User talk:Frank

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 .

Regarding Joseph E Prince

Please explain why you deleted this page - this is a verifiable story at imdb.com under Liberation Saturday Deedee485 (talk) 03:32, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted Joseph E Prince under WP:CSD#A7, because it listed a person who was a high school and college athlete but did not participate at any professional level. These did not seem to be assertions of notability to me. In re-reading the deleted article, I do see that there was an assertion: He is most noted for 2008 short documentary Liberation Saturday... which technically disqualifies this article for speedy deletion. That doesn't mean the subject is notable, but if you wish me to restore it I will do so. You may reasonably expect someone else to nominate it for deletion, however; being the subject of a documentary is not generally considered to confer notability. (Note that the film does not have an article either.) When you recreated the article two days later and a different admin deleted it, the same A7 reason was given, and that deletion was correct, as it did not even assert notability. Another option is for me to restore the article to your own user space so you can work on it and get advice from others before moving it to the main article space. Frank | talk 12:03, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Frank, I thank you for your comments. Are you saying an athlete must be a pro to be notable? Is All-American not notable? The last last person to delete it indicated it may be a " non existent film.. really????? Photos of the premier can be found at liberationsaturday.com. Joe has limited access to the internet but I will try to get him in front of the computer this weekend as he would like to communicate with you. Please restore the article. Thank you, deedee 485Deedee485 (talk) 16:24, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per your request I have restored the article, but I have also nominated it for WP:PROD deletion because I don't see that the subject is notable enough for inclusion. I am not saying an athlete must be a pro to be notable, nor that All-American is not notable. What WP:ATHLETE says, in general, is that if an athlete is a professional, then they are presumed to be notable. As for All-American, it generally isn't enough by itself to establish sufficient notability for inclusion. As for the documentary, I don't see how that makes one notable either. Regarding communicating with me, I don't think that's really necessary; this is a community and its standards are not set by one person. Also, the subject of an article doesn't determine his or her own notability; that's not how it works. Frank | talk 17:53, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Frank, Thanks for your prompt response. Joe Prince has a lifetime of news clips covering his track career from Palo Alto to Eastern Europe. A couple of years ago he had the front cover of the Arizona daily Star because he was considered "notable" by Tommie Smith, one of the world's best known track athletes as well as Joe's coach. As for the documentary,very few people warrant that type of attention so we will have to agree to disagree on that one. Wikipedia standards are interesting to me as they do seem arbitrary at best. Are you really a better judge of notable than any number of large market newspapers? Joe is often invited to speak to school audiences about his career and disabilities. I was having lunch with him recently when a woman recognized him and asked him to speak at the next local Martin Luther King Day ceremonies. At a high school track event a young NFL player recognized him, walked over and described him as a "legend" in the Bay Area track community. We were at Best Buy when the young sales guy said " I know you, my father has talked about you." He was featured on the 700 Club and described as an "inspiration." Please consider dropping your objections to this article. I understand that a person cannot make themselves notable, but can two people editing Wikipedia truly determine that a person is not? Seems like an odd arrangement to me

Thanks again deedee485Deedee485 (talk) 22:37, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My "objections" to this article are simply that I don't see that it meets any criteria for inclusion. If you can show otherwise, please improve it. Note that it is currently just listed as a WP:PROD deletion; if you object, you can simply remove that. The next step will be WP:AFD, which will generate a community discussion to determine whether or not the subject is notable enough for conclusion. It certainly isn't a unilateral decision, and I've already undeleted it at your request. Frank | talk 04:34, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many people from Joe's past are listed with very brief articles with little information. I feel that you have created an obstacle for this article that others have not had to endure. The "community " should not have to come into play at this stage of the process. Joe will be at the computer tomorrow, we will provide a list of press and appearances that he has made. The goal is to convince you that you may have been to hasty in taking the actions that you did. As I stated in my earlier post many journalists have found Joe Prince "notable" enough for inclusion in their publications, and a very small percentage of people are made the subject of a documentary film. Thanks again for your time. deedee485Deedee485 (talk) 22:53, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked closely at the Wikipedia standards for notability, Mr. Prince's film Liberation Saturday and the following press clearly fulfill the Wikipedia criteria for inclusion. I have also found an article about the problem of misuse of speedy deletion and the damage that it causes to Wikipedia, just a thought. FYI these are some examples of Mr.Prince's notability:

Arizona Daily Star Feb. 21, 2004 ( front page) Fresno Bee Feb. 27, 1975 ( picked up by associated press) East Valley Magazine Feb. 1984 ( front cover) Phoenix Magazine June 1984 IAM ( Belgrade newspaper) July 18, 1978 ( front page) NBC KPNX news feature 1983 ( picked up by NBC network aired nationally) 700 Club Dec. 23, 1983( aired nationally)

We will provide many more if you remain skeptical.

Thanks again for your consideration deedee485Deedee485 (talk) 21:53, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Genteel

How stupid of me. Thanks for being so ... well ... frank! hydnjo (talk) 05:02, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I pointed it out since you (probably correctly) noted the RfB is likely to be examined later on. There are only 33 34 crats, so it does seem plausible that folks could examine it in the future as significant. Posterity and all... :-) Frank | talk 01:25, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for fixing the RfB tags.[1] I've updated my "cheat sheet" that I used so that I don't make the same mistake next time. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:41, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Besides, at the rate these things succeed... ;-) Frank | talk 16:54, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to bother you.

I don't know if anyone has done this but, I desperately need an article on Jstor, I searched for a way to try to get that article for days and still no luck. I'm really sorry to bother you but could you do me this one little favor? All I need you to do is copy the article and send it to my email at <redacted>. And the article is http://www.jstor.org/pss/3027279

Thank you so much for your time... Demonlord319319 (talk) 00:57, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot send you copyrighted material just for the asking. If there is an article you are looking to improve here on Wikipedia by using material from that article, I'll be happy to help. Frank | talk 01:04, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thank you for quickly removing unsightly new pages! fetchcomms☛ 01:31, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lemon cookies...never tried them, but they sound delicious. And I spy raspberries in that picture too...a bonus! Frank | talk 01:35, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing boring work, but I would only reward you if the attack were original or interesting. Please block user now. Another attack page at Timothy Bowron. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 07:11, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regards Copyright Violation on Charles Anthony Pearson

Hello Frank. I posted an Article on The Hon Charles Anthony Pearson which you deemed infringing on copyright. The article was prepared for Wikipedia in the first instance and was offered to Dunecht Estates by way of courtesy for approval/fact checking. They asked if they could use in on their own site which I did not see as being a problem and gave permission.

I am still learning the ins-and-outs of the copyright minefield but I see this as being an article published on Wikipedia and reproduced with permission from the author on another site. I have notified Dunecht and they have since edited the entry (albeit reworked). Can you clarify the situation for me. This is my first step in the Wikipedia world and would appreciate more experienced guidance. I did post the following on the articles Talk page as instructed by the copyright notice.

"This article was originally written for Wikipedia and permission was granted for it's use on the Dunecht Estates web site under the terms of CC-BY-SA and the GFDL.

For the continued inclusion on Wikipedia and the avoidance of confusion the content published on the Dunecht Estates web site will be re-written as an original piece of work."

Thanks for any help you can offer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hadagoodday (talk • contribs) 09:59, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your note on Talk:Charles Anthony Pearson. I'm not sure what to think, really...it was a copyvio when it was tagged. The material was published and existed elsewhere when the article was created. I'll take another look. Frank | talk 13:35, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again Frank. I was wondering if you had had a chance to review this issue. Copy on Dunecht WebSite has been modified though there is a more fully revised entry in the pipeline.

Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hadagoodday (talk • contribs)

Please see Talk:Charles Anthony Pearson; there is specific info regarding copyright status there, which is the best place for discussion about that article's copyright status. Frank | talk 17:33, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ready 'N Steady

Um...did you even bother to read the article before you deleted it? (I've seen delete-happy admins before, but this is ridiculous.)

And, yes, "Ready 'N Steady" is significant, in my view. It's the only record (out of tens of thousands) that Joel Whitburn's never been able to find, making it practically a folk legend in record-collecting circles. It's worthy of inclusion; it's certainly not worthy of being deleted 30 seconds after I wrote it, before anyone's even seen it. (What happened to AfD procedures? Or do admins get to delete anything they want now?) RMc (talk) 19:05, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure I read it, and determined that it met the A9 criteria, since the artist in question doesn't have an article, and the deleted article itself even stated the recording itself is not known to exist. This isn't about being a "delete-happy" admin...the article just doesn't meet any criteria for inclusion. If you think otherwise, please provide references to show its notability. I'm easy. Frank | talk 19:16, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've re-nominated Ready 'N Steady for deletion under the same criteria. Let's see what someone else thinks. Frank | talk 19:19, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, of course the artist doesn't have an article -- the record may not even exist! As far as references, I have included them in this article. RMc (talk) 19:21, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which is, of course, why the article is a perfect A9 deletion. Frank | talk 19:25, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And, of course, this is reason why I frequently wonder why I bother writing Wiki articles. Please stop being a jerk. You'll live longer. RMc (talk) 19:28, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop making personal attacks, which are against policy around here. You'll avoid being blocked longer. Frank | talk 19:31, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I keep forgetting the number one rule of Wiki: opposing views are not tolerated! We'll block you and delete your pages if you dare say a bad word to us, knave! Sigh. RMc (talk) 19:37, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you think that calling someone a "jerk" and an "arrogant, delete-happy admin" is simply an "opposing view", then you have forgotten many things about Wikipedia. Primary among them is to comment on the content, not the contributor. You expressed a dissenting view from mine, and rather than act like the "delete-happy admin" you accuse me of being, or like a "jerk", I simply nominated the article for speedy deletion another time, for someone else to judge. That's how things work around here. If your intent is to keep the article in the project, I suggest you work on finding references to establish its notability. I've already done my part; you are free to do yours without any interference from me. Because, you see, I really am not a jerk. Frank | talk 19:42, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wiping an article thirty bloody seconds after its creation (and I think you're lying about reading it; it can't be read that fast) is the act of an arrogant, delete-happy admin, by any reasonable standard. You need to stop digging, Frank. RMc (talk) 19:50, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you are free to check with any other admin, who can view the deleted edit here and see quite plainly that - despite your third personal attack against me, in accusing me of lying - it was in fact more than two minutes after its creation that it was deleted, and possibly as long as four minutes. Since the logs are only to the minute, it could have been anywhere from two minutes, 1 second to three minutes, 59 seconds. In any case, plenty of time to read the article. For me, anyway. Frank | talk 20:01, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, lest you wonder how one sees a new page so soon after creation, I use this script. Frank | talk 20:25, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So...you spend your time pouncing on new articles? Ever think of pursuing some real hobbies, Frankie? Shuffleboard, canasta, bowling maybe? (Oh, and all your yammering about "personal attacks" indicates you have a mighty thin skin...of course, the mere fact I'm pointing that out counts as one, doesn't it? Hmph.) RMc (talk) 21:30, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]