User talk:Frank

Home Talk Awards DYK Dashboard Home Talk Barnstars DYK Dashboard

Status of NY Lieutenant Governorship

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

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

ANI

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

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

My edit to your talk page

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

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

Re: my RfA.

Hi Frank,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RE: Pounds and feet

Hello, Frank. You have new messages at Gu1dry's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Whale Killer

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

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

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

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

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

Reply to statement on my user page.

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

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

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

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

Cookie-love

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

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

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

I have posted this on my talk page too, so its up to you which you want to reply to.

Frank; I did another GA review on the above article. And when you see the article for yourself, there is insufficient context about the organization itself - after reading it, I knew more about the founder than I did about the main topic. I checked policies, and guidance for a good 20 minutes or so; and found that due to the articles lack of context on the main subject it related to, it caused justice for a quick fail, and a template to use - to which I did. The user Otto4711 is complained stating that I have failed it on a "no-review" basis. Which is not true, it was failed based on lack of content, and I used the following

to stipulate my decision. Have I done wrong by failing it? Pr3st0n (talk) 15:02, 25 September 2009 (UTC)