User talk:THF

• TedFrank (talk · contribs · count)

Sarbanes-Oxley

Hello Ted. This is Farcaster. Fixing SOX is a project and you and I seem to be the folks most interested in it. Please go ahead and include the Butler/Ribstein work if you wish. Their draft whitepaper has a "do not cite" on it and I am not buying the book, as I think most of their arguments are absolute nonsense. You will note that I included their discussion about the ability of investors to cheaply diversify their holdings in the cost / benefit section some time ago, which is an important point. Also, there is a good summary article from late July in the Economist (just go to their site and type Sarbanes-Oxley and it comes up) that identifies a series of whitepapers relevant to SOX. Rather than criticize, please just edit.

SmackBot

Thanks Frank, problem fixed. Rich Farmbrough 15:33 7 March 2007 (UTC).

Business process reengineering

Thanks for reverting the vandal's edit. Kai A. Simon 22:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Robin Hood

It appears that my revert at Robin Hood wasn't correct, I must have misread some diff, but what do you mean by reading up on policies and guidelines? Corvus cornix 02:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I hit the wrong button on the TWINKLE interface, I just meant to revert without a message on policies and guidelines. Apologies for any concerns, and I apologize for not immediately leaving you a note when I saw the wrong edit summary had been made. -- TedFrank 03:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem. We both made mistakes there.  :) Corvus cornix 23:25, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Criticism of atheism‎ reversion

Thanks, Ted, for your vigilant reversion of two edits by 68.6.209.141 - you marked your own edit as minor, but had the previous edits stayed, they would have effected a major loss. -- Jmc 06:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Nelson Frank

Is your grandfather the reporter Nelson Frank? Just curious and you don't have to tell me if he was. Vassyana 02:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Why? --TedFrank 11:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Spurred by the AFD discussion, I looked out of curiousity. It seems he actually is notable. ;o) He was quite an active figure during the Red Scare, often cited by commentators and government officials of the time. It was actually interesting reading. Also, I found that I admire his rhetorical talent. As a writer, I really enjoyed reading his skillful use of language. You've got some excellant literary genes in you. o:-) Be well!! Vassyana 12:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I have to get back to library to find some of the references, but I'll gladly send you what I could find. Give me a day or two to compile some notes. If I neglect this (that is you don't receive a mail from me by Thursday), please drop me a reminder on my talk page. Sorry for the delay, I just researched it out of my own curiousity, not intending to keep notes. Cheers! Vassyana 17:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

AIV

Thank you for making a report on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, administrators are generally only able to block users if they have received a recent final warning (one that mentions that the user may be blocked) and they have recently vandalized after that warning was given. The reported user has not yet been blocked because it appears this has not occurred yet. If this user continues to vandalize even after their final warning, please report them to the AIV noticeboard again. Thank you! John Reaves (talk) 13:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I've removed a few of yours, look through the history of AIV, you can see the ones I've removed. John Reaves (talk) 13:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

A vandal has been repeatedly blocked for vandalism; his talk page is littered with "last warnings" and a statement that he can be blocked without warning. The block expires, and he starts vandalizing again. Does one really need to waste time issuing another "last warning" before reporting to AIV? -- TedFrank 14:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

ANI

Thanks for fixing the noticeboard. I was about to start doing the same thing, after seeing the edit that annihilated 8 days of threads: these kinds of repairs are difficult and fraught with edit conflicts because the place is so active. There is a bug that sometimes causes previous threads to disappear (it's happened to me on ANI) but I'm not sure that's what happened here. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 18:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Denny Seiwell

First, thanks for the cleanup. The account is indefinitely blocked, dozens of vandalism edits over months. However, in my research of those edits, I found one which may be correct, possibly just by chance - this edit seems to actually have the correct information per this site. Do you know anything about it, or by chance, can you read Farsi/Persia/whatever check out the University of Yazd official page? --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[This English-language site says 1987]. Color me stumped. -- TedFrank 17:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Farewell

If you must go, I bid you go in peace. But I too have a conservative employer (not my day job, I'm afraid) and I've managed to stick it out here at Wikipedia for over 5 years. Please don't quit now, just when we're starting to get somewhere. I know on the Internet a few days can seem like a lifetime, but it really takes weeks or months for people to even realize something - and even longer to change a habit. Give it time.

I'm hoping to see Wikipedia pull back from endorsing either side of controversial issues. Patience and courtesy will help just as much as logic here. --Uncle Ed 20:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Template you created

You created a template but the textual instructions do not make sense. You say:

To mark this particular passage merely edit in {{syn}} at the end of "flat." so that it will appear thusly:

• If Jones's claim that he consulted the original sources is false, this would be contrary to the practice recommended in the Chicago Manual of Style, which requires citation of the source actually consulted. The Chicago Manual of Style does not call violating this rule "plagiarism." Instead, plagiarism is defined as using a source's information, ideas, words, or structure without citing them.^{[improper synthesis?]}

But there is no "flat" in there. --Blue Tie 15:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll fix. TedFrank 15:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Liebeck

Thanks for pointing that out; it was a wretched way to say "tort reform". For whatever it's worth, I think you've done an excellent job editing. Few editors announce their potential biases so clearly as you do on the talk page, and I find that admirable.

Incidentally, I happen to be a student at the University of Chicago Law School. Cool Hand Luke 06:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Just make any edits you see fit; you seem to have a good grasp of WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. I'll keep an eye on tort reform though. I just spent over an hour reading it and checking citations, and you're right that it's POV. It's not even formatted very well. I support any improvements you can make. Cool Hand Luke 21:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the article requires a complete teardown. I'll finish a rewrite in my sandbox (where I'm working off an older version of the article that also has problems, but not as many), and run it by you and the talk page before I do the change. -- THF 21:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

apology for my behavior towards you

I deeply apologize for my April 3 personal attack on you on the talk page of the Israel Shahak article. I particularly regret having written: "If you feel you can't be objective about this article, move somewhere else. There's plenty of work to be done in Wikipedia." You were right to refer to this outburst as an act of bullying, seeking to chase you from the page. You have written: "I hope admins don't reward that sort of bullying". You will not be petty to seek administrative sanctions on me for this statement.

Again, i'm very sorry for my part of that altercation. It's no secret, that my opinions about the way the Shahak article should appear is vastly different from yours. I also disagree with you on a number of other substantial issues. But that's no excuse for me to treat you aggressively, as i did. I believe our joint collaboration on this article, along with the many other fine editors, may actually benefit the article, by promoting, in the course of time, the article's balance, as per Wikipedia's NPOV ideal. Itayb 16:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Apology accepted. Thank you. I am all for a balanced article. For example, I recognize that there are reliably sourced defenders of Shahak that Wikipedia requires be cited, even though I find their views abhorrent and bigoted. I hope that we can reach a consensus on an NPOV article, and I appreciate the apology. I have no intention of seeking administrative sanctions. -- THF 22:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your selfless and gentlemanly reply. :) Itayb 22:21, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Your message

I'm afraid that I agree. If you want to open an RfC on him, I'll endorse it and add evidence. If you don't want to down that route, WP:AN/I is the place to go (again, I'll add comments and evidence). I can sympathise up to a point, and I know that he's been driven to poor behaviour by a succession of editors with PoV agendas and no interest in Wikipedia's policies, but it's not an excuse for some of the things that he's been doing. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 08:59, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Looking at that discussion, I relaise that I was wrong about WP:AN/I — it's for complaints about admins qua admins. Your complaints are about him as an editor, for the most part; I don't think that you're saying that he's misused his admin tools, only that he's behaved badly in his behaviour at the arrticle and (especially) towards other users on Talk pages. An RfC is probably the only course, then, to be honest. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 11:30, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I would definitely support an RFC, and add evidence. The key here is to keep it short and sweet; lots of diffs with minimal commentary is crucial. It is very difficult to argue against a mostly stand-alone collection of obviously improper edits; it is much easier to argue against extended commentary and muddy the issue. - Merzbow 22:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Keep in mind the proviso at WP:RFC "An RfC may bring close scrutiny on all involved editors" (emphasis is in the original). Given that the skeptical editors do not come to the issue with clean hands, the results could be interesting. Raymond Arritt 22:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

This sort of intimidation tactic is typical, which is why I am not going to bring an RFC. I've done nothing wrong, but I don't trust Wikipedia to judge the issue fairly when an administrator makes a personal attack while simultaneously (1) falsely accusing me of violating WP:NPA and (2) ignores another user who used profanity against me. I don't want anyone blocked or banned. I just want the rules adhered to evenly. If I made this attack, I would have been blocked instantly (and justifiably so), but because someone said it to me, he doesn't even get a warning. -- THF 22:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

It's not intended as intimidation, so I'm sorry you see it that way. My point is that these things often wind up making all concerned look bad. I'd strongly prefer everyone settle out of court, rather than spending a lot of time and energy on a formal process that could be spent writing an encyclopedia. Raymond Arritt 00:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Certainly there is ridiculous behavior on all sides (like whoever is currently using a sockpuppet to re-add a clearly unrelated section to An Inconvenient Truth). It would be great if, for the next week, people would make only clearly policy-abiding edits, not make controversial changes without discussion, and be civil. From the most senior editors to the least senior editors. - Merzbow 01:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I was driving at. Unfortunately there's a tendency to see incivility and edit warring only as "what the other guy does." Raymond Arritt 01:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

When administrators violate WP:CIV like this, I don't see any hope for productive collaboration on the global warming pages. There are too many pages on Wikipedia that need improving for me to want to bang my head against the wall there, but the systematic violation of Wikipedia policies are fairly appalling. -- THF 19:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Rofecoxib

Interesting that you suspect that counsel may have had a hand in that edit. I believe conflicts of interest happen all the time here. Single-purpose accounts like that one almost certainly exist for pushing a real-world agenda. I'd be curious if, from time to time, you let me know about similarly suspicious edits.

I'm thinking about writing an article on Wikipedia citations in briefs and judicial opinions. Sunstein has written about the phenomena in various forums (for example[1]), but I was interested in the subject before I even started law school. I'm hoping to discover some concrete examples of interested lawyers editing Wikipedia. Cool Hand Luke 05:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting MSG. As you know, junk science memes can be very contagious. Some people are convinced their views are correct and seek to exclude contrary evidence. You may also be interested in multiple chemical sensitivity, which is currently a train wreck because I have almost no time right now. Interested parties have almost exclusively edited it in the past. Well-known parties too, if "User:Dr. Meggs" is related to the clinical ecologist by the same name.

I agree with many of your sentiments above above. Although I am personally unpersuaded certain arguments, it's POV to systemically exclude significant contrary views. Cool Hand Luke 08:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

AIT

according to McKitrick, Gore did fake a graph - sounds dubious. Whats your source? William M. Connolley 13:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure you're already familiar with McKitrick's work debunking the Mann graph used in the movie. Iain Murray also accuses Gore of misleading graphs. I also see from the Murray article that Peiser wasn't able to replicate the Oreskes study mentioned in the AIT article. -- THF 14:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

As I'm sure you're aware, using a graph published in Nature and never retracted doesn't count as faking your graphs. As far as I'm aware, not even McK has accused Gore of that: if you think he has, please provide a quote. A generic "McK's work" isn't good enough William M. Connolley 15:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I acknowledege the synthesis: I don't think a use of Mann's graph now that it has been debunked is intellectually honest, but you're entitled to disagree. NPOV, however, means that all points of view, not just yours, get included in articles; NPOV also means that editors don't get to decide that information meeting WP:V standards gets removed just because they feel it incorrect. For example, the Guardian hit piece in the AEI article is false from beginning to end, but NPOV prevents me from removing it. -- THF 16:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

The subject is your dubious (now incorrect) assertion that Gore faked his graphs; its now clear that he didn nothing of the kind and that you're well aware of it. As to debunking: this is mere skeptic propaganda: no-one else agrees William M. Connolley 16:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Several reputable and verifiable sources state that Gore used faulty data that had been debunked before he used it. Several other studies in the global warming articles have also been debunked but are treated as fact. You can characterize it as you like within your own head. What Wikipedia policies state is that all points of view should be fairly and proportionately represented: "None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being the truth, and all significant published points of view are to be presented, not just the most popular one." There are plenty of articles in Wikipedia where that NPOV policy is violated that I'm not going to beat my head against the wall when administrators announce that the "absolute and non-negotiable" NPOV policy will not be adhered to in the global warming articles because they disagree with one of the points of view. -- THF 16:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I think you are blowing whatever reputation for honesty you may ever have had. Weaselling around with definitions to try to include "faked" within them is undignified. Just admit you used the wrong word and be at peace William M. Connolley 16:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not engaging in this pointless debate, because nothing relevant turns on whether "fake" is the precisely correct verb for Gore's use of faulty data and exaggerated projections; I don't dispute that "fake" cannot be used in the article without a source, and I don't believe I ever used the word "fake" in any of my article edits. The issue here is NPOV, and what significant verifiable and reliable sources say, and the fact that an entire class of articles does not comply with NPOV. -- THF 16:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my page :)

I didn't even notice this [2] until I looked at that users history. I give you a big smile :-). ~AFA ^{Imagine I swore.} 22:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Concerned person (talk · contribs)

and all socks have been blocked indefinitely. If this user posts further rants on your talk page or elsewhere, you can post a notice to WP:AIV for immediate blocking. Thanks for your patience, OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Andijan massacre

Hi, When you get a chance, please take a look at the last few edits I made to Andijan massacre. The only controversial thing I did was merging the press section into the May 13 section. I felt it was not important/long enough to merit a separate section. Is that alright? KazakhPol 20:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll take a look this weekend. //THF 12:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Darrell McGraw

I agree that there needs to be more about criticisms of McGraw in the article, but WP:BLP requires that assertions of criticism need to be well-sourced and very specific. Here are some conservative-leaning but well-respected sources that have been critical of McGraw: Charleston Daily Mail and West Virginia Media Holdings. This would allow your edits to have much more credibility than if backed by one report from a group that pretty much exists to gripe about McGraw.

While, outside of Wikipedia, I am no fan of McGraw, we have to leave our feelings at the door here, as we are building a neutral encyclopedia here.

I'm pretty familiar with Wikipedia policy and whatnot, so if you need any help or need me to check anything out, just let me know. Cheers. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 22:45, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

PS--Good working catching VíaVienté and sending it to AfD. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 22:49, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

One more thing: West Virginia Public Radio has also called McGraw out a couple of times. They might have some stuff, too (and no one could accuse them of being Tory-leaning). youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 22:53, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to add to what I have added. But the cite given is a comprehensive listing of criticisms, including from more than just the narrow band you've identified, and complies with BLP. NPOV requires major controversies to be listed. THF 23:18, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

The addition of the WSJ cite satisfies my concerns. Thanks. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 23:42, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

John summers (basketball player)

Thank for your input on this article's entry at WP:COIN. I don't know enough about the college game to know who or what is notable. Can you place a delete tag on the article? Bearian 02:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Neo-Theosophy

I had added a note to the article's talk page, that it might be better to merge it with another article, or otherwise to remove it. Perhaps that note set the deletion process in motion. In fairness, it seems to me that there should be more time for Alan to expand the article or merge it with another article. I know for a fact that he writes only on subjects about which he is very knowledgeable, and he is respected in those areas for his knowledge. Kwork 19:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Much thanks...

Just wanted to stop by to thank you for your help in undoing many of those vandalism edits! That was about a days-worth of my WikiLife.... Thank you, thank you, thank you.... —  MusicMaker 18:30, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Sicko, not SiCKO

Actually the rule you quoted isn't the relevant one at all. The manual or style deals with in article issues. The correct rule, which is word for word the same, is found in WP:NAME and says the same thing, but about article names. The discussion is moot, so let us celebrate with grog and wenches. *parties down* WookMuff 22:04, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Thats just for the rationale. Where is my grog? WookMuff 22:08, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Unbalanced tag

I'm leaving you a note out of good will and in good faith, in the hope that we can work together to resolve the unbalanced tag dispute. —Viriditas | Talk 21:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I've mostly worked on expanding and cleaning up the synopsis section. At this time, it is 839 words in length, which is acceptable according to WP:FILMS guidelines. If there are any outstanding issues with the synopsis, or areas you would like to see developed/expanded/corrected, please do not hesitate to contact me on my talk page. —Viriditas | Talk 05:29, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

The guidelines actually say between 400 and 700 words, and my version was at the high end of that, but in the interests of compromise, I'm not going to make a fuss over an extra 100 words. I'm stepping away from WP for a few days, and I hope the broad strokes of that consensus are retained by other editors in my absence. Thanks for your patience, good-faith efforts, and willingness to compromise. THF 06:16, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words. The guidelines are speaking of an average plot length, and plot lengths for films just under 900 words are very common and rarely controversial. Take a look at Category:FA-Class film articles. A random sample of five out of 51 featured film articles gives the following plot lengths:Casablanca, 697; Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope, 761; V for Vendetta, 812; Borat, 838; and Jaws, 886. As of this post, Sicko has 834 words in the plot section. If you have any interest in getting further clarification on this matter on the film project discussion page, I'll join you. —Viriditas | Talk 11:23, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

FYI...There's a discussion in progress at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Films#Plot_synopses_too_long.3F. —Viriditas | Talk 11:41, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Ted, I restored exposé and removed the criticism from the lead as it was unbalanced. The film is described as an exposé by dozens of reliable sources, however, I am willing to add the most notable criticism you can find into the lead as long as it is covered in the body of the article and is balanced with citations going the other way. In other words, if you can take some time to WP:WFTE, I would be happy to support the inclusion of notable criticisms and accolades in the lead. —Viriditas | Talk 09:37, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I've identified at least fifteen critiques of the movie on the talk page, only a small fraction of which have been covered in the article. I have been WFTE, as I added Moore's rebuttal of criticisms of his lauding Cuba. The article is one-sided, so there's no need for me to WFTE here; it needs balance more than anything else. THF 10:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I think you are mistaken about the use of the term "exposé"; the word is used to describe the film in the most reliable medical, film-related, Hollywood industry, print and media sources available. It's also used by his greatest critics. I'm not exactly clear why you think the word is a POV-term, but it's not. I'm posting my sources on the talk page and I expect to revert your changes as they are just plain incorrect. —Viriditas | Talk 11:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

RUReady2Testify

I'm calling it a night. Some of sens reverts on your talk appear to have been complex—adding different combinations of invented warnings—but I doubt admins could come to differing conclusions about the block. Hopefully sen learns the policies. Cool Hand Luke 05:28, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Notability concerns

Re: your comment on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sonic's_Rendezvous_Band (bringing it here because it doesn't pertain to the AfD at hand)

To be honest, I 100% agree. The notability criteria, as they currently stand, are extremely stringent in some cases (for example, for authors -- because they have to pass WP:BIO), and somewhat lax (in the case of WP:MUSIC) in others. When I first got here, I thought it was more of a hierarchy, where something had to pass WP:NOTE first, then the other notability guidelines were something to help after the fact -- but that's not how they seem to stand now.

Luckily, we're here at Wikipedia, and all editors are free to contribute, and edit not just articles, but guidelines too! Perhaps we need to propose a change or two to WP:BIO, in an effort for all the notability criteria to support the same general concepts. I would actively support a change to make WP:BIO less stringent for to allow inclusion of, for example, an author that's sold a million books. spazure (contribs) 06:45, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Socionomics

Please see the deletion process at [[3]]

Smallbones 08:15, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Multiple chemical sensitivity

Thanks for helping keep the NPOV. I know we can't wander over to pure SPOV, but science certainly isn't supportive of this diagnosis. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Tagging pages for problems

I've plagiarized a talk-page comment you left to create an essay, and would like your input. THF 02:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't have said it better myself? 8) -- Beland 02:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Sicko (film) RfC

Hi Ted. I'm trying to respond to the RfC on this article and, as I'm sure you can appreciate, there's a lot of material to wade through. Could you point me, for my own convenience, to the dozen sources you've cited on the subject of criticism of Sicko? It would make my job ever so much easier. Sarcasticidealist 07:51, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

copying from the talk page:

I have cited to multiple substantive and detailed criticisms in talk-page comments above.[4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] Each time I've tried to insert them, they were reverted out. I welcome others to put them in to fix the POV problems with the article. Here are some others: [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] THF 17:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I've commented in the article's talk page. Sarcasticidealist 11:59, 4 August 2007 (UTC)