User talk:Frank/Archive 7

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

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 (talkcontribs) 09:59, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I saw your note on Talk:Charles Anthony Pearson. I'm not sure what to think, 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)

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 (talkcontribs)

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)

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)

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

Double lolly

I'm pretty sure this is a Hoax, I'm sure the confectionary exists but I'm also fairly certain that the rest of the article is totally made up. Feel free to revert back if you feel differently however. Jeffrey Mall (talkcontribs) - 01:52, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


Could you possibly revisit Wikipedia:Unsuccessful adminship candidacies (Chronological) and fix the massive whitespace? ;-) Not sure what caused it, but it's pretty big! Thanks. PeterSymonds (talk) 08:57, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Something to do with adding a documentation sub-page in {{Rfarow}}. I missed it because I only looked at the template itself, not the pages it was transcluded into, and even then, a refresh was required. I've reverted it. Thanks for catching it!  Frank  |  talk  13:01, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
It was the <noinclude> construct; it must have no space before it. I found that tidbit at Template:Documentation/doc#Best_practice. I think it's fixed now, and {{Rfarow}} has proper documentation style.  Frank  |  talk  13:24, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Day early close

Please undo your close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of current Vice Presidents. This was done more than a day early. Fences&Windows 00:25, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Do you imagine WP:CONSENSUS is shifting in that discussion?  Frank  |  talk  00:33, 11 December 2009 (UTC)#
"The discussion lasts at least seven full days; afterwards, pages are deleted by an administrator if there is consensus to do so." That's deletion policy. Sure, we can close earlier for a good reason, but you just seemed to be jumping the gun on those two closes. Impatience isn't a good reason to close early. Fences&Windows 02:03, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
There is clear WP:CONSENSUS to keep the article, whether it stays open another 24 hours or not. But there's no reason not to wait, other than the inconvenience, and I suppose there's no compelling reason to WP:IAR, so I've undone this close.  Frank  |  talk  02:18, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I wasn't trying to be awkward or bureaucratic for the sake of it. A close a couple of hours early isn't going to bother me, but if we start closing earlier and earlier it becomes a race for admins to close debates that look one-sided, which doesn't give a chance for new opinions or new information to be provided. Those debates were probably not going to change, but we can't always predict that. Last minute interventions can make the prior debate redundant, e.g. someone spots copyright violation or someone presents reliable sources for a topic that everyone said was unverifiable. Fences&Windows 15:17, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
To which I would say, by way of discussion: a) We WP:SNOW-close discussions that result in deletion all the time; b) WP:COPYVIO isn't necessarily a reason to delete an article; and c) I decided in favor of keeping an article, rather than deleting, so the net result was that no harm would have been done by an early closure. And, in point of fact, I just started at the wrong end of the list. As I said above, there's no compelling reason to IAR so it's no big deal.
I don't see that seven days is some kind of holy grail as it is with, say, RfA. Having said all that, though, and having re-read the page describing the process, that is not exactly in line with consensus, so it hardly makes sense for me to be closing deletion discussions in which I claim to be determining consensus if I can't RTFM properly. :-)  Frank  |  talk  15:34, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


Hey, you deleted the pae Playdoughism due to vandalism. As the page is about a religion and the apparent vandalism is the story of the religion i think you are wrong to delete the page. Also i would like to remind you that deleting a page because you dont believe what another person says is wrong and there is as much proof for what i am saying as there is for any other religion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucifaronpointon (talkcontribs) 17:59, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Then it will be no problem for you to come up with citations from reliable sources to clam notability of the subject.  Frank  |  talk  18:01, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

tour of the universe

please tell the user can not delete Freak.scenery information and references that verify that the information set is true. this user deletes information and references in both articles constantly touring the angel and tour of the addressing you by that you have authority on wikipedia and you can warn your Freak.scenery on misconduct in these two articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 03:59, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Can you clarify what you're asking me to do, who you're asking me to do it to, and what article it is in reference to?  Frank  |  talk  04:08, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Liberal Bias?

I recently made the following comment in regards to the moderator who removed my comment, once I got their message. The reason it was re-posted was I was still editing and hadn't yet seen the messages.

"I saw you recently removed my new section on political controversies surrounding Barack Obama, which was very well sourced and kept neutral in stating only POVs from major media organizations. I ironically made that section only after noticing that other politicians who are conservative had politically conservative have such sections, but not Obama. I think it ironic that liberals seek to silence free speech when it is critical of them. This began with someone swearing at me on my profile which I would calmly suggest may indicate a lack of unbiased neutrality upon the reporting party's part. Please explain to me how I overstepped any boundaries with my post before I take this to a higher level.


Jz --Jzyehoshua (talk) 22:00, 17 December 2009 (UTC)"

However, to elaborate further, other politicians have political controversy sections. This to me seems a stalling tactic to eliminate any possibility of public criticism of Barack Obama. I have noticed this done in the media as well, an unusually discriminatory form of bias attempting to silence all speech that is critical of him. I have no problem with the section being changed, but if you are going to disallow any discussion of the controversy surrounding him, however unbiased or neutral it may be in tone, then please at least avoid the hypocrisy evident here, and remove similar sections from the profiles of all other politicians.


The correct venue for this discussion, as I have already written in three places (including your own talk page), is Talk:Barack Obama.  Frank  |  talk  22:03, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


Fair enough. I think you're probably right about the number of transclusions, because when I first looked at the page, the Persondata template was also showing up as a redlink even though I know it exists and it was no longer a redlink after I hit save. Sorry for the confusion :-) Bearcat (talk) 22:15, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

My attempt to fix didn't work. I'm going to leave it alone. (I got that from the top when I hit "preview" - an error message shows up there.)  Frank  |  talk  22:18, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


Quite honestly I was considering writing you even before I just noticed your post on my page, to say that my last paragraph, where I said something about you being wrong about having made your point with your comment about Moynihan, was meant as an ironic point about the other editor's failure to grasp the point, and not pressing that point with you. Indeed, there are other issues I would persist on with you, but this is not one of them and I regretted the way I constructed that bit as I didn't intend it as any slight against you. I have certainly phrased things in ways I later see didn't effectively make my point and in fact occasionally leave open the possibility I meant precisely the opposite of what I did mean, so I wasn't trying to be a ball buster about that. I do care, I agree with your assessment at my talk page, and I thank you for that post. Abrazame (talk) 20:47, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Plenty more than necessary; if that stuff applies, I don't see it in this recent exchange so no worries on my account. Indeed, if there are other issue to persist on, they don't really (appear to) involve Obama but rather how we as a community treat individuals. And that is a separate discussion that may or may not be's certainly larger than two editors.
Regarding Moynihan, you're right, of course; he didn't seem to get the idea that Moynihan was highly unlikely to have been commenting on Obama directly (or even peripherally). The (d. 2003) bit was subtly put in only for reference and not to derail the conversation, because I got your point. (I had read several of the sources, and Pat Buchanan is known to me.) As to whether or not I was clear, well...I tried. I really did. I thought "assertion" and "(late)" (regarding Moynihan) and "fringe" contained in one sentence got the point across. But plenty of more strongly worded sentences have not, so...subtlety apparently doesn't work in this case.
Thanks for your note. Cheers!  Frank  |  talk  21:00, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

RFA issue

I meant to close it as NOTNOW. I guess that's what happens when you close RFAs while half aasleep while waiting for a new Family Guy. I fixed it so all should be well. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:56, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

While we're here, how suspicous is it that an IP has only edited RFA related things? See here. I'm going to ask them if they are a user, but it seems very suspicious to me. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:59, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Does it matter, with 3 edits? Might be a regular who happens to be logged out. I'd let it pass, myself. No biggie.  Frank  |  talk  04:00, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Happy holidays!

Best wishes for the holiday season and the upcoming new year! –Juliancolton | Talk 16:37, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Many thanks, Julian, and all the best to you as well!  Frank  |  talk  22:51, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Deleted Page

Hi, thanks for your help finding the link! Anyway to answer your question, I didn't create the page that was deleted, I don't know who did. I just went to create it, or at least examine the process, and saw it was already created then deleted. This is it: I saw it was deleted for "(A7: No indication that the article may meet guidelines for inclusion: Self-published, not a credible claim to notability)". I don't know what the original article included, is there any way to see it and perhaps correct whatever was wrong with it? This person is actually pretty well-known for his writing, and he's also known for composing music, photography and athletics. But like I said, I don't know what the previous article had, so I don't know what to do. I'd just like to see if I can create this page, and if there's something wrong with the last one, what I need to do to fix it. Thanks again. :)

Ah, now I remember...Daniel Koeker, which began: Daniel Koeker, born October 1989, is an up and coming American young-adult fiction author best known as the creator of the Worlds fantasy series. "Up and coming" is not an assertion of notability; rather it is almost a recognition that he is not yet notable. Before deleting the article, I tried to find sources that could be used to actually assert notability, because I don't believe in deleting an article just on that formality. I do decline CSDs often if it seems that a credible claim to notability could be made. However, in this case, I couldn't find anything to indicate it. When you say he "is actually pretty well-known for his writing, and he's also known for composing music, photography and athletics", do you have citations from reliable sources to support that? If so, I'd be glad to restore the article.  Frank  |  talk  22:50, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Let me see... honestly, I'm not sure yet. I'll give you a few links I did find, though I don't think they count, I just want to be sure... see, I know that his work is pretty widely known in his own area and in a bunch of other countries, it's just difficult to /prove/ it, haha. Here's what links I can find... I know not all are informational, but at least a few show that he's got his work out there.

I mean, if I search for his name I see him everywhere, like his work, reviews on his work, etc. but it's difficult to find anything that really talks about him any other way. Heh, this is harder than I thought. I read "the piece of work itself (the article, paper, document, book), the creator of the work (for example, the writer), and the publisher of the work (for example, The New York Times or Cambridge University Press)." If I understood that right, would the outlets that have published his work count as sources, like the newspaper and his Amazon page, or did I misunderstand? (I tried to include a link to ehow where a lot of his work shows up but apparently it's blacklisted...)

Dizzyisy (talk) 01:24, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Those links show that he exists, which isn't in question here. What we need is something to show that he is notable. Reviews and profiles appearing in reliable sources, for example. Articles about him. Lists of his books, blog entries by him or about him, and his own promotional site generally do not qualify, especially if they are the only sources about him. Google hits are not so useful. Google News hits are more useful, because they generally come from independent, objective sources.  Frank  |  talk  02:40, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok, that's fair. Yeah, I don't think there are any actual news stories about him, which is a shame. Oh well. Maybe in the future there will be enough. Thanks for your help! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dizzyisy (talkcontribs) 03:22, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Dizzyisy (talk) 03:23, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


Can you Ban him Again Please?? look at what he is doing! User talk: --Jena (talk) 22:52, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:BLOCKed again for repeated vandalism immediately following expiration of 1 month block and after a new warning. (Just FYI, a WP:BAN is a somewhat different thing.)  Frank  |  talk  23:00, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! --Jena (talk) 23:03, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


I just couldn't stand to see him being dragged through the dirt any longer. In that difference though, I can't see any example of his rejection, but I trust you nonetheless. I did see the earlier close, but I assumed the count was more like 1,5,1, or something low like that. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:25, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

He undid the closure of the RfA. There was also this note on his talk page. A 'crat has since closed it again, after much more...dragging. I was only commenting to you because it had been closed and re-opened once before. I didn't think it was a huge deal or I would have reopened it myself; obviously someone else thought differently and reverted it themselves. No worries.  Frank  |  talk  00:12, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

December 2009

I believe Austinjf785 <> was wondering why you deleted his post. I removed his quer that was in a less than civil wording. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 01:45, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Oddly enough, this seems suspicious because he is complaining that you are deleting his post, yet that was his first edit. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 15:14, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Actually, it was his first edit that wasn't deleted. He was apparently disgruntled that I deleted Vultro under WP:CSD#G11.  Frank  |  talk  15:42, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

To those who make Good Arguments, who are appreciative, or supportive. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 20:46, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Merry Xmas

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year from Bzuk (talk) 21:07, 24 December 2009 (UTC).


Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2009-12-23/Barack_Obama ɳoɍɑfʈ Talk! 14:17, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Gracias on Obama page

Thanks for catching my edit on the Talk:Barack Obama page. That's one of the problems with Jz's editing, the page is so full it takes forever to load. I've gotten edit conflicts the last few times I've tried, so I guess one slipped through. Thanks for backing me up! Dayewalker (talk) 23:07, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

No problem!  Frank  |  talk  23:08, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


Just letting you know that while you're not being accused of anything or one of the users involved in the case itself, in one of the comments it's been mentioned about your closings of topics today simply to point out that much more of the talk page's discussion concerns the subject at hand than now currently appears. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 11:08, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Wikipedia:Ani#Block_review_please. Thank you. and Happy New Year. Toddst1 (talk) 15:07, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Yo, Frank...

Good solid name. Know where you're going with a Frank Gimme ten seconds to message the guy before you delete his page, 'kay? HalfShadow 23:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I know it took me more than 10 seconds to delete it...  Frank  |  talk  23:15, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Pete Mayes

I think you replied to the wrong person - that is Derek's rewrite, not mine. I'll leave it to you to brighten his day! Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:28, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I was responding to his message on your talk page; one presumes he kept it watchlisted.  Frank  |  talk  20:29, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
ah... ok... (slightly puzzled look...) Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:32, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
What's puzzling? I am a great fan of keeping conversations together, so I replied in the spot which contained the message I was replying to. See WP:TPS for a humorous way of looking at it...  Frank  |  talk  20:35, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
It's no problem, but if I was thanking someone for something I'd automatically do it at their page, not a third party's. But anyhoo... Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:42, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Different styles, I guess. By replying directly to the message in the place it was left, I kept the response logically where it belonged. The next thing I did was close the thread on his talk page with an explanation that the article has been moved to main space.  Frank  |  talk  20:45, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes I saw that. All under control... Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:50, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Gary Primich

Sorry, but I am a bit dim. I can not seem to work out how to find the full 'original' version of this article (like I could for Pete Mayes). I might take the opportunity to attempt to resurrect it, but it would be easier for me with the original rather than trying almost completely from scratch. Can you help ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Derek R Bullamore (talkcontribs)

Certainly - the original version is here. I got to it by clicking "history" at the top of the article and then clicking the date/time of the version to look at (in this case, there are only two).  Frank  |  talk  21:23, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks - now re-done and available for assessment. - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 23:07, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Looks great, and I've now moved it back into the mainspace. Thanks for the re-write!  Frank  |  talk  23:29, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Angela Strehli

First draft re-write now completed. Apologies if you are already aware of this from another source.

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 00:15, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Another winner, moved to main space. Thanks!  Frank  |  talk  01:54, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Whistlin' Alex Moore

I have re-drafted the wording, if you would care to assess. Thank you,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 15:03, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

And, again - a good rewrite. Please remember to do the rewrite by following the link on the page to create a new version. Once that is ready, it is copied over the previous version so the copyrighted material is not listed in the history any longer. That will lessen the chance of it being inadvertently restored at some future date.  Frank  |  talk  15:27, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Ah, right - sorry; I will get the hang of this in time.
Derek R Bullamore (talk) 15:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
No biggie. You're doing fine. Thanks!  Frank  |  talk  15:45, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Big Joe Duskin

First draft re-write now completed.

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 17:15, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Looks great; moved to mainspace. Thanks!  Frank  |  talk  02:11, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Henry Glover

Article now re-written for your assessment. Thanks,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 20:23, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Looks great; moved to mainspace.  Frank  |  talk  02:37, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Actions of User:Damiensrf

I appreciate the comments, I am also trying to stay out of it but in the last month User:Damiens seems to have spent an inordinate amount of time on articles relating to puerto rico and to User:Marine 69-71 and it caught my attention and felt I needed to say something because I simply didn't have the time to argue on behalf of every image he has recommended for deltion. Inevitably I have found that if I were to make a comment oppose the deltion, he would argue in support and I would spend the next 2 weeks arguing about pictures so if he deletes them I will have to live with it. --Kumioko (talk) 22:24, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Sugar Ray Norcia

Now re-written for your re-assessment. Thanks,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 14:42, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Done, thanks!

Darrell Nulisch

Redrafted wording now done. Thanks,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 15:13, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Moved to main space; thanks!  Frank  |  talk  23:39, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Bull City Red

Re-drafted wording now done.

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 17:44, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Dealt with by User:Moonriddengirl - returned to main file.

Paul "Wine" Jones

Re-drafted wording now done. Thanks,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 17:00, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Done, thanks!  Frank  |  talk  17:54, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Richard Ravitch

Just a heads up to let you know that your GA review is done, since you had to wait so long for one. Rebecca (talk) 11:16, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


Hey Frank

One can only assume that you are being one sided yourselves. Cloward and Piven is not accurate at all and while trying to correct the mistakes theirin I was shown the door. Please help me understand why? ItTakesACarter2GetaReagan (talk) 05:00, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, one can assume many things...that doesn't make those assumptions correct. If the Cloward–Piven strategy article has inaccuracies, please feel free to improve the article by citing reliable sources. Encyclopedia articles are not the place for an individual editor's political philosophy. You weren't shown the door; you were shown links to some of the policies of the site you're editing. If you have any questions about that, please feel free to ask.  Frank  |  talk  11:31, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

That ol' WGB thing

You mentioned on the ANI sub-page that "talk page access to be enabled when this proposal is placed" - did you mean when you put the proposal on the page, or when the proposal had community concensus?

If the former, then WGB still cannot write on his talk page. If the latter, the phrasing on the page needs to be amended.

Incidently, if it is the latter, and I hear through e-mail from WGB (or someone else does) saying that yes, he unconditionally agrees to the proposal, can that be posted on the ANI subpage, or do you want to wait until he can access his talk page and say it there?

Regards, -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 00:11, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

My intent is: if we get community consensus, we place the message on his talk page and enable his write access. I personally don't want an email confirmation of it. I want WGB to agree to the restrictions on his talk page.  Frank  |  talk  01:02, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Sounds fair to me. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 01:11, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
The unfortunate thing is the absolute alienation of those who went to bat for him. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:11, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Happy Frank's Day!

Featured article star.svg

User:Frank has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian,
and therefore, I've officially declared today as Frank's day!
For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian,
enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Frank!

02:25, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. RlevseTalk 02:25, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

List of US states by population

Hey, there is a error... in place 54... its written 11,000 but it has to be 111,000... I saw you are allowed to edit the page.. please change it. ok thx, Kilon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:34, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Seems to have been taken care of by someone else.  Frank  |  talk  13:11, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


No worries. I'll hold off until you're ready. Rebecca (talk) 15:36, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean?

Was not this [1], for this? ardian.
  • Actually the Ardian article should simply be redirected to Adrian, the name is simply an anagrammatism of the Roman name stemming from the Adriatic.Megistias (talk) 19:52, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Replied at your talk page.  Frank  |  talk  19:55, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
There is no content speficic.The refs i have in are solid but the name Ardian itself does not exist isolated in that form and originating from a "waterproof" source.The only interesting thing is that during communism the name was either coined, or pre-existing as a variant to Hadrian-Adrian, used for nationalistic purposes(the vickers reference). The refs that were in in the "other" were an unrelated patchwork attempting to substantiate the unsubstantiable. I have been looking into this for some time, and its nothing special. The name itself is not attested as existing alone, on its own.But do what you will.Megistias (talk) 20:27, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
How about Ardian Fullani, Ardian Behari, Ardian Đokaj, Ardian Kozniku, and Ardian Gashi to name several?  Frank  |  talk  20:30, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
I never claimed the name variant is not in use(i put some of those guys in as an example). The name is just a variant of the adrian-hadrian name.Megistias (talk) 20:35, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Then it may be more appropriate to put in the "see also" link, which you already did. And you did say the name Ardian itself does not exist isolated in that form and originating from a "waterproof" source. That's pretty similar to saying it isn't in use. Regardless, I don't see any consensus to put in that redirect, and you are definitely aware of an objection to doing that and another editor who is making a good-faith effort to provide sourced information. If you want to redirect, discuss it at talk:Ardian.  Frank  |  talk  20:39, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
The only people that seem to have this name in this form is Albanians and they have the Adrian name in use as well. This reinforces the position that it is just a variant.Also there does not seem to be single italian(origin) person with this name, or anyone that is not Albanian, or having Albanian origin. No latin dictionaries give any result, and the name is not even Illyrian as it did not exist at the time.
  • There does not seem to a reliable source to substantiate that this name existed prior to the modern era actually.Megistias (talk) 21:10, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

With all due respect, I do agree that the name is modern, and there might be a name Ardian as a variant of Adrian (I don't deny that), but all Ardians that I know, including my own brother, were named after Illyrian Ardiaei.The fact that there may be no written record specifically saying the Ardian derives from Ardiaei does not mean that it doesn't. This conslusion can be deduced from several facts: 1. We have Adrian in Albania too, but we (Albanians) distinghuish it from Ardian (and this can be easily checked in books on Albanian names, such as the book of Hasan Hasani, "Emra Shqip"), 2. given the importance that Illyrians play in the culture of Albanians, especially the Ardiaei (mentioned in so many school books and literature in Albania), it is logical to expect that an Albanin would name her/his children after Ardiaei, and finnaly, as noted correctly above, 3.the only people to have this name in this form (Ardian) are Albanians, which if you ask me, is the best evidence that it derives from Ardiaei, precisely because of the importance the Illyrians in general, and Ardiaei in particular play in Albanian culture. Yes, the incentive to popularize Illyrian-related names among Albanians did originate in Albania during the communist regime, but as an eyewitness to that era, I know that this was NOT imposed by force on people,but rather suggested, and Albanians seem to have liked those names back then, just as they still do today (again, there is no reference saying Illyrian-related names were imposed on Albanians, and it is sufficient to get any repertoire of modern Albanian names to prove that Albanians themselves prefer Ilylrian-ralted names and Albanian national ones. After all, one can always take Albanian phone directory to clarify what I am saying). Furthermore, I see no reason for not including in this article Albanian scholars that studied ethnolinguistic aspects of the names of Illyrian peoples and their connections to Albanian language, as a reference. I guess Albanians do have a say about their own culture, with good references included, of course. As for megistias' version of the article (Ardian), this version seems to give this article some political and rather negative connotations. What about positive ones (referenced, of course). Is there none?(Megistias wrote: "Ardian is one of many modern Albanian names using supposed Illyrian elements, which have been popular among Albanians to emphasize a supposed descent from ancient Illyrians, particularly since the time of the Communist regime. [2].These imaginary Illyrian names,are used by modern Albanians today. The Albanian name, Ardian or Ardijan being another variant) supposedly derives[citation needed] from the name of ancient Illyrian people known as Ardiaei."). I really don't mean to indulge in quarrel or skirmishing here, but the the entire abovementioned paragrpah of Megistias really made it look as if having this name (Ardian) is a problem, a name one would not wish to have. My understanding of a good-quality source is that it is not sufficient to have some good reference alone, but also ensure that the reference used is not biased,selective,misleading or refelcting a personal political view.A source should be impartial and also written using a civilized language, without offending or underrmining any person or any culture in any way, and I am afraid that's not what the current Megistias' version of "Ardian" is. For this reason, I propose once again in a cooperative manner that Megistias reconsiders my version of the article again so we could start working on some consensus.--Daesitiates (talk) 19:04, 7 February 2010 (UTC)



Ben Bernanke ‎

"apparently, he really did teach himself calculus" that made me laugh, thanks for that. Off2riorob (talk) 01:41, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, "uncited" often brings up images of "did it really happen"...and often "uncited" actually means "someone made it up or heard it from their brother-in-law (who made it up)". In this case, the point was made that his high school didn't offer it. So I spent a little time on it...humorous or not :-)  Frank  |  talk  01:47, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Antonia Brenner

Hi. Sorry for screwing up. I didn't realize there was an existing article. Thanks for looking out. (talk) 14:29, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

No screwup. This is a big place. Thanks for contributing!  Frank  |  talk  14:38, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Aaron Horner

Do not delete the page on Aaron Horner if you would like to know why he deserves to be on wikipedia contact me —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nahinger II (talkcontribs) 12:57, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

You need to establish why he is notable and assert it in the article, with citations from reliable sources.  Frank  |  talk  13:00, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

RFA Jmcw37

Thank you Frank for your good intentions, but I would like my RFA to continue as I expressed on the talk page. jmcw (talk) 09:32, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


stop deleting things just because they lack context, just because a page is out of context shouldn't mean it deserves to be deleted. Rather they lack context because people do not want to rewrite the page from scratch after you delete it. Leave it on people will add and make evident the context with time or better yet put it in context. This ESPECIALLY applies to technical entries ie: Sentential form (left/right). For most computer science students Wikipedia is the main source replacing all their textbooks.

Lazy Mans Convenient Summary: u suck, stop deleting things. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:25, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure what page you are referring to. I went through my most recent 250 entries in the deletion log and didn't find any page with "form" or "sent" in the name.  Frank  |  talk  19:25, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


Sorry Im realy new to this and I started an article titled Chase (rapper). And due to me trying to figure a problem with me trying to upload a picture of the artist, somehow my article was put under protection. Dont understand how to request for the protection to be removed but if it were posssible for you to do it yourself it would be greatly appreciated. Please also if you have a tip for solving this issue that would be a big help also thanx. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 600block (talkcontribs) 22:07, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

The article did not meet guidelines for inclusion. You need to at least assert a reason he is notable, and you need to provide citations from reliable sources in order for an article to remain in Wikipedia. Your best bet is to read WP:FIRST.  Frank  |  talk  22:13, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


Hi. You helped in the past - when some guy wanted to deleted HS Olimpija Ljubljana. Well, there is a similar situation here, VK Bosna. Could you please help? (LAz17 (talk) 03:37, 15 February 2010 (UTC)).

Looks like it has been deleted already. It is a bit different than the first one; the league this one is in does not have any assertion of notability, so it's more difficult to assert notability for this club.  Frank  |  talk  13:18, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/gobbleswoggler 2

I've done an arv on this user. I hope I've done the right thing - he/she is not a vandal but I don't know where else to report it (three RfAs in as many days now). I'm not an admin so there's little else I can do. I'm sure Gobbleswoggler is doing everything in good faith, but I'm equally sure we may be dealing with a child who is a football (soccer) fanatic.--Kudpung (talk) 09:18, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I think you don't need to worry about it; that second RfA is not transcluded to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship. When it was first transcluded there, I removed it, as you probably know. Since then, it has mostly just sat. Where's the harm?  Frank  |  talk  13:43, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


I dont know what to do here. So i stopped. I have found no English reliable sources on Ardian, though i found on Adrian and added them to that article. Two users are at Ardian user1, user2. I changed the article after talking to user2 but user1 added/removed some weird irrelevant stuff diff The word Illyrian in modern Albanian means being free = I LIRE . While it is easy to find sources on Adrian, Ardian is all but invisible. The name exists and is used, but i can't find any linguistic (or even historical) source on it.Megistias (talk) 12:51, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

A tricky problem, I understand. I look at it this way: there are 5,461,859 articles on Wikipedia, and they aren't all perfect. In fact, there is probably not a single one of them that can't be improved in some way.  Frank  |  talk  09:27, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Bernard Kerik

Is now a federal convict as of 2/18/10. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:57, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Real nice, locking an article because you don't agree with the facts. I wonder what Wikipedia will have to say about this —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:59, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I locked the article because it's a highly-visible page since Kerik was just sentenced. No facts are in dispute. He was convicted (previously), sentenced today. Whether he is a "convict" today is not the point; he is still a former law enforcement official regardless.  Frank  |  talk  18:01, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

What do his day to day activities henceforth consist of? Being a convict. Removing this is a farce and reflicts personal bias. -- (talk) 18:04, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what bias you are referring to; the article already notes in the lead section that he was sentenced to four years in jail. Still, whatever bias you think is being displayed by including that in the article can best be discussed at Talk:Bernard Kerik.  Frank  |  talk  18:08, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Announcement (Dire Straits)

Thanks for interest to theme Dire Straits Tours. I remind that else there are some questions in which your help is necessary:

Article Necessary to make
Lafayette club Improve English
JB's Dudley Improve English
Fforde Green Hotel Improve English
Arena club Improve English
76 Club Improve English
Workingman's Institute and Memorial Hall Improve English
Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Template:Dire Straits tineline To be defined with a kind and the template maintenance
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tiffany's, dancehall To answer five questions

--Andrey! 08:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Wikiwoohoo 5

Hi. I noticed that you closed my RfA and yet removed A Stop at Willoughbys support vote placed after the expiration time but left Bejinhans neutral vote which was also placed after the time. Surely they should both be left or both removed? I'd say it was fairer to keep both. Wikiwoohoo (talk) 17:59, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure that "fair" is part of this, but I've adjusted per your request. I don't think the fabric of the universe would be affected either way.  Frank  |  talk  18:08, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
A slightly odd response but thanks all the same. Wikiwoohoo (talk) 20:01, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
For the record, I believe leaving them both would have been the proper protocol. True, they were added after the expiration, but not after the closure. Useight (talk) 20:06, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
I did. I've seen it go both ways (on close RfAs). Really the reason I chose to revert the one I did was that it occurred while I was closing, without generating an edit conflict. It seemed simplest to me. When I was requested to make the change, it seemed completely reasonable to me so I did it. Had I noticed the neutral past closing time the first time I closed it, I probably would have reverted that one too. Overriding it all: if there had been any question at all as to how it should have been closed, I would have left it alone completely; it was meant to be uncontroversial. I hope I've achieved that, even if it took a couple of extra edits.  Frank  |  talk  20:48, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Richard Ravitch

Re-reviewed and put on hold, hopefully you can get to it in the next couple days. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 06:08, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, will do. The comments are all fair and most of them can be addressed. Some of them I did look for and found precious little at the time; they're definitely worth revisiting.  Frank  |  talk  12:04, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Declined speedy deletion of Tim Bridgewater

I notice that you tagged the page Tim Bridgewater for speedy deletion with the reason "WP:CSD#A7". While that's a valid reason for speedy deletion in general, this page does not qualify for speedy deletion under that criterion because the article specifically states that this politician has won elections before, making him automatically notable for having served in public office. If you still want the page to be deleted, please consider tagging it with a speedy deletion template which does apply, redirecting it to another page, or using the WP:AFD process. Thanks! CobaltBlueTony™ talk 16:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Already questioned this decline at User talk:Cobaltbluetony.  Frank  |  talk  16:23, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Misread the elections (to the party, not to a public office). PROD or perhaps snowball? Since I've mucked it up, I'll let someone else decide... CobaltBlueTony™ talk 16:25, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
I'll PROD it. Thanks.  Frank  |  talk  16:26, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
No worries. Thinking's overrated anyway. That's why so many people have stopped altogether! ;-) Cheers! CobaltBlueTony™ talk 18:27, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Protection of TFA

I've removed the edit protection on Tom Crean (explorer) and have instead added the image being inserted to the bad image list. Nakon 01:07, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom/Article title

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom/Article title. DrKiernan (talk) 09:06, 18 March 2010 (UTC) (Using {{Please see}})

your recent edits

i took of the sizle video to youtube meaning the coyright issue was remove your delition and blocking is considered vandalism, do not delete the page, because there is no more copyright issues, thanx youAlxknight (talk) 21:46, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Huh?  Frank  |  talk  21:47, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
that i took of the copyrigth issues, with the sizzle reel, why would you have delete the page twice, i have been working on provinces of night for days now, but now you deleted it without any talk of conseous, what's the problwm now, if i took off the issues, please fix the problem asap Alxknight (talk) 21:51, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
This edit i presume, and the subsequent removal of the article. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 21:54, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
The page you created twice, Provinces of Night, was a direct copyright violation of this page. There is no consensus required to delete a new page that is a direct and complete copyright violation of someone else's content. Note that simply rewriting the material is not sufficient to have the article remain; it still may not meet notability guidelines. But at least if it isn't a candidate for speedy deletion, some amount of discussion may possibly be had. As it stood the two times I deleted it, it was a blatant copyright violation and could not remain on the site, and no discussion was necessary.  Frank  |  talk  21:57, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
I never kept the video after your first deletion, so teh page had no more copyright infregment... i never rewrote anything for your link has no words or paragarphs, & as i said it took my days to created this page and seconds for your deletion plsease be aware for were i stand rather i am to your opion, plase recreated the page what you think is okay, with my formatssAlxknight (talk) 22:01, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
The video never had anything to do with the copyright violation. It's the text on the page that is a copyright violation.  Frank  |  talk  22:02, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

which text?? the text i wrote myself??? pls let me know what? show me the page and tell me which ones! because i wrote each sentece. and for someone reason it had a little bit in common it coukd have been changedAlxknight (talk) 00:11, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Here's a better idea: create a new page at User:Alxknight/Provinces of Night with your own text and we can use that as a starting point. Remember that the article must establish notability of the subject as well.  Frank  |  talk  00:15, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

ya sounds good, but HERES tht thing all my work went to that page, i dont have anything safe, it says you are teh only one that can re-do it is you, if u giove it to me i will put it in my own page —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:33, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm guessing you could recreate it yourself, since you did manage to create it twice, five minutes apart. Nevertheless, I'm assuming good faith and saving you the trouble of trying to do so. I have restored the content that is not a blatant copyright violation to User:Alxknight/Provinces of Night.  Frank  |  talk  00:56, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Your lack of concern for BLP

I am surprised at your lack of concern for WP:BLP, in the article Tyne Daly. You removed the {{refimproveBLP}} tag from the article, even though at that time the majority of the material of text in the body of the article was cited to sources that are not appropriate for a WP:BLP page [2]. Please be more mindful not to disregard the WP:BLP policy on Wikipedia in the future. Thanks. -- Cirt (talk) 13:57, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with your assessment, as I indicated on your talk page. I am about as meticulous an editor as you'll find around here regarding BLP, so characterizing my comments as showing "lack of concern" is a little off the mark, I believe. Nevertheless, the concern has been raised and I'm improving the article.  Frank  |  talk  13:59, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 14:00, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Publishing Richard Aguirre Page

Richard Aguirre is on the 2010 California Secretary of States Ballot for the office of Governor. This should establish along with the new New York Times story that Richard Aguirre is "Notable in itself". Please move to published status or advise. thanks for your help. Sdpolitics (talk) 22:11, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

This article was deleted more than eighteen months ago after a deletion discussion. Is he a major-party candidate for office, or a minor candidate? If he wasn't notable then, and is now a minor-party candidate, I'm not sure that notability can be established.  Frank  |  talk  22:28, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Frank, Richard Aguirre is a Democratic Candidate for Governor of California this year and the only real opposition to Jerry Brown. Mr. Aguirre has over 220,000 twitter followers which should establish notability. Please advise on how to get his page published. Sdpolitics (talk) 02:13, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Popularity is not the same as notability. If he beats Brown for the Democratic nomination, that would do it. If there is some other means of establishing notability, great. But challenging Jerry Brown for the nomination - even if he is the only "real opposition" to Brown - is not sufficient by itself. Surely you're aware that Brown is not only the sitting California Attorney General, but a former two-term Governor of California himself? Challenging him is not notable. Winning the nomination against Brown would be notable. Please understand - I'm not saying he's not notable because he isn't the Democratic nominee for the governor's office. I'm saying that challenging Brown is not enough to establish notability. If there's more to establish it, that would be a different story. It's the same as it's always been: citations from reliable sources independent of the subject must exist in sufficient quantity to establish notability of the subject.  Frank  |  talk  02:33, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

The notable thing is that he is an Official candidate for Governor of California not that he is Browns Opponent. The California Information guide goes to 10 million homes with Mr. Aguirre's platform listed in it. He has been mentioned in articles by credible papers"New York Times" march 13 2010. and has had dozens of TV appearances. With over 220,000 twitter followers, I feel mr Aguirre has reached notable status. Stuart Alexander has a page and his only credit is that he ran for office. Mr. Aguirre meets that criteria, he is on the 2010 California democratic ballot for Governor.Sdpolitics (talk) 19:07, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm guessing you mean a different person than Stuart Alexander, which points to a company in Australia. Even so...just because another article exists doesn't mean this one in particular should exist. I personally don't think that just because a guide goes to 10 million homes that means an individual listed in the guide is notable. But please don't think that I am the person you have to convince. This is not my decision; you've asked for my opinion and I've given it. You might try WP:AFC to see what others think.  Frank  |  talk  19:37, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Storm redirect

Thanks for the redirect Shelleyk3425 (talk) 03:04, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

No problem; Storm (1987 film) seemed more appropriate, as we usually put the adjective before the noun. (See The Thomas Crown Affair, for example.)  Frank  |  talk  03:09, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


I wouldn't waste any more of it. That user seems to fail the basic principle of competence is required. –xenotalk 14:27, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I've almost reached the same conclusion. Oh well.  Frank  |  talk  14:30, 30 March 2010 (UTC)