Jump to content

User talk:Frankyboy5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 1B6 (talk | contribs) at 10:14, 10 March 2007 (→Your comments on Steve Irwins talk page.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome to Wikipedia!!!

Hello Frankyboy5! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Below are some recommended guidelines to facilitate your involvement. Happy Editing! --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  14:42, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Getting Started
Getting your info out there
Getting more Wikipedia rules
Getting Help
Getting along
Getting technical

New Super Mario Bros.

You may want to read Wikipedia's policy on neutral point of view before adding your personal criticism of this game to the article. You need to cite this criticism to a reliable source, or stop adding it to the article. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV in general

I'll reiterate the above recommendation, specifically as regards your recent edits to Hindenburg (airship). Neutral point of view is important; in fact, it is one of the most basic tenets of Wikipedia.--chris.lawson 04:20, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nessie

I am going to echo the two comments above. Adding unreferenced controversial facts will only mean other people have to take them right back out again. That's what the article discussion pages are for. --Guinnog 23:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto :)

Hi Frankyboy5 - I agree with the above. You can see what I had to say about the criticism section for the Nintendo DS Browser on its talk page.

Keep contributing!

Talk:Steve Irwin

Regarding the comment you made here, I was wondering if I could ask you to shorten it? The length 'O' messes with the formatting a bit.--Crossmr 07:11, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!--Crossmr 07:17, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Super Mario Bros.

This edit you made to New Super Mario Bros. was removed by User:ReyBrujo. Wikipedia is not a video game guide so information like this is likely to be removed, however you may like to add the information to WikiKnowledge which does allow video game guides. Gerard Foley 15:25, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please have a read of the link above and do not insert youtube links to content that: 1) is bad style 2) has no relavence here 3) is libelous 4) is a copyright violation 5) is on YouTube!--Konstable 03:31, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Questioning of origin for Image:Zeppelin Picture.jpg

FYI: After your recent remarks on the LZ 129 Hindenburg article, I added some remarks to the talk page and main page for Image:Zeppelin Picture.jpg. I also posted some remarks about the issue on the Talk page (User talk:Smith2006) for the person who uploaded it. -Wookipedian 19:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your change was determined to be unhelpful, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. Leuko 23:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peafowl ssp

The trouble is that the sources do not appear to carry any weight of authority, and, as we know, information and misinformation are widely copied on the web. The fact that you can give more than one site is largely irrelevant. The fact is that genuinely authoratitive sources such as ITIS and Pheasants of the World treat the species as monotypic, and unless you can find a reference with some weigh to it, this remains as speculation and doesn't really belong in the main article. jimfbleak 05:54, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nessie, Christians and witches

(cut'n'pasted from nessie: this is so off topic. By all means let's argue about Christians and witches, but not on the Loch Ness Monster discussion page. A lot of this stuff is about your reactions rather than the LNM article's merits.)

(...from Loch Ness Monster talkpage: It is not a joke, a witch did something to the loch, the webcam, and even claims to protect Nessie. In the TV show, he does that in the beginning of GUST's search. the webcam site is full of "funny" (I call it evil) jokes. I'm never going to that site again. Here's an article about this thing [1]. GUST, or any organization that looks for monsters, should never do this again.

I'm warning christians: Do NOT go to the loch!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • Very funny. I doubt that serious Christians give any thought to Loch Ness, so the notion that a witch has something to do with the alleged monster is not likely to stir much interest either. Wahkeenah 02:18, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1.the locals around Loch Ness are staunchly Christian. Are you suggesting they move away?
  • 2. Are you saying witches are evil? Try reading about witchcraft and Wicca, then decide.
  • 3. The witch concerned is Kevin Carlyon, who apparently needs a stretch limo instead of a broomstick [2], and calls himself "High priest of the Scottish Witches" despite living on the south coast of England [3] so he's probably not so much evil as slightly ridiculous. he often traipses up to the loch for these events, and nothing seems to change either way. Have no fear of him. Totnesmartin 11:02, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm never ever gonna look at those articles and sites. They're evil, no matter what he claims. The jokes on the webcam site are evil. Gary Campbell is evil. Mikko Takala is evil. GUST is evil (not LOL!). I think that banning all of the sites and the TV show is the right thing to do. I'm being very serious. Frankyboy5 00:14, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Frankyboy, you seem to be trapped by superstition. clicking on a link is not evil. You won't go to hell or get turned into a newt. Promise. Totnesmartin 11:28, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
additional: you can't go calling people evil, unless you can prove it. It's libellous and they can sue you. Do you have the money for that? Totnesmartin 12:38, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'm a Christian myself, and I refuse to click on the links. I now have a reason not to click on the links. But even if the people on the site are not evil, then the jokes and the links are still!. Frankyboy5 23:54, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I offered the chance to leave blind prejudice behind you, but you turned it down. I am not a Christian yet I read about it, because seeing both sides of an argument helps me develop an informed opinion. The links are there, anytime you want to look and learn.Totnesmartin 00:02, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In Christianity, all magic is considered evil, even stuff about fairy godmothers, who are considered "nice". Frankyboy5 04:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ok let's stop arguing cos we'll never convince each other, and I really want to avoid arguing about whether someone's religion is right or not (those kind of arguments just end up causing bad feeling); I apologise if I offended you. Totnesmartin 23:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Irwin

I removed it because it was editorialising. Sarah Ewart 07:33, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wii

Because there is nothing controversial about the system itself. The BS lawsuits (which I am 100% sure will get dismissed) are mentioned below. ~~

Austin Stevens

I see you have a long history of trying to criticism and controversey different things, where there is no controversey. People are tired of you editorials. We are trying to have a proper encyclopedia, not some blog. I just found this page and it is a little humorous how you are going around adding stuff in articles that is poorly referenced by references that have little weight. Still, thank you for refraining to edit the Austin Stevens article. The information about the show index is great so tanks for that. Max Zorin

Albino Peacocks

20061110 07-44-53albinopeacocks.JPG-Are they really albino?
I believe that the "albino" peacocks in your photo [4] are not albinos but genetic mutations [5].Frankyboy5 00:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see now. Thank you. I corrected the photo description. r3 14:20, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The source you added is simply a user webpage, there is no indication of the user's references for the information, it's not a credible source. Anyone can make up a webpage and post anything, this has to be tied to a source, research. KP Botany 19:38, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a more reputable website, it's from the UPA [6]. Frankyboy5 20:36, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, more reputable, except that the author does not speak as if she knows what she is talking about: "Most birds and animals do have a naturally occurring gene that eliminates coloring. It is usually recessive as in the white peafowl. Many have declared whites to be albino, but this is not the case." That is what albinism is, an elimination of coloring, hypopigmentation, or lack of melanin. Then she says it is usually recessive, then that white peafowl are not albinos. She gives no reasons for this, and in fact, her discussion leads one to believe she is talking about albinism. Cats for example, can be white due to albinism, the lack of pigmentation, or they can be white due to white masking the other coloration. So, which is it? This article discusses the mechanism of albinism, but then states it is not albinism. KP Botany 21:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many ducks in farms are white, but they are not albinos. Frankyboy5 21:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you were to ask an expert on this subject they would say "No, White Peafowl are not albino." Frankyboy5 21:27, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then give me that expert's name, the one you quote. This is part of an article on a scientific subject, it includes precise information--what it is that causes the whiteness, and references. KP Botany 21:31, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know anybody who is reaslly an expert in person. But if you were to meet up with a breeder, I expect them to answer your question like that. Frankyboy5 21:50, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not really about that. It has to be something already written down, researched by a professional, and available in the literature. You can't just ask folks, especially if they're like the woman whose web page you gave me, who appears not to understand the terms. You have to find a written, verifiable resource. I know a white peacock breeder. I had a friend in Oklahoma who raised white peacocks. I can't just ask him and report his answer--it has to come from research. KP Botany 22:21, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Help

I cannot edit anything all because somebody with the same IP as me has been vandalising everything, even though I signed in! Frankyboy5 17:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like you've been autoblocked. Use the {{unblock|REASON TO UNBLOCK}} tag and you will get adminstrator help. I'll just shoot over to WP:ANI now. Yuser31415 18:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, someone will turn up soon. Yuser31415 18:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Helpme

Hi there, anything I can do to help? Bjelleklang - talk 18:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have been autoblocked! Frankyboy5 18:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please post the content of the block message you get here to help us find the autoblock. Without that information its impossible to help. :/ Syrthiss 19:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have already been unblocked! Frankyboy5 19:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok then, happy editing! Syrthiss 19:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ask again if you need any help! Yuser31415 19:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congo Peafowl

Any reference(s) about this "hissing viper-like female" ? --Stavenn 01:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pavo javanensis

Hi Frank ! I am unable to find any result other than wikipedia or its mirrors for Pavo javanensis. If this is a well established species it should be listed on at least one of the world bird species lists or the red-data book/birdlife site, unless this is a new species in which case the description publication should be easy to trace. In the absence of such citation, it is more likely to be a subspecies. Of course biological species as a concept itself is soft, making it all the more important that the statement be accompanied by a citation of source. cheers. Shyamal 05:49, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am convinced that the arguments on splitting are on the edge of the subspecies-species debate and should not be introduced into the article unless supported by suitable citations from ornithology journals. So I have taken out references to new species. Hope you are okay with it. thanks. Shyamal 06:47, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See my user page. It has tons of info on this, but it can't be added because it's not that reliable. I can confirm that Kermit Blackwood (made-up name because he was adopted) has many photos of poultry on many sites. The photo gallery has some info, so does the MSN group. Many ornithologist are unaware of the several species notion, and assume Delacour was right. Delacour was not a true scientist, says kermit. Taken from my user page:

"Jean Théodore Delacour automatically assumed that any green-colored peafowl would be included in one species. He then labelled any strange-looking Green Peafowl that does not look like any one of the the typical subspecies as mere "individual variations". One of the birds that was different was an Annamite Dragon.

I find that to be very wrong and misleading. It is very bad science to simply automatically assume that any green-colored peafowl should be included as one species.

I believe that we should not always classify birds as one species just by appearance. For example, while the Green-winged Teal and the Common Teal are obviously closely related and are sometimes treated as being conspecific, they are more closely related to the Speckled Teal than to each other."

You can keep the article the same way if you want. Frankyboy5 07:17, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you can ask Kermit in this forum [7] Frankyboy5 07:22, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Frank, no it is not about how me or any editor wants it to be. Please feel free to add new information, but just cite the journal article using the <ref> tags. cheers Shyamal 08:10, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They are not journals, which is a problem. The citations are a photo gallery and an MSN group (se my user page for links). Frankyboy5 19:03, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I understand. It is important to keep only reliable information by citing only sources that have been reviewed by peers. Information from discussion forums or private web pages are not reliable sources. A new species cannot have been overlooked so easily. And the Indian Peafowl are well studied and if someone is suggesting new species, i would suspect such sources. Shyamal 05:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Until K finishes the first book (about Peafowl) out of a big encyclopedia about galliformes, I guess I'm stuck to the gallery. Kermit (the guy who posts in the gallery) is much more reliable than you think though as K. B. Woods who described the strange Green Peafowl of Yunnan on the Red Data Book is him is him. Frankyboy5 05:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

((unblock-auto|64.59.144.21))

I've contacted the blocking administrator; please see WP:RFCU for information regarding checkuser. In the meantime, please bear with us, and thanks for your patience. – Luna Santin (talk) 06:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is strange. My IP was something else (24.81.240.231) a month ago when I posted on Wikimedia Commons. Why did it change? Frankyboy5 06:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't say. Dmcdevit has converted the block to anon-only, at least for the time being -- you should be able to edit, provided the situation remains stable. – Luna Santin (talk) 06:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, my IP is:

Proxy IP: 64.59.144.22 Your real IP: 24.81.240.13

But the real one still differs from that one and so does the proxy one. Frankyboy5 19:10, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lesser Melampitta

Your reference picture [8] is a female Lesser Bird of Paradise, Paradisaea minor not Lesser Melampitta !! --Stavenn 07:14, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I thought, but there still isn't any images of the Lesser Melamepitta on the web. Frankyboy5 17:07, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments on Steve Irwins talk page.

Shut up you insensitive little brat, how is it funny that a fatherless child is mouring the loss? 1B6 15:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Frankyboy5&oldid=114037026"