see what pages redirect to a certain page? Like if I went to The Undertaker, is there anyway to look at all the pages that redirect to that page i.e. Mark Callaway? Thanks. --  Darth Mike  _{(Talk • Contribs)} 23:51, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Sure, here's a link. On any page, on the left side, you can click "What links here" to see. Once you're there, you can even restrict it to a particular namespace, like "Wikipedia" to see only articles that link to it (instead of user pages, talk pages, etc.).  Frank  |  talk  23:57, 31 July 2008 (UTC)