User talk:Frank

Home Talk Awards DYK Dashboard Home Talk Barnstars DYK Dashboard

Bill Bradley

The editor of Harper's magazine created a documentary about prominent individuals in America. Included was an interview with Bill Bradley and mention of his association with The Bilderburg Group approximately 57 minutes into the filem. If this isn't a primary source, I would certainly consider it a secondary source. What is your criteria for determining the legitimacy of an assertion in a documentary? Especially given the reputation that Mr. Lampham, the editor of Harper's magazine, must uphold?

I'm not asking you to watch the film... you can note in the film's wiki entry that Mr. Bradley was indeed interviewed.

You rejection of Speedy deletion of Islamization of Jerusalem under Jordanian occupation

Please see the link to the SPI case at talk. Link to relevant section at Talk here. Do I need to re-submit the SD request? --Frederico1234 (talk) 18:15, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right. I have since edited the article with a null edit / comment to reflect having found the SPI. Bottom line in my opinion, weaselly as it may seem, is that I think AfD is more appropriate anyway. If the ban had happened last week, that's one thing; this article and ban are both more than 6 months old. Doesn't make them right, but these rules aren't meant to be used as blunt instruments, either.  Frank  |  talk  18:18, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok. I'll take it to AFD then. I just spent an hour preparing this case, so I might as well waste another 24 hours. --Frederico1234 (talk) 18:25, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

RfA

Hi Frank. I haven't seen you chime in here yet. I feel your input would be valuable, even if you were not to agree with the many suggestions. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:43, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for contacting me, though I'm not sure I can contribute meaningfully. I am of the opinion that there's very little wrong with RfA that isn't wrong with society in general...and that no amount of cyber-discussion will fix it. I am also of the opinion that the proverbial sky is not falling regarding number of admins or number of active admins. We have lots of smart and dedicated people doing smart things and being very dedicated to combating the problems that crop up here, and the reality I see is that no problems would be solved by having more admins. Failing to see the problem, I'm not sure I can contribute to the conversation.

Incidentally, I think your own RfA is a pretty good example of how RfA is actually working more or less as it should. I recall you being pretty cynical about RfA long before you stood yourself, and not at all sure you'd be granted the bit, and yet it worked out in the end. Finally - to add another comment to the list of comments I'm not making...RfA is unlikely to change until RfB is changed...and if there is anything that is going to be harder than reforming RfA, it's got to be reforming RfB. Again - I don't necessarily see there's a problem to solve, but if there is, I don't think it can be solved without something rather radical. I don't presume to have an idea of what that would look like, other than to say it probably shouldn't be led by Jimbo.  Frank  |  talk  13:37, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments and it's nice to get some other perspective. I'm not saying my own RfA will go down in history, but in the final analysis, in many respects it was one of the most unusual ones I have come across. I agree that any new system should not be forced by a papal bull, but it would be nice to get some feedback from up there. We do have a page on the project for discussing radical solutions too, but it's not the most lively department. Do feel free to put your oar in if ever you feel inclined. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:47, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Frank. You have new messages at Kudpung's talk page.
Message added 02:57, 12 May 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

ACC

Frank thank you for applying to access the account creation tool. I have approved your request so welcome to the team. You may now access the tool here. Before you do so, please read the tool's guide thoroughly to familiarize yourself with the process.

You may also want to join #wikipedia-en-accounts on IRC where a bot informs us when new account requests come in and to get any advice on requests as well as the mailing list. Please note that we have implemented a policy of zero tolerance on mishandled requests, and that failure to assess correctly will result in suspension. I would like to emphasize that it is not a race to complete a request, and each one should be handled diligently and thoroughly.

Don't hesitate to get in touch with me if you have any questions. Thank you for participating in the account creation process. Again welcome!
Mlpearc powwow 17:42, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks - per Wikipedia:Request_an_account/Guide#CheckUsers, can you (or someone else) enable the checkuser bit on that interface? I am going to notify others of this request by pointing them here. I am trying to investigate requests based on note at WT:SPI#Request for checkuser review at ACC. I am unlikely to use ACC other than for CU work; is there some flag to set that indicates it will probably be a little-used account for actual creation?  Frank  |  talk  17:55, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

PS: A response here from anyone who is able to enable will be appreciated, in order to save someone else doing extra work.  Frank  |  talk  17:56, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Frank, I have given you the tool Admin. bit and Stwalkerster has enabled the CU bit in the database. Welcome aboard, we can always use CheckUsers. The team monitors this IRC channel.#wikipedia-en-accounts ^connect
Mlpearc powwow 18:22, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Got it, thanks all.  Frank  |  talk  18:25, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Your edit of Madoff

Hi Frank,

Along those same lines, I reverted your most recent good faith edits at Bernie Madoff because they were simply links to pictures, which are not references. We could have a different discussion about whether the level of detail which names each individual craft is really necessary for the article, but in any case, just linking to pictures is not how we cite information. (Those pictures are copyrighted material and not suited for use on Wikipedia anyway.)  Frank  |  talk  21:28, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I forgot to mention that one reason for mentioning them all was the fact that they all were named with Bull in it .... and the fraud artist didn't mean BS.

And why mention all his real estate? And why NOT mention the five luxury cars? (Nobody needs five.) I do agree however the article is perhaps too detailed for an encyclopedic essay. But then again, WP claims not to be an encyclopedia.

Anyway. I defer to your greater experience as editor here at WP.

Greetings Gatorinvancouver (talk) 22:44, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I am confused and keep on posting on the wrong pages.

Obviously it precedes the above message.

This is what I wanted to send to you and accidentally sent to Kraxler. (And have been trying ever to correct since.)

I must have spent an hour to get the editing right. (I haven't done any serious editing in many months, so I'm a bit rusty and never was very good to begin with.)

They weren't meant to be sources, they were meant to be illustrations and I do think it speaks for itself to have so many boats and cars. At the very least, no feeling whatsoever for the value of money. And THAT is not up to me to tell readers at WP.

As to copyright: They are linked and the owners obviously want that (possibly because of ad revenue). Methinks I have seen links to pics on Wikipedia before.

But so be it. Live and learn. I won't waste my time on pictures anymore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gatorinvancouver (talk • contribs) 22:50, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

These questions are best discussed at Talk:Bernard Madoff. And you can reply at your own talk page; when I posted there, it added your talk page to my watchlist, so I am likely to see your reply there. It is best to keep conversations together.  Frank  |  talk  22:59, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Holden Thorp

Nice article, but don't forget you need to review another DYK article... Prioryman (talk) 18:05, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I haven't done a DYK in a while. What is my responsibility in this? (Pointer is fine.) Thanks!  Frank  |  talk  18:10, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

DYK has changed a bit - contributors are now asked to review a submitted article after submitting one of their own for consideration. Anyway, you've done everything that was needed and I've signed off your article. Thanks! Prioryman (talk) 22:50, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I have to say - the "nice article" compliment is as rewarding as the DYK itself will be. I worked all day on that one...it was a bit of an undertaking starting at 1250 bytes. Thanks again.  Frank  |  talk  02:31, 28 June 2011 (UTC)