User talk:Frank: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 12:55, 20 May 2010

Home	Talk	Awards	DYK	Dashboard
Home	Talk	Barnstars	DYK	Dashboard

Archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by .

People aged 85 and over

I understand your concern but rest assured that I and hopefully others would ensure that only notable people were included on the list, so I would ask you to reconsider your choice to nominate the page for deletion. Have a good day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mwhite148 (talk • contribs) 11:30, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion will continue for about a week; you can count on others expressing an opinion as well. Mine is only one. Frank | talk 15:31, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Removal of tag

Thanks! I was a little puzzled when I saw the tag read in relation to a living person when Crimble died 137 years ago! AssociateAffiliate (talk) 16:50, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Changes to Cancún article

Please see my comments on my talk page about the item you undid. I think that before removing easily verifiable information for lack of citation, it would be better to look it up and enter the citation. I also don't think that erroneous information should be inserted into the article. It's really easy for people to make technical changes; considerably more difficult to actually improve the article. I could go through it and enter citations for every point where required, as well as correct the errors that have crept into it. I gave up editing this article quite a while ago because I really don't like wasting my time defending it from what I very frankly consider a form of vandalism -- technically correct in terms of Wikipedia policy, perhaps, but detrimental to overall quality. I hope that you will take these remarks in the spirit of helpfulness with which they are offered. Jules Siegel (talk) 03:58, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If I may, Frank was right in removing the information. Facts shouldn't be added to an article without a source, especially statistics as specific as the ones you added. Adding information and a "citation needed" tag at the same time shouldn't happen, if you have the stats in a reliable source, please provide it. Otherwise, don't ask other editors to find your sources for you. It's best to leave out what can't be reliably sourced, especially when it's not crucial information. Dayewalker (talk) 04:05, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Dayewalker. I would add that summary of the edit I undid read (in part) The information is accurate, useful and can be easily verified by consulting the Internet. My response was Then let's get the citation(s) in the article. I thought that was pretty self-explanatory. However, your note above (Jules) indicates you have your own idea of how Wikipedia works (or should work). For example, you say you "could go through it and enter citations for every point where required, as well as correct the errors that have crept into it." Well, to that I say, "Thanks!". If you need help with that, let me know. However, when another editor removes information that appears to have been uncited in the article with a tag for 9 months, your edit adding it back in with the summary above is quite unhelpful to the article. I'm sorry if you feel like Wikipedia should work differently, but this is how it actually works and how policies exist. You bemoan that the article is "technically correct...perhaps" but again - the policies exist for a reason, and the "edit" tab - with which you are certainly familiar - also exists for a reason. Frank | talk 05:42, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

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

Notice of Discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators noticeboard regarding the Talk:Barack Obama page. The thread is Talk:Barack Obama#Citizenship conspiracy theories.The discussion is about the topic of the recent Citizenship conspiracy theories discussion. Thank you.

P.S. You are mentioned once in relation to a prior incident, and as such I am required to notify you. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 06:10, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Frank | talk 12:11, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent stalking

		The WikiJaguar Award for Excellence
		For your recent assistance responding to a query on my talk page (answering it far better than I probably would have), I award you the WikiJaguar Award for Excellence in talk page stalking efforts. –xeno^talk 12:55, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 46: / Line 46: @@
 :Thanks. <small><span style="padding:2px;border:1px solid #000000">[[User:Frank|<span style="color:cyan;background:blue">&nbsp;Frank&nbsp;</span>]]&nbsp;{{!}}&nbsp;[[user_talk:Frank|<span style="color:blue;background:cyan">&nbsp;talk&nbsp;</span>]]</span></small> 12:11, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
+== Excellent stalking ==
+{| style="border:1px solid gray; background-color:#fdffe7;"
+|rowspan="2" valign="top" | [[File:Obscured jaguar.jpg|200px]]
+|rowspan="2" |
+|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: bottom; height: 1.1em; color: black" | '''The [[WP:WikiJaguar|WikiJaguar]] Award for Excellence'''
+|-
+|style="vertical-align:middle; border-top:1px solid gray; color:black" | For your recent assistance responding to a query on my talk page (answering it far better than I probably would have), I award you the '''WikiJaguar Award for Excellence''' in [[WP:Talk page stalker|talk page stalking]] efforts. –[[user:xeno|<font face="verdana" color="black">'''xeno'''</font>]][[user talk:xeno|<font color="black"><sup>talk</sup></font>]] 12:55, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
+|}