User talk:Frank/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Prince Chunk

Hi, can I please enquire into your deletion of Prince Chunk as A7? I realise another user tagged it as such but the admin makes the final decision. It was clearly notable and it has received remarkable media attention and established that in the article. Just for the record, I am not the author of the article but I was planning on contributing to it once the edit conflicts settled down. Thanks, ~ AmeIiorate _{U T C} @ 04:44, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I applied WP:BLP1E to this cat, making the leap that if a person isn't notable for just one event, a cat is even less so. Google hits - and even Google News hits - do not automatically confer notability. Even Guinness doesn't track this as a category anymore, you'll note from the hits.  Frank  |  talk  04:57, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, that makes sense. Thanks for answering my question, ~ AmeIiorate _{U T C} @ 05:01, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Could I have a copy of the deleted article in case the popularity of Prince Chunk skyrockets beyond just this event?--DrWho42 (talk) 13:13, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I have restored the most recent version at User:DoctorWho42/Prince Chunk (as deleted).  Frank  |  talk  15:24, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. I am amazed by the speed of your response. Although I am seen as an inclusionist, I respect your decision to delete the article. I really believe in working by consensus on wiki, which includes avoiding undoing someone else's edits, where possible.

Cheers,

Kushal (talk) 15:41, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey Frank,

there is an ongoing discussion in wikipedia-en in freenode on the notability of Prince Chunk¹. I was wondering if you would reverse the decision to delete it. Thanks.

Cheers,

Kushal (talk) 14:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Is there consensus (or even discussion) on-wiki, such as at WP:DRV? I didn't find any, but this is a big place.  Frank  |  talk  14:34, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I realize that I'm a relative latecomer on this, but I want to thank you for the speed with which you followed up on my CSD request. It hit rollover time for me, and I was suprized to find that it had already been taken care of when I got back to my terminal. Again, thanks. Cassius1213 (talk) 16:09, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

No problem!  Frank  |  talk  16:22, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey, Just want to ask, you deleted this as A7 and mentioned BLP, are you calling this a BLP deletion? If not, I think it would be a good idea to undelete this and nom it to AFD. Or of course you can wait for it to be nommed to DRV. :) Your pick but I'm not clear as to your reasoning. —— nixeagle 17:16, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• Agree. BLP1e's are not eligible for speedies. The article is well sourced and has a strong claim to notability. It should heve to go through an afd to get deleted. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:21, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

  Are Regis and Kelly enough for that, or does the Today show seal the deal on notability? ;-)  Frank  |  talk  18:16, 1 August 2008 (UTC) Can you expand on the strong claim?  Frank  |  talk  20:31, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Yes however he could call it a BLP deletion, which I believe is permissible. (I'm 6 months out of date) If thats the case, then I believe according to that policy its either DRV or nothing. —— nixeagle 17:26, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
  • By this I mean anyone undeleting it could be in big trouble with WP:ARBCOM. —— nixeagle 17:27, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Come on, folks. It's a simple A7 deletion. He's a fat cat, not a fat cat. But, I don't have any dog in this fight; let's go to WP:DRV. If the consensus is to undelete, I'll be on it like flies on...fat cats.  Frank  |  talk  18:16, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I would like to see consensus on this issue. Is there anything specific that we could do so that you would support the article's existence in mainspace? Thanks. Kushal (talk) 22:46, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

And now for the fun to really begin. Cassius1213 (talk) 06:52, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review for Prince Chunk

Prince Chunk is now under deletion review. Please feel free to contribute to the discussion.--DrWho42 (talk) 21:43, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks!

Thank you... ...for participating in my RfA, which closed with 119 in support, 4 neutral and 5 opposes. I'm honestly overwhelmed at the level of support that I've received from the community, and will do my best to maintain the trust placed in me. I 'm also thankful to those who opposed or expressed a neutral position, for providing clear rationales and superb feedback for me to build on. I've set up a space for you to provide any further feedback or thoughts, should you feel inclined to. However you voted, thanks for taking the time out to contribute to the process, it's much appreciated. Kind regards, Gazimoff 21:13, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

With regards to our previous conversations

Following up on the everyme talk page discussion, check out support number 16. Click on the close to see why that one is a real laffer. Protonk (talk) 04:58, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I do see your point, and I've seen it elsewhere since then as well.  Frank  |  talk  17:54, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey

Saw your edit here. Maybe that should be done for all his edits. He did the same to other AfDs and an RfA. Enigma ^message 21:27, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Review

I was just wondering if you could give me a quick review. Recently my RfA failed and I would like to know whether or not I'm doing everything I can to prevent that from happening again. Darth Mike (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

Thanks, --  Darth Mike  _{(Talk • Contribs)} 12:24, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Mike - I'll be glad to take a look, although I am a bit busy lately. Feel free to ping me again in a couple of days if you haven't heard back. I definitely want to help.  Frank  |  talk  17:54, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Will do Frank, thanks again --  Darth Mike  _{(Talk • Contribs)} 21:13, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, Frank. I've read through your review and will do my best. --  Darth Mike  _{(Talk • Contribs)} 20:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou

Just a little note to say thankyou for participating in my successful RFA candidacy, which passed with 96 supports, 0 opposes, and 1 neutral. I am pleasantly taken aback by the amount of support for me to contribute in an administrative role and look forward to demonstrating that such faith is well placed. Regards, WilliamH (talk) 09:12, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Remy Corporation

The user who created Remy Corporation, a page that you speedied, is asking for it to be re-created in a sandbox so they can edit it. Can you re-create it at User:Samenus/Remy Corporation please? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 16:32, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Done.  Frank  |  talk  17:14, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Closing RFAs

Here's a great list to follow when closing RFAs: User:Enigmaman/SNOW –xeno (talk) 14:12, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - I was working on it but I had help. It's like a swarm of locusts around here sometimes. :-)  Frank  |  talk  14:15, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

oh , i didn't check to see if anyone else got to it. =] –xeno (talk) 14:16, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

self-noms

I had a nagsome thought I might have done before, hence the "may be," thanks for reminding me! Gwen Gale (talk) 17:44, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

NP - We all pay way too much attention to this stuff anyway :-)  Frank  |  talk  17:48, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks you very much

Thank your help in the disambiguation Tobacco. We need to coordinate. See #wikiproject ^connect. ChyranandChloe (talk) 20:59, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't (yet) do IRC. Honestly, I think this move was ill-conceived and should have been done first in a test area before disrupting the encyclopedia. I am trying to quickly make some sense of this. I think that "tobacco" should go to an article, not a disambiguation page, and the presence of a disambiguation page should then be announced at the top of that page. I also think there are way, way, too many articles on the dismbiguation page. In the meantime, if you have a plan for all this, I'll step back and let you have at it.  Frank  |  talk  21:03, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, it'll be a while, and I agree the list is way too long — but the plan was to do it in layers. ChyranandChloe (talk) 21:07, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Forgive me if I sound a little bitey here, but couldn't the plan have been implemented in a sandbox area first? This change looks highly disruptive to me.  Frank  |  talk  21:11, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, you seem to have completely overwritten my initial efforts at categorization.  Frank  |  talk  21:12, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Thoughts about link

Yes, we can correct the link with a bot. If you want you can do a CSD move to Tobacco (disambiguation) and place a redirect in Tobacco. ChyranandChloe (talk) 21:24, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Can you explain this? What link are you referring to? I asked about the over 2,000 pages that currently link to Tobacco, expecting to get to what is now called Tobacco (agriculture).  Frank  |  talk  21:27, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

You're an administrator, don't you do CSD moves? Ok, you CSD delete Tobacco (disambiguation), then move the article Tobacco to the disambiguation. Then you change the redirect to Tobacco (agriculture), and over the course of about two days a bot will correct the links. ChyranandChloe (talk) 21:40, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I am an admin, but no, I haven't done a CSD move before. In fact, I've avoided them on purpose so far. This may be a perfect opportunity for me to learn. I'll look into it.  Frank  |  talk  21:48, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey, we had an ec, please have a look now. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:02, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Shatner

Hi. I re-added the tinnitus listing and added a reference. I'm not certain if the formatting is acceptable because it does not lead to the note. I will update the article with more detailed information as this seems worthy of a mention. THD3 (talk) 22:20, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

previous deletion

I didn't realize that it didn't apply to speedy deletions, sorry. --Cocomonkilla ^{(talk) (contrib)} 01:51, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

No apology necessary; I was investigating the request. Unfortunately, I've found that when an article is deleted under "previously deleted content", editors will look over the policy and focus on wiki-lawyering instead of what's really going on around here. I totally agree the article didn't belong as written, but I want to get it right when I delete if at all possible. Someone else went ahead and deleted under G3; I expect we've not seen the last of this article.  Frank  |  talk  02:52, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Why removing a POV = a POV edit?

Could you explain why removing an HRW activist's remark from the lead of the article is equal to a POV edit? I used the actual words from the reference provided, how is it POV edit again? (Igny (talk) 15:34, 18 August 2008 (UTC))

Maybe I'm missing something, and if so, I am prepared to be shown what I missed. Here's how I see it: first, the HRW comment directly follows a comment about how many deaths are claimed by different parties. I make no judgment as to whether HRW is an activist organization, but its claim is different than the one before it, so including both shows balance. Second, the word "grossly" did not appear in the cited reference at all, while the previously quoted words "suspicious" and "very doubtful" did appear, exactly as quoted.

It's true that HRW has a point of view - as do other organizations observing and commenting on this conflict, and as editors, readers, and "regular people" do. However, we must keep in mind that Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. We cannot determine "truth" at this point, anyway - it's an ongoing situation and reliable information is difficult to come by.

So, with that in mind, I reverted your edit not because I have any opinion of what is going on, nor do I think that my own opinion regarding the numbers is meaningful in any way. What counts is what we can provide verifiable sources for. If I've misread something, please show me where and I'll be happy to work with you (and anyone) to improve the article.  Frank  |  talk  15:45, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Admittedly, that was my first attempt on trying to neutralize the wording and grossly may be a poor choice of a word, even though I did see it somewhere (I don't really want to go look for a ref). I was expecting further rewordings and was willing to work out a compromise, but I was taken aback by your blunt revert. Let us agree that we both are trying to improve the article, and either way, I doubt that this article in general as well as in details will last in this current form for long (not because of my small infrequent edits). (Igny (talk) 16:04, 18 August 2008 (UTC))

Certainly, we're both attempting to improve the article. Whether or not it will survive "as is" really doesn't matter; we can't let non-verifiable edits stand. The "blunt revert" you referred to was just about required by policy. As for "neutralizing" the wording, I submit that the edit in question was itself a counterpoint to the previous sentence, and therefore was an attempt to create balance as it was originally written. The article itself needs to be neutral; not every sentence within can be.  Frank  |  talk  16:12, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Fábio da Silva

Please edit Fábio da Silva and redirect to Fábio Silva. Matthew_hk tc 17:01, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

There is no article named Fábio da Silva to edit. It was deleted (six times) after a deletion discussion, and earlier today it was salted against recreation because of the repeated attempts to create the article. I'm not sure I see the sense in redirecting it to a disambiguation page.  Frank  |  talk  17:15, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Re:Design help

My reply here. -- RyRy Public (talk) 03:54, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm watching over there. (I was replying when you posted this.)  Frank  |  talk  03:58, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

George W. Bush as Governor of Texas

Hi. Sorry I didn't clarify it on the talk page before; I've listed several examples where I think NPOV has been overlooked at Talk:George W. Bush as Governor of Texas#POV tag. --J. Atkins ^{(talk - contribs)} 14:38, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

re User:kevin j

I have looked over your responses to the unblock requests, I would like to comment that I was very impressed with the tone and clarity of your responses (in the face of a passionate, probably well meaning, but badly in violation of core policy editor). I have not seen any barnstars on your userpage, but if you are in the habit of receiving them let me know on my talkpage and I will provide you one in (further) recognition of the good work I saw today. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:58, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Your words are plenty enough recognition for me; if you were inclined in the future to present something shiny that would be fine with me but not necessary. I can always make a page somewhere for them. (I have one somewhere around here....) What I'm really hoping is that we can somehow channel Kevin's efforts to improvement of the encyclopedia. The energy is clearly there. Thanks for the kind words!  Frank  |  talk  01:37, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I would also like to express my appreciation, and ask you for a favor. The Sally Perdue article is currently at Kevin J's revision, which contains original research. I would really rather not revert it myself (because he'll probably just undo my changes in a week, and I would like to avoid an edit war), and I'm not sure if I'm supposed to be posting on the noticeboard under a topic marked as resolved. Could you check it out for me? Thanks! -- plushpuffin (talk) 00:35, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I confess I wasn't looking over as much content as tone and interaction in all of this, so it will take a little digging for me to get the proper feel of a specific article, but I will take a look. Thanks!  Frank  |  talk  01:37, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

My goodness, but that article is a mess, isn't it! I'll have to put this on my to-do list. Do please ping me again; I have a busy day planned tomorrow but this one needs help.  Frank  |  talk  01:42, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of the Sally Perdue article. -- plushpuffin (talk) 17:24, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome; if you have other ideas or sources, please jump in or let me know.  Frank  |  talk  12:29, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Kevin j is back as 65.112.121.29 and reverting your edits to Sally Perdue. Does this page need to be protected? -- plushpuffin (talk) 19:30, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I am prepared to take a "wait-and-see" attitude. There is no need to rush into protecting. I reverted and placed a note on the page; so far no more has been done. (I want to stress: that's just my opinion at the moment and I don't mind if you make a request at WP:RFPP. This is especially true if I don't happen to be around next time you place a note about this.)  Frank  |  talk  20:02, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I think I'm actually going to take a step back and remove those few pages from my watchlist. I have a tendency to take a lot of things too seriously, and I don't want to get emotionally involved in a silly edit war over a stub/start-class article. Thanks again. -- plushpuffin (talk) 20:05, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I feel the same way about Stephanie Tubbs Jones, but I haven't un-watchlisted quite yet :-) I will say this about the Perdue article, though, as far as I can see, it's done, not a stub/start-class article. There doesn't seem to be much else to say about her.  Frank  |  talk  20:08, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

What the hell are you talking about, "done?" It's missing a whole slew of information concerning her role in the war of Dwarven aggression. But, I'm too close to that particular conflict to make reliably NPOV edits regarding that subject. -- plushpuffin (talk) 20:15, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I think I get it... :-)  Frank  |  talk  20:18, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thank you for fielding this question for me while I was busy deleting the vandalism in question. I appreciate your timely help! --Kralizec! (talk) 15:52, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

My pleasure; glad to help!  Frank  |  talk  15:55, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

AOR

Hello. I am not the best person to ask on the subject as I got sick of the drama and support from administrators and arbitrators very quick, but a good place to start is here, followed by here, then here.

The other user that opposes based on being open to the recall process alone, no doubt, does so on the grounds of Arbitrator remarks on the matter. SashaNein (talk) 15:45, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Quiet Cars Prius

The existing section on quiet cars is little more than a statement of one side, the advocates want. Worse, the Lotus, a competing car company, has proposed a part that does not impact their product lines but would increase the price of a Prius.

There has been a hearing by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and the public record is available including the submitted materials. This includes what is missing from this write-up, the opposition report.

I'm here as long as it takes and have no problem with enlisting the help of my fellow hybrid electric owners. But editing this section to present just one side is not in the interest of sharing the facts and data. --- Bob Wilson —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bwilson4web (talk • contribs) 17:56, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

My response here.  Frank  |  talk  18:31, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm Speaking From An IP Address Me and Kevin J Have Shared, And He Is Right About Sally Perdue

Sally Perdue "revealed" absolutely nothing about having a true affair with Clinton. Your edits to the page about her "revealling she had an affair" are unproven baloney. You're just as bad as that embarrassing Sarah Palin editor that internationally embarrassed Wikipedia last week to present such nonsense as a proven fact. I know Kevin J, and don't call me a "sock puppet" for saying he's unreliable. The IP address we use is from a public computer, and it's used by probably 100 different people daily. For me, the Sarah Palin article was enough, and I think it's time to make Wikipedia less of a political strategist website. YUIP78 (talk) 20:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Looks like you've uncovered the Wikipedia cabal that improperly edits articles of politically-affiliated women whose initials are "SP".  Frank  |  talk  21:13, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Thank you for voting in my RfA, which succeeded with 71 support, 14 oppose, and 5 neutral. Thanks for your participation. Also, thanks for catching my little transcribing error...nothing like messing up the template in your own RfA.

--Smashville^BONK! 23:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for taking the time to post on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_September_4 in reference to Jonathan Sammeroff. Please feel free to respond to my new comments on the matter (and remove this post once you have done so) :o) Peenapplay (talk) 21:29, 4 September 2008 (UTC)peenapplay

Already done. :-)  Frank  |  talk  21:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Hello! I just wanted to pass along my thanks for your support in my RfA from earlier this week. I hope I did not disappoint you. I am going on Wikibreak and I will let you know when or if I am back on the site -- I am trying to take time away to clear my thoughts and refocus on this and other priorities. Be well. Ecoleetage (talk) 04:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

IP users

Our policy is as follows:

For repeated vandalism by an anonymous IP address, it is helpful to take the following additional steps:

Trace the IP address (cf. http://dnsstuff.com) and add

to the user talk page of the address. If it appears to be a Shared IP address, add

or

For repetitive anonymous vandalism, particularly where registered to a school or other kind of responsive ISP, consider listing it on Wikipedia:Abuse reports.

The policy does not suggest posting a warning, and for good reason: most IP accounts from which people vandalize are shared. In this case, the next time the vandal edits Wikipedia s/he may be using a different IP address; the next person who uses this IP address may make a good contribution. I think is the point of the first point of the policy - if we establish that the IP address is shared, there is no point at all in positing a warning or a greeting. In any event, the steps laid out in the policy need be followed only in the case pf persistent vandalism.

Most IP talk pages I have seen in whcih someone posted a warning were used once; we all know that it is most likely that the vandal is just a kid who will not come back or if s/he does will use a different computer in the library or a different internet cafe. All posting these warning do is to create new talk pages. This is ine effect creating a nonsense page, and this is against policy.

The only pages I have deleted are phone user talk pages, that is, talk pages for non-existent users.

Do people really create new pages all the time in order to post a warning to an unidentified person? Well, there was a time when no one did that. there was a time when people focused on writing articles.

I assume good faith on the part of people who create new pages pointlessly, which is why I warn them. They take their well-intentioned zeal against vandalism one step too far. But the practice should be discouraged. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:58, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I see you are a long-time editor and administrator, while I am relatively new with the mop. However, I don't see that your interpretation squares very well with consistent, established practice around here. We warn IP users all the time as a matter of routine course, and we block IP addresses as well. Users with named accounts can usually still edit depending on the type of block. I definitely do not see the purpose of blocking an editor with an account who has done nothing but warn an IP vandal, simply for creating what you are calling a nonsense page, which that is what goes on around here all day, every day.

I am perfectly familiar with the templates you've splashed around above, and they are perfectly appropriate in cases of repeated abuse from IP addresses (whether semi-static or dynamic). But often people think nobody is paying attention, and even a single warning is quite effective in deterring future vandalism, which is the whole point.  Frank  |  talk  01:06, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I didn't mean to "splash" anything - I took your comment seriously, and wanted to provide a thoughtful answer. I disagree with you. In most cases where people followed policy and tried to identify the address, it turned out to be a shared address used by the general public. if some people do this all the time, they should not. It does not deter vandalism, it does not send an effective message. What it does do is create a user talk page when there is no identifable user. Slrubenstein | Talk 01:12, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

My block

I put a warning on the person's page. The person ignored the warning and continued to create new nonsense pages. I blocked the person for the minimum amount of time, fifteen minutes, to ensure s/he would read the warning. The block has expired by now. I have no doubt that this user is generally productive but at the time s/he was making a series of unproductive edits and apparently ignoring the alert at the tope of the page saying s/he had a new message. Slrubenstein | Talk 01:01, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I saw very clearly what you did, and I questioned it. I continue to question your interpretation of a nonsense page.  Frank  |  talk  01:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry, I thought you wanted an explanation. If you did not, feel free to stric=ke out or delete what I wrote. Slrubenstein | Talk 01:13, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks ...

... for your civility. I realize several people are upset that I blocked a user, and I acknowledge that many thought I was wrong, but I hope people understand that I do not consider blocks punitive and assume other editors understand that they are not punitive. My intention in a 15 minute block - whether one believes I was right or not - was to preventing imminent or continuing disruption to Wikipedia (the creation of what I view to be unnecessary and nonsense pages), and to encouraging a rapid understanding of my reasoning, and response to my notice on the user's talk page. As you pointed out, since the upset I have not done anything other to post an additional comment on that user's talk page - a comment I hoped owuld be conciliatory - and to respond to people who have posted to my user page.

I think there is a real need for discussion about the practice of creating new pages in order to issue warnings to IP addresses. If you have any ideas about the best venue for that, I would be happy to go along. I certainly won't take any more action until there has been community discussion. This goes against my better judgement but I am happy now to defer to the judgement of several other editors who have expressed their disagreement with me. Slrubenstein | Talk 02:03, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I think maybe WP:RFC would be the proper venue. I don't know that you'll get much traction, but that's probably the best place to start. Cheers!  Frank  |  talk  02:14, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Makes sense, thanks again, Slrubenstein | Talk 02:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Lulz

Hey now, some people just really like policy... Badger Drink (talk) 02:04, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Your awfully knee jerk desire to delete the "Batman's career timeline" article challenged

Batman is one of the most iconic, recognizable characters in all of comics. He has been around since 1939 and has had numerous adaptions made about him (via animation, live-action television and film, and video games). It would do the character more good (in terms of serving as a relatively important history lesson) than you could imagine to showcase a "career timeline" through all of the important eras/ages in the comics. Besides, if you're going to delete this article about Batman's career timeline and more importantly, his evolution as a superhero/crime fighter, then you might as well do the same about the article entitled "History of Superman". TMC1982 (talk) 7:27 p.m., 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I read your response at the AfD and didn't feel I had anything more to add to my original comments in the discussion. Although your characterization of my opinion as "awfully knee jerk" isn't exactly what I'd call good faith, I went ahead and looked over the article and the discussion again. I did find and correct a spelling error in my original comments, but...I still feel the same way. I would add that what other articles exist in Wikipedia is rarely useful in an AfD discussion; we're discussing a single article, not the 6,826,096 that exist.

As to your specific points, it's true that Batman is iconic. That is the reason there is a 72KB article all about him. Then there's a disambiguation page, which you can read for yourself but includes no fewer than 16 internal wikilinks just for the superhero (and there are more beyond that). Then there are the modern films: Batman, Batman Returns, Batman Forever, Batman & Robin, Batman Begins, and The Dark Knight. Each of these films has additional links, including video games, music scores, soundtracks, at least one arcade game, and more. But wait, that's not all. We also have Batman franchise media, which lists all those movies and more, including books, games, TV serials, radio, newspaper, theater, action figures, toys, and more. I understand there were one or two comics featuring Batman as well. I think it's safe to say there are some pages in Wikipedia that exist primarily because of their connection to Batman, such as Bob Kane and Burt Ward. I'm not suggesting they should be deleted, but acknowledging that they are part of the iconic status of the Batman character, which you can see is well-represented in the encyclopedia.

Wikipedia does not exist to "do the character more good". Wikipedia exists to document knowledge. I don't think that deleting a page which is largely composed of original research does damage to anything, and in fact I am of the firm belief that to keep Wikipedia a reliable encyclopedia, we need to make sure that it has a certain threshold for inclusion and a certain level of achievement for each and every article. I don't think I'll live long enough to ensure that 100%, but...I can try.

Hopefully you can see that quite the opposite of your characterization is true; my opinion is actually considered and, I believe, in line with Wikipedia policies and goals. You are free to disagree, but so far, I haven't seen anything to change my opinion.  Frank  |  talk  14:57, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Attention stalkers...

...especially RfA regulars and semi-regulars: Some of you ought to be ashamed of yourselves for not participating in some current RfAs. I know ain't got a lot of stalkers, but hopefully I can kick a few of you into going and looking at the current discussions going on over there.  Frank  |  talk  16:31, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

SPA

I linked the user talk not the user so it went wrong on the template call - fixed it now! Pedro :  Chat  21:28, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you for supporting me in my RfA, which passed with a count of (166/43/7). I appreciate your comments and in my actions as an administrator I will endeavor to maintain the trust you have placed in me. I am honored by your trust and your support. Thank you, Cirt (talk) 02:39, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

EFD

User:Frank, an editor you created or significantly authored has been nominated for deletion for the following reason: Editor clearly exists, nothing else matters. Please see the discussion and add your reasoning if you believe the editor should not be deleted. Erik the Red 2 (AVE CAESAR) 22:28, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Your support of my RfA

Hi Frank. I really should've done this sooner, but thank you so much for your excellent support at my RfA. Like you said, it's a shame so many people didn't look past my edit count, but that's something that can be fixed for next time. As I said to Pedro on his talk page, I'm not disheartened as the oppose votes were generally positive.

Cheers mate, Bettia (rawr CRUSH!) 13:44, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

I just wanted to let you know I really appreciate your comments on my talk page. Like a lot. Thingg^⊕⊗ 22:12, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

My pleasure. I felt it was important to speak up sooner rather than later (or not at all). The response was pretty reasonable too; we may characterize things differently, but it didn't turn ugly, which can happen pretty quickly around here. It was nice that User:barneca chimed in too. Cheers!  Frank  |  talk  22:55, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, upon reflection I've decided that my block was a mistake. Thanks for pointing it out to me. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:40, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Crispiness

Hi . . . here's the ref <deleted>. Let me know when you had a look so so I can delete the file. It is from the Second Edition as it appears on Bloomberg.

I'm not seeing the article as a copyvio of that screenshot...am I missing something? I mean, I do see some similarities in the history section, but we could just delete the history section anyway and keep the article.  Frank  |  talk  15:46, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Never mind; someone else deleted the article. We can deal with it again later (if necessary) if someone recreates the article. No biggie.  Frank  |  talk  16:01, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't recall the article in all its detail, but the etymology and the historical example uses were identical to the OED (I may not have given you all the relevant screen shots).

RE: Your Esquisse deletion that is perhaps somewhat hasty

Appreciate your comments, but as I am a new contributing member I do not fully understand your objections: please explain such objections so that they become readable by someone who is not yet aware of all the numerous and often quite ambiguous and vaguely described editorial objections to publication of new material on Wikipedia. Perhaps you read an earlier version that was incomplete and our editings overlapped in time? If you accept I will show here the updated version that I feel it should not have been deleted. Nu 17:04, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Please feel free to create the article in your userspace, as I suggested on your talk page. Regarding the policies you refer to, I agree there are a bunch of them, but the best way to learn about them is to stick around for a while and look at what's going on rather than trying to create an article from scratch. If you watch development of other articles, you'll have a much better idea of the process.  Frank  |  talk  17:07, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Appreciate your suggestions both past and present. However, your reply does not cover the key aspects of my objections as posted above to the deletion in question; the substance is that the major reason quoted by your deletion--that this is an original research material-- is not corresponding to the facts, that is the contents of the article, and I am respectfully submitting the request that you kindly re-consider your opinion if that were at all possible. I would of course appreciate any constructive cristicisms from you, but the unjustified, or unfounded ones -not corresponding to fact, I must decline. here is the exact quote from my latest version that I have good reasons to believe that you did not read: "There is no presentation in this article of any original research work, biographical or otherwise.

"Alexander Grothendieck's Esquisse d'un Programme (1984) was, and still is, a famous proposal for a position at the Centre National de la R‘echerche Scientifique, which he held from 1984 to his retirement in 1988. The dessins d'enfants, or 'children's games of drawing' and 'anabelian geometry'--non-Abelian or non-commutative geometry-- inspired extensive mathematical studies that continue today."

RE: your statement : "Please feel free to create the article in your userspace, as I suggested on your talk page." --it may seem , if it were taken out of context to be meant to be helpful-- but it is really no favor at all, as it might be construed by someone who did not read the article; it can be also interpreted as to completely ignore my objections to your deletion --that as yet stands unjustified by your not reading art all the updated version of the article in qquestion. Regards, Nu 17:34, 2 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bci2 (talk • contribs)

I clearly explained to you that the reason I deleted the article was based on criterion A1 - lack of context to sufficiently identify the subject of the article. I continue to believe it merits deletion for this very same reason; the context of why this article exists is not at all clear. You appear to be using an article to push a particular point of view, which is wholly inappropriate on Wikipedia. The other reasons I gave - original research and synthesis were not reasons to speedily delete, but rather further reasons this article likely would not - in its current form - survive a discussion at WP:AfD.

My opinion hasn't changed, but there is no point in me deleting and you recreating the article. I am either going to solicit others' opinions, leave it alone and see if someone else nominates it for CSD, or perhaps nominate the article myself at AfD so that a community discussion can determine if it belongs or not.

And, of course, we can work on making the article better, which is what I suggested in the first place. I continue to strongly believe that it should be in your userspace so that it can be improved first and later moved into the main article space.

If this proposal "was, and still is, a famous proposal" it should be no problem to find legitimate sources that say so. Simply listing a bunch of articles that mention its author many of which are in a foreign language - does not indicate notability or independent citation.

At least two administrators have read the article and decided it does not belong in the project as it stands now. That is not a personal comment, and it does not mean it couldn't change; it simply means that the article is not encyclopedic.  Frank  |  talk  17:53, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Foxy Loxy's RfA

Hello, this message is to inform you that User:Foxy Loxy has restarted their RfA. The new discussion is located at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Foxy Loxy 2. GlassCobra 10:05, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: admin

Hey, I'd appreciate that very much. Thanks. :) Thingg^⊕⊗ 14:54, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, it appears events are progressing with astonishing rapidity and your valuable input would greatly appreciated Umm... if you'd like to co-nom in my RfA, the page is blue. I do still need to write the answers to the questions though... Thanks very much for the offer to co-nom. Thingg^⊕⊗ 15:28, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Scooter Smiff

Hi, I see you deleted the page I created on Scooter Smiff. I understand the reasons for this, but you must understand I was still in the process of creating / adding information to the page. I am a relatively new user to Wikipedia and I know there's some sort of a tag to add to the page which will prevent it from deletion, but I'm not quite sure what this is.

How exactly can I restore the page and continue working on it? Thanks. --Olorinjoyce (talk) 18:46, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

There's plenty of info on your talk page about what constitutes notability, and how to create an article. I suggest you create a page in your user space, such as User:Olorinjoyce/Scooter Smiff and work on the article there first. Then solicit help and opinions from other editors to improve it before moving it into the main article space.  Frank  |  talk  20:10, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

My RfA

Just wanted to let you know it's live. Thanks for co-nomming. Hoping for the best.... Thingg^⊕⊗ 21:02, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review for Regan Mizrahi

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Regan Mizrahi. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. the skomorokh 14:53, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism?

My edit on Eliot Spitzer was not vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.75.74.10 (talk) 16:22, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Please source your claims. Jennavecia ^(Talk) 17:23, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

i is big imporetunt admin

Thank you very, very much for your co-nomination on my RfA. I do have to say I was not expecting anything close to what it ended up being like. I really appreciate your support and the time you took to write up the co-nom. (with tons of diffs :O ) Thanks again. Thingg^⊕⊗ 01:20, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I was very pleased myself with how it turned out. Well-earned, and I was glad to help. However, whatever I did was really a small part compared to you and really all the others that took time to look through. Unanimous is quite an achievement. Keep up the good work!  Frank  |  talk  01:43, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

dude, you played a big part. your co-nom was smashing, and you really nailed it with the "this is no huggle-bot automation..." bit. that's what I missed. cheers, –xeno (talk) 12:16, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

That's automaton, dude :-) Seriously, I was glad to be involved. I don't follow other editors' actions so much on this project, and I can't think of any other editor so deserving of a nom; this was a no-brainer. But you already knew that :-) The real gem in this RfA was that people took the time to look. That it was unanimous and WP:100 sums it up.  Frank  |  talk  12:28, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

cut me a break i had just woken up =] –xeno (talk) 18:30, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

What? You actually sleep?  Frank  |  talk  19:19, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

My RFA

Hey there! Just a note thanking you for supporting my RFA which successfully passed with 60 supports, 0 opposes and 2 neutrals. I hope I'll be able to live up to everyone's expectations, and thank you for trusting me! All the best, Ale_Jrb^talk 20:44, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikicookie

Thank you for all your constructive edits.--LAAFan^sign _review 00:40, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Schweet! I needed a snack; thanks for the cookie! Chocolate chip cookies are my favorite, too :-) Best regards -  Frank  |  talk  01:09, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Rfa Spam

Thank you so much for your support on my RFA, which today passed unanimously. I will do my best to make sure that I don't let any of you down. If you ever need any help with anything, feel free to ask me, i'll be happy to. Thanks again--Jac16888 (talk) 17:17, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Nothing special here...

The account had edits beyond the creation of a silly userpage (to bluelink its username) and various sorts of blanking vandalism.

If it had looked like there was any hope of anything worthwhile coming from this editor I might not have blocked. As it is, he can create a new account with a clean nose in 24 hours, or he can request an unblock.

Some admins might block here, some might not--it's a judgement call. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:30, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Cool beans; thanks for the response.  Frank  |  talk  03:04, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

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

Please explain you deleted entry 'Nina de Roy'

I created the page Nina de Roy some time ago and you deleted it on 21 October 2008 with explanation "Doesn't indicate importance or significance of a real person". I'm sorry but I feel your action is unreasonable without a proper explanation.

The entry clearly explained her significance. She is one of the main anchors / presenters on Bloomberg Television UK. Presents on Bloomberg in the UK have come into the spotlight since some have moved into high profile positions on mainstream terristial television such as on BBC 2 and Channel 4.

My entry contained purely factual information and I do not understand why it breached Wikipedia's rules. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Distortedvision (talk • contribs) 07:50, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

There are literally thousands of television presenters around the world, and they are not automatically notable because of holding that job. Articles included in Wikipedia must be on notable subjects, the general guidelines for which are located here. More specifically, for people in the entertainment industry, which includes journalists, the criteria are here. Ms. de Roy does not appear to meet these criteria, which is why another editor nominated the article for deletion. Note that it had been deleted previously (in 2007) for the same reason.

It is also very important to realize that Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. All the information may have been factual and correct, but if it isn't covered in reliable, third-party sources, it is not suitable for an article in Wikipedia. So, even if notability is established, the sources must also be there to support it.

I also note that I did not delete this article just because another editor tagged it with a CSD tag. Before deleting it, I searched around for info on its subject, and I did not find sufficient information to determine her notability. I don't like to just delete articles and claim I was only following orders; as an administrator, I am expected to exercise judgment consistent with community policies. Speaking for myself, I can say that I do sometimes decline to delete articles if there is some evidence of notability, even if it's not asserted in the article itself. That was not the case here, and a search of Google News is the same now.

It's certainly possible that she is notable and I'm missing it, and it's possible she will become notable at some point in the future. However, I don't see that right now. If you wish to seek input of other members of the community, please visit deletion review, which is the forum for discussing such decisions and getting other views.

In the meantime, if you have any other questions, do please let me know.  Frank  |  talk  14:03, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: ZOLVE.com

Thanks for the note—I didn't see the talk page when I deleted it. I restored it for now, as the crestor seems to be trying to improve the article. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 16:40, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - as I've said, I'm not so convinced notability is actually there, but I do see good faith efforts and I'm happy to give it a chance. Thanks again.  Frank  |  talk  22:07, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

How about this magazine: Swank (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swank). I'm an honest person wanting to be an honest contributor, and here are the porn guys getting away with their listing, (as they always do, spamming the world and Wikipedia). Does Swank magazine fit Wikipedia guidelines, and is it newsworthy for real? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swank

~confused keys —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.125.1.64 (talk) 01:01, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Optimize (magazine)

How about Optimize Magazine? Does that fit your guidelines? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optimize_(magazine) Spinninglotus (talk) 21:46, 26 October 2008 (UTC)confused keys

First of all, I don't have any guidelines; Wikipedia has community guidelines. As for that article, it is questionable whether or not it should remain; I would say it could be merged with InformationWeek, which it apparently has been merged into.  Frank  |  talk  22:46, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Desperate Housewives Episode Deletion

The recent episode page I created: "Mirror, Mirror" (episode 5.05) has been deleted. Please explain the situation. I followed the format as with the previous episodes and complete a plot summary for this episode.

The information I have filled in is adequate for any episode of Desperate Housewives (Guest stars and plot summary), so why make this an exception? Thanks. Myintermail (talk) 04:09, 29 October 2008 (UTC)Myintermail

As indicated in the deletion log, the page was first deleted in accordance with an AfD discussion, which appears here. It was recreated and deleted scant hours later under the criteria for speedy deletion, specifically criterion G4, which covers recreation of previously deleted material. When I got to the page for its third deletion, it had been again marked under G4 as a recreation of deleted content, and that's why I deleted it.

I have no prejudice against this article, but the community consensus was clearly against its existence. If you feel otherwise, I think the best recourse is deletion review.

Please let me know if I can answer any other questions.  Frank  |  talk  10:11, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for clarification. As indicated in the log, the article was considered a stub or there are nothing worthy to write about before the episode airs. That was on the 21st Oct. I recreated the page on the 27th (after the episode aired) complete with a plot summary and details according to the episode summaries format similar to this show and other TV shows. There was no log purposing to delete that version of the page.

Is there a possibility to restore the page without deletion review? It seems to be very tedious and a long process. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Myintermail (talk • contribs)

The article that was nominated for deletion was not appreciably different from the original version. As I said above, I have no prejudice against this article's existence, but the community decision was to delete it. Really the best next step is deletion review. Wikipedia is not about asking different people for different things and to go around policy to just get things done; we have guidelines and administrators exist to implement them. If a community discussion at deletion review says it should be restored, I'll be glad to do so.  Frank  |  talk  15:33, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Holy Mary of Guadalupe Toddler Development School-Sun Valley

please explain why you deleted the article "Holy Mary of Guadalupe Toddler Development School-Sun Valley" ‎ because of (G11: Blatant advertising)

you said that the article seems to be blatant advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person well isn't an article supposed to be focused on its subject? the subject is the school and of course as an encyclopedic article its supposed to talk about itself?

so what is blatant advertising there? if the article is blatant advertising because it talks about itself then all school articles should be considered advertisements as well

please explain

Buen-buen (talk) 15:30, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Please read WP:CSD#G11 for a description of why the article was deleted, and WP:CORP for information on what would be required for an article to exist in the first place. Just because a business exists does not mean it is notable. That is established independently by significant coverage in reliable sources. If you can establish notability and write the article in a way that it is about the school rather than promoting the school, that would be a different story.  Frank  |  talk  15:37, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

RfA

Hi Frank! Thank you very much for your support in my RfA, which passed yesterday. I hope not to let you and the others down, and use the tools for the benefit of the project. Cheers, Ynhockey ^(Talk) 22:48, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

deletion of The Sharon Academy

Hi Frank,

I am new to Wikipedia and made a mistake on The Sharon Academy page. I understand my error now and tried to make changes to improve the write up. Could you please restore the page? Just because I was bias at first, does not mean that there should be no write up on the school. If there are biased things in the future, will you please delete them first or notify someone and have them changed before you delete an entire site?

Thanks, Friend of TSAFriend of TSA (talk) 17:23, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

The article was not deleted because of bias, but rather because it was blatant advertising for the school. Please read our notability guidelines for more info. The best thing to do is start a page under your user page, such as User:Friend of TSA/The Sharon Academy.  Frank  |  talk  17:37, 31 October 2008 (UTC)