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 .

AN/I

There is a report at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Block review/unblock proposal, in which you might have an interest. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:48, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Srikanth Reddy

Hi, In 2009, the page concerning Srikanth Reddy was removed. I think he is sufficiently important to have a page; the standard seems to be "Published authors are kept as notable if they have received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work, or if their work is likely to be very widely read." In support of inclusion of the page, I note that: He has two books published by a major publisher (the Univ. of California Press); he has won several fellowships (including one from the Mellon Foundation); he won the Asian American Literary prize in 2005 (and seems to be one of only a small number of winners without a wiki page); he was featured in a Dec 2011 NPR story about the best poetry of the year. Would you consider reinstating it? Jsw1 (talk) 18:48, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted Srikanth Reddy in October 2009 because it lacked any assertion of notability of the subject of the article. Simply being a published author is not an assertion of notability, and indeed being published isn't sufficient to deem an author notable enough for inclusion (see WP:AUTHOR). What you've written above doesn't automatically convince me he is notable, but...I am only one member of the community. Perhaps the Asian American Literary Award is helpful in this effort, although by my count, fully 13 of the 46 winners on the list are red links, so that's well more than "a small number of winners without a wiki page" and well more than 25% of those winners. Still - it may be that a case can be made. I think the best course of action is WP:AFC, where you can get input from a number of folks - and possibly help if it looks like the subject is notable. Frank | talk 19:23, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Mel Ming, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page WQED (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:53, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

	The Working Man's Barnstar
	Thanks so much for sorting out the Template:Employment problem. Voceditenore (talk) 06:45, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No worries; it is nice to get to ANI and find an "incident" that is discrete and seemingly (at least at the time) uncontroversial to fix. Let's see if there's yet an improvement to be made with this template (see below). Frank | talk 14:26, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I responded to him as well. I'm sorry that he thought I had assumed bad faith in his part. Could you do me favour and look at his/her version of the template and tell me what you see? I know things behave differently in different browsers etc. But could it be that different? Best, Voceditenore (talk) 15:09, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see what looks like a sidebar down the right side of the page. (I tried it in several browsers on 3 operating systems.) I don't see the problem you refer to but of course that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Frank | talk 15:26, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! That's amazing. Maybe it's because I use IE7? I just now tried removing the chunk of code to the left of {{Sidebar and it looks fine in the preview (a normal sidebar). Needless to say I'm not going to monkey with it, though. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 15:35, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I tried in IE8 on Windows 7 and didn't see the issue you saw. Not sure if IE7 is the reason for the issue or not. Frank | talk 15:45, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Frank. You have new messages at ClaretAsh's talk page.
Message added 13:32, 19 January 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Claret Ash 13:32, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"new" template

Hello, forgive me for butting in, but there is an internal attribution problem with a suggestion you made. In this comment, you stated "...I think a good approach to this would be to create a new template and transclude it on some pages, removing the {{employment}} template...." Well, that implies the whole new template was the idea of the new editor, but Wikipedia's licensing requires that attribution be given to the original author(s). So, that is not an optimal idea. Better would be to make a new template on a user subpage, then when consensus is reached, cut&paste it onto the original template (unless other users have edited it, then do a simple history merge), then have a bot quickly run through the affected pages and move the original template to the proper placement on the page. Sorry to eavesdrop, but I was in this situation awhile back (before I went all IP) and this is how we did it. I post here because you are an admin and I didn't think this was appropriate to butt in the other conversation since this was strictly technical. Rgrds. (Dynamic IP, so when I log off - I'm gone...) --64.85.217.4 (talk) 17:34, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the issue you are referring to. If we have a new template and replace the old one with the new, there is no question of attribution for something that no longer exists on the page. I don't object to merging, but I actually think that having two different means of navigation among a fairly large group of related pages is a good thing, so I think having two templates improves the encyclopedia anyway. Frank | talk 17:37, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the issue either. The attribution is in the page history, if it's just changed. All the previous versions and authors are available. If it's to be a separate new template on a separate page, simply say based on the old one with a link either on the talk page or in the edit summary. That's enough for attribution. I can see the value of both horizontal and vertical versions. Vertical versions can sometimes interefere with page layout and image placement, particularly in short articles. Voceditenore (talk) 17:51, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Attribution in an edit summary is acceptable, too, but not optimal. That requires the old template to never be deleted, which can be easily overlooked. However, if both a footer and a sidebar are maintained, then attribution in an edit summary is sufficient. I was not aware both templates were going to be preserved. Since everyone is aware, no harm no foul.... --64.85.217.4 (talk) 18:19, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, certainly - I never intended that the existing template would have been deleted. Removed, perhaps, from transclusion onto some pages, but not deleted. Of course, if it never appears on any page, that is about as good as deleting it. But, I still don't see there would be any attribution problem...if it doesn't appear on a page, its revisions don't need to be attributed anyway. Frank | talk 18:23, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser Request

Would you mind running a Checkuser on the following accounts: User:Wcdemanager, User:184.13.167.19, and User:184.13.157.72? The first two have vandalized the WCDE article in the past 4 hours, the last one vandalized the page back on the 19th. The IPs are registered to cities near the school that owns the station. I am pretty certain the account will come back to one of the IPs. There has been alot of vandalism on the WCDE page in the past year and I have an active RPP request open at the moment because of it. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:15, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Elen of the Roads is looking into things. Thanks anyway. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:39, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User Darkness shines

Dear Frank,

The above user has been using foul language as usual since he is not getting his way with an unblock last time he forced an unblock by harassing people and accusing them of "picking on him" these diffs shows just how ridiculous he is [1] and [2] he is now asking for another unblock I suggest his block is extended he must learn his childish ranting will not get him anywhere regards looking at his block log he seems to be more trouble than good to be honest.86.176.204.213 (talk) 09:11, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]