This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 10 |
You stated that my answers to questions 1-6 showed that I shouldn't be an admin. I assume you mean all of the answers. In question one, I state that I don't like blocking people nor do I like deleting pages. Are admin supposed to like these things? In question two, I state that I don't really like the idea of people showing off and claiming things as their own as if it is some kind of award. Are admin supposed to show off pages and articles as if they are awards? In question three, I state that I wont badger opposes in the RfA oppose section as what happens in many RfAs in the past and caused a lot of concern on the RfA talk page. Are admin supposed to badger opposers even if they have made it clear in places like this that it really doesn't matter what I say? In question four, I describe my involvement working with Jimbo over at Wikiversity during a ban of a user. Are admin not supposed to understand what goes into a ban let alone have involvement with those like Jimbo during such things? Question 5 is a small joke based on the constant throw away support saying "he won't delete the main page" and is marked as a joke. As being the only thing that is "silly" for April 1st, are admin not supposed to be so limiting in that way? Or just not have any sense of humor? In question six, I showed where I advocated for other users and performed actions like this. My standing up for Mattisse and being willing to recognize that they were a user who, although problematic in some regards, is not a horrible person and tried to work with them towards improvement. Even though many people, including many well known admin around here, praised my efforts, that is something that an admin shouldn't do? Other people have brought your statement to me out of concern. I would like to know the answer also. Ottava Rima ( talk) 21:10, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
You are attributing thoughts to me that I neither stated nor implied. You are welcome to disagree with me, and of course you're welcome to your own interpretations, but you are drawing inferences that I have not implied at all. I have no idea about what RfC you're referring to; nor is it important. I did not hunt around looking for evidence in writing my oppose; I found it right on the RfA page and said so. Frank | talk 21:59, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
It would probably help to check contributions before such a rant. In the meantime, if you ever have any problem with any of my actions - either as an editor or as an admin - please feel free to contact me. I remain committed to this project, whether you "stick around" to see it or not. Frank | talk 23:14, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Aitias/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Aitias/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, [[Sam Korn]] (smoddy) 22:10, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
My RFA passed today at 61/5/4. Thanks for participating in my RFA. I appreciate all the comments I received and will endeavor to justify the trust the WP community has placed in me. Have a nice day. :-) AdjustShift ( talk) 21:32, 11 April 2009 (UTC) |
On behalf of the Kindness campaign, I just wanted to wish my fellow Wikipedians a Happy Easter! Sincerely, -- A Nobody My talk 07:46, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Curse you, Frank! You stole my last-support position! Vengeance will be mine. – Quadell ( talk) 13:05, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on User:Samenus/Remy Corporation, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be blatant advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the guidelines on spam as well as Wikipedia:FAQ/Business for more information.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{
hangon}}
to the top of
the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on
the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact
one of these admins to request that they
userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you.
Alexius08 (
talk) 07:51, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Geekologie. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Computerjoe 's talk 21:13, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Agreeing with your consensus and that of the community that Square Enix Music Online is non-notable, can you please respond to the editor of that page having taken to spamming composer pages. The editor will not respond to mail. Please see the external links sections of the following for links to this non-notable fansite "Square Enix Music Online" - Yoko Shimomura, Hiroki Kikuta, Yoshitaka Hirota, Joanne Hogg, among others. Can someone please intervene? Jeriaska ( talk) 4 May 2009 (UTC)
I am using both User:Cody Cooper and User:Cody.feilding.nz because I wanted to use my real name, but the admin who changed it over said just create the new account, and refused to move my edits. That is why I have to accounts, feel free to delete or remove User:Cody.feilding.nz if you wish, as I am most activate on User:Cody Cooper.
Cody Cooper Talk 00:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
The name of the team was Black Hawks until 1986. We generally leave the article names to be the name of the team -at the time-. So the article stubs I've been creating prior to that time use Black Hawks, and Blackhawks after. Hope this helps. We also generally keep both names around, pointing to the same article, so I doubt there's any problems... Alaney2k ( talk) 01:28, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi! I assume you meant to delete under WP:CSD#G11? Since "flags" do not meet A7. decltype ( talk) 12:04, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry if I wasn't quick enough with references, but I didn't even have time to insert the "hangon" note before my article was deleted. I think it was a little harsh. I will try to prepare the references. RickH86 ( talk) 12:07, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
I saw you declined my request to speedy delete Chris Franck under the band criteria. I requested db-band as the article was on a musician of doubtful notability, instead of the more frequent use of db-band as applying to the musical group. I'm not too concerned, though -- under the snowball clause, I expect the article to be deleted soon enough if sources don't suddenly show up. -- A More Perfect Onion ( talk) 15:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
A More Perfect Onion (
talk) haz givn u
Cheezburgr! Cheezburgrs promot
WikiLovez and hoapfuly thiz one haz made yore day bettr. Spreadd teh WikiLovez by givin sumone else Cheezburgr, whethr it be sumeone youz hav had disagreementz with in teh past or a gud frend. Hapy munchins!
Spredd teh goudnesz of Cheezburgerz to all lolcat buddiez by addin {{ subst:Cheezburgr}} to their talk puj with friendly messuj to all.
A More Perfect Onion (
talk) has given you some mustard, for as a topping on ur cheezburgr! You see, these things somehow promote
WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else some mustard! Enjoy!
Spread the goodness of mustard by adding {{ subst: BlankWikiLove|border=dark-green|bg=gold|image=David holding mustard.JPG|article=some|item=mustard }} to their talk page with a friendly message.
i was wondering how to get a cool user page and sig if you could point me it would be greatly appreciated. that and is it to soon to request for rollback permission yet ? ~~0xRanDomx0~~ ( talk) 00:09, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
thanks man will do what about the rollback thing???
why did you delete my page was it too lite on content? Jetskiimike ( talk) 00:10, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Frank, Gaia Octavia Agrippa has smiled at you! Smiles promote
WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Gaia Octavia Agrippa
Talk |
Sign 20:21, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Smile at others by adding {{
subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Frank, your vote gives me the impression that you think I oppose the use of consensus. My viewpoint is simple: consensus can only be determined by the agreement of participants in a discussion; it cannot be determined by a single person who looks only at the strength of the arguments among those participants. One might as well as say that, if one believed Obama performed better than McCain in the presidential debates, that the consensus of the debate participants (Obama and McCain) was in favor of Obama's positions. I think that is a serious distortion of the meaning of consensus. Consensus is not about who has the better argument; it's about whether or not people agree. Everyking ( talk) 17:45, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi Frank, I would like to know your reason for deleting the Brothers of the Forum wikipage. Are you an authoritative figure in wikipedia or are you simply another user of it? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that is open to the public to either add or edit. I strongly disagree with your actions and I expect an apology. Brothers of the Forum is a team of individuals similar to Manchester United, the La Lakers or even Ac/Dc, and it is unfair to simply delete pages on wikipedia especially after a lot of effort has gone into creating the page.
This is disappointing As I mentioned earlier i expect an apology.
Thanks,
wikiebotf —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiebotf ( talk • contribs) 13:11, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Frank. I'm just curious as to why you reverted harej's edit to Frank Melton's talk page (diff can be found here: [1] ) without any explanation beyond a simple rollback. From what I've gleaned and been told in the past, rollbacks without further explanation are for blatant vandalism only; while I agree that harej's comment was uncalled for and in poor taste, I don't see how it's blatant vandalism. Nothing major, I was just curious. One ( talk) 16:21, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
I cited it and everything...what's the problem with that? 199.88.20.8 ( talk) 20:16, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi there,
Wondering why you just took the Christopher Falkenberg page down? You citing that it was too much of a promotion - but it is biographical information on a person who is an expert in the secruity field? there are many other articles with bios - and I am curious to why you pulled this one down?
Thanks. AGDonohoe ( talk) 21:18, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
With respect Frank...what about an article like this? http://www.businessweek.com/managing/content/apr2009/ca20090429_288478.htm and there are a number of media outlets such as CNN, CNBC and Fox that use him as a professional security source.
AGDonohoe ( talk) 14:44, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
can you please restore the page i was working on for grammy award winning record producer Mark Howard. i understand there was a paragraph that was copied from his myspace page but i am willing to delete it although i have full permission from him to use that. noone gave me a chance to put that in writing and it was deleted straight away. please restore my page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Charliedylan ( talk • contribs)
..the Jack Mancino page were similar designed as other contemporary art painter`s page..3 times was reduced and was always deleted by new reasons!...could you explain if the wikipedia has some strange reasoning policy applied for picked pages and the same policy wasn`t applied to others?....Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgeborg ( talk • contribs)
Hi Frank, most of your edits this morning at Fawcett's bio were great. I wanted to restore two things and thought it best to discuss it with you. First, I was wondering why you removed the details of the course of her German treatment in your final edit. I had referenced the documentary for these details. I had notes from the doc, including the spellings of the doctors' names. Obviously I made a spelling error with "profusion" instead of "perfusion". When I had clicked the link to "profusion", I realized it wasn't addressing the relevant point, but thought I'd research it today and/or hoped someone else would correct it, as they did.
I don't know if you saw the documentary, but a great deal of it involves her German doctors and their treatments, following her into treatment rooms and actually showing those treatments, from scans to the insertion of the laser needle through her ribcage and into her liver. It was harrowing stuff, but her inclusion of these details in her documentary make it both clear that she wanted people to know about this and also make it notable and citable.
She also makes a point of contrasting erroneous published reports with what was really going on. The other issue may seem minor by comparison, but Fawcett never refers to her own treatment as "holistic", this was press conjecture, and my recent edit noted it as such. We like to think we have the most modern treatments in the world and anything else must be some flower-child yoga, herbs or voodoo (read: stem cell treatment), but the point of that sentence was that although it was reported as "holistic" (note the article that links to), it was actually very high technology. Again, what the article stated was referenced in its use of terminology ("holistic", "aggressive") as well as supported by the precise course of treatment as described.
For both of these edits, my purpose is to present what Fawcett presented in her documentary, which came from the mouths of her doctors themselves. Abrazame ( talk) 19:17, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
FYI I've put this up at T:TDYK with you as the original author. And sorry for messing up some of your edits at one point, I was caught up in an edit conflict and had trouble resolving it without losing what I had done. Wasted Time R ( talk) 23:35, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your message. User:Mythdon did rather admonish me without substantiated rationale over my usage of 'rollback'; which I did not think was fair, particularly helpful or even handed. However, I have no wish to get involved in the ongoing arbitration process. Could I ask you to look at the recent Brian Hyland edits, based on my message to Mythdon ? Frankly, I do not know where else to turn - most of my Wiki buddies from the past three years, or so, seem to have hibernated, given up or died. Probably says more about me than anything !?! Any help is much appreciated. Regards,
Derek R Bullamore ( talk) 22:47, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Kudos. Very nice work. Thank you. Cheers, David in DC ( talk) 01:15, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for participating in my
"RecFA", which passed with a final tally of 153/39/22. There were issues raised regarding my adminship that I intend to cogitate upon, but I am grateful for the very many supportive comments I received and for the efforts of certain editors (
Ceoil,
Noroton and
Lar especially) in responding to some issues. I wish to note how humbled I was when I read
Buster7's support comment, although a fair majority gave me great pleasure. I would also note those whose opposes or neutral were based in process concerns and who otherwise commented kindly in regard to my record. ~~~~~ |
Hi Frank! I saw that you deleted an article I added about my company, Corrigon. You claim that this is promotional (unlike BayTSP or Attributor? ) What can I do better to make it less promotional and more informative? I don't see the problem. I also apologize if this is not the appropriate way to contact you - this is the only way I found. Please help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thitpx ( talk • contribs) 13:16, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Some external, independent citations:
http://www.tradingmarkets.com/.site/news/Stock%20News/1855044/
http://www.startupisrael.com/lab-one-incubator-invests-2m-corrigon
http://www.babylon.com/definition/Corrigon_Ltd._(PicMole)/
http://www.ivc-online.com/G_info.asp?objectType=1&fObjectID=9832
http://www.ivc-online.com/ivcWeeklyItem.asp?articleID=7559
http://www.globes.co.il/news/article.aspx?QUID=1056,U1229242278974&did=1000406688
http://www.globes.co.il/serveen/globes/DocView.asp?did=1000377412
http://www.takdin.co.il/searchgl/%D7%98%D7%91%D7%99%D7%A2%D7%AA%20%D7%90%D7%A6%D7%91%D7%A2%20%D7%9C%D7%AA%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%A0%D7%94:%20Corrigon%20%D7%9E%D7%A4%D7%AA%D7%97%D7%AA%20%D7%9E%D7%A0%D7%95%D7%A2%20%D7%97%D7%99%D7%A4%D7%95%D7%A9%20%D7%95%D7%99%D7%96%D7%95%D7%90%D7%9C%D7%99_h_hd_2L34sCpKsCLmnC30mD30sDZWuBcXqRMm0.html
http://www.incubators.org.il/30014.htm
Thitpx ( talk) 13:57, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Is there a way that I can reach to the content you deleted? I put quite an effort into to it and it looks like the history is also lost with the deletion. Thitpx ( talk) 07:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! Thitpx ( talk) 09:37, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
I wouldn't trust IMDb as it's user submitted. I've added a couple print sources, including another that verifies his birth name as Alvis Alan Owens. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ( Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 03:19, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
There's obviously no point in continuing this argument at Talk:Air France Flight 447. I am honestly frightened by the policy quotes you are making. Do you know that Queen Victoria or Abraham Lincoln are dead? I'm sure you've never seen any judicial proof of it! As if judicial proof was some sort of absolute proof – any decent philosopher will tell you that absolute proof is unattainable. The verifiable facts about AF447 are such that no reasonable person doubts that these people are dead. That information might change, but it is very unlikely. I might win the lottery on Friday, but it is very unlikely, and so I do not describe myself as "possible a millionaire". The Five Pillars of Wikipedia require us to write an encyclopedia which normal people will read, not just WP editors, and so to go with normal standards of proof/refutation of hypotheses (also found in WP:V, WP:SYNTH, WP:UNDUE and numerous other policies and guidelines). Please stop pretending that these people might reasonably be expected to be alive: it is indecent. Physchim62 (talk) 15:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Go ahead. Unprotection is always worth a shot! -- RegentsPark ( My narrowboat) 17:51, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
I am quite confused. I do not see any indication that you are an administrator; nor do I see that you were involved in protection of the page. I did, however, contact the admin who did protect the page before I unprotected it. As for the "re-protect", I made two different changes: one to allow all users to edit the page, and another to disallow anonymous users from moving it, which its own form of vandalism. Frank | talk 19:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
(outdent)I'm a tad astonished by the reaction! For the record, I did not assume that there was consensus to unprotect on the article talk page. I assumed that Frank wanted to see if unprotecting would work (i.e., the level of vandalism would be low) and was sure that he would monitor the article (as I would as well) to reinstate protection if necessary. In general, articles, including BLPs are not automatically semi-protected unless there is a long history of a 'vandalism/blp violation - protection - unprotection' cycle, which is not the case with this article. We value our IP editors and must make every reasonable attempt to allow them to edit. -- RegentsPark ( My narrowboat) 21:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Mifter ( talk) 23:40, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
My limited knowledge of Yiddish was acquired years after learning German. Due to the large number of cognates between those two languages, I tend to use German phonetic spellings. Most of the people who speak both Yiddish and English have minimal knowledge of German and approximate English pronunciations when writing Yiddish in the Roman alphabet, but German is a much more phonetic language and more closely related. So that's the reasoning behind the somewhat unusual spelling. Durova Charge! 01:22, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Let me know if I can be of assistance in editing (up to policy) the East Central Community College as I have done with the Southwest Mississippi Community College page. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 03:44, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
This may be of use in your current efforts. // roux 15:12, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
If you think it needs to be removed, take it up with WP:TVS and get consensus. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 23:47, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't object on the basis of referencing; I object on the basis that it's simply not necessary. If a subject is notable enough to have an article in the project, a wikilink is sufficient. If not, it's questionable whether they should be mentioned at all, but if they are, there's no reason to then add a description of them. A reference is enough. This is how it works elsewhere on Wikipedia; I cannot fathom a reason that WP:TVS should make up its own rules that digress. Frank | talk 00:47, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Greetings! You added a comment to my talk page about lists of TV personalities in Wiki articles on TV stations. So you probably will be interested in the discussion that's been opened in [3]. Best Regards, Piano non troppo ( talk) 12:23, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Please have a look at this section Jackson, Mississippi#Crime, the last paragraph written by me and verify whether or not it is a copyvio. Thanks. - ALLST✰R▼ echo wuz here @ 15:10, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
So explain this edit summary by Moon for me. I have never in my 3+ years seen anyone say anything about "if you split an article, you must give credit or you are violating the GFDL". I've never even seen anyone reprimanded, notified, coached or anything else about such a "violation". I've never even seen the associated template, {{ Split-to}} before and only became aware of it by see her edit here. I'd be curious to know how many people are even aware that such a violation is possible and that said template exists. I've seen many an article split in my 3+ years here and have never seen anyone question a "violation of GFDL" in this manner nor have I ever seen the template used. I may be paranoid but this just seems like now nit-picking towards my every move.. so please help to understand this supposed kind of violation. I just seems to be that GFDL attribution is obvious in the edit history when an article is split. - ALLST✰R▼ echo wuz here @ 23:36, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
To conform with §4(I) of the GFDL, the new page should be created with an edit summary noting "split content from [[article name]]". (Do not omit this step or omit the page name.) A note should also be made in the edit summary of the source article, "split content to [[article name]]", to protect against the article subsequently being deleted and the history of the new page eradicated. It may also be helpful to place the {{ Splitfrom}} template on the talk page of the source article to further safeguard against deletion.
I don't think you should have deleted that page. I was in the middle of trying to add to it. I made no endorsements nor did I discredit. Being impartial is hardly grounds to claim advertisement. Many products have pages, as well they should. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkiker2089 ( talk • contribs) 18:57, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Rather than just deleting please help me with it then or at least flag it as a stub so others can. By deleting it you are destroying it's chances. Yes I'm new here, but I am trying to help. 75.181.83.111 ( talk) 20:04, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
I had told the user I was removing any further comments from him to my user talk page without comment. But as you replied to him in his last comment, I am just notifying you that I have removed your comment as well, because if I left it it'd be out of context.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙) 22:51, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Before you start lecturing me, do you think that perhaps Ryulong's comments and accusations towards me damaged the community and detered my involvement? The community's recent judgement on Ryulong conduct seems pretty clear and yet, with his track record, you still seem to default to lecturing me on my conduct. All I did was ask him whether he felt his comments towards me were fair and constructive. I didn't cast the first stone. It seems that his recent conduct has been appalling and has been dealt with as a serious matter. Frank Bruno's Laugh ( talk) 13:38, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Show me the diffs where you were attacked; I didn't see that. As for taking sides, you are quite correct; I am on the side of the community. It is plainly unacceptable anywhere on Wikipedia to attack another editor, and it is unacceptable to be disruptive. If you perceive that more than one editor pointing this out to you is the equivalent of "ganging up on you", that is your right, but it does not change the fact that certain behaviors are unacceptable and may result in a block. Frank | talk 14:41, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
I draw your attention to your comments on the ASE post I started....
Was it necessary to bring me into the conversation? I am not on any side of the fence. I want to ASE unblocked (he is) but I also want to see him working on the cleanup of the copyvios (he is). I don't see how that is a bad thing or my wanting to be a mentor to ASE if he or the community so choose. Maybe you could explain this to me. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 03:57, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
I didn't realize that I had to include explicitly why this company was notable. It is notable as it has invested in at least 3 companies and directly employs 8 people. It is the first Venture Capitalist company of its kind in Bloomington.-- Zdwiel ( talk) 22:03, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Frank, please stop taking sides, check out my talk page and you will see that Ryulong is continuing this, tell him to stop, don't let him abuse me without my right to respond. Frank Bruno's Laugh ( talk) 23:19, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm rubbish with templates. :) -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:32, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
About Cronkite, if it's a blog, I agree with you. However, the Chicago Sun Times reports
Legendary CBS anchorman Walter Cronkite, 92, long known as the "Most Trusted Man in America," is gravely ill, according to multiple CBS News sources and published reports.
I hope Cronkite gets over the hump and lasts many more years. Living to the late 90's is not unusual now. User F203 ( talk) 16:13, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
NEW YORK – CBS isn't commenting on reports that veteran newsman Walter Cronkite is gravely ill.
The 92-year-old former anchor of "The CBS Evening News," who has been ailing for some time, has reportedly taken a turn for the worse, according to TVNewser and other online sites.
The first part can be fairly included. The striken out parts is the blog parts. My idea would be just to put the non-striken parts. User F203 ( talk) 20:37, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
You must be a real Wikipedia old-timer because of your username, Frank. I kept trying user names that were already used until I gave up and chose a number. User F203 ( talk) 16:15, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
You are single handedly removing the blog reports of Cronkite taking a turn for the worse. This is a noble effort but could violate 3RR. To help you out, I've started a discussion on the talk page so that others who want to say he's dead can discuss it (they may not discuss it, though). User F203 ( talk) 20:30, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Since we're the only ones talking on the Walter Cronkite talk page, I'll remove the entire thread because we need a united front against the people who want to say he's dead. I hope this is ok with you. User F203 ( talk) 20:42, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
I had articles, I had information, I had everything. Why did you delete my article on Garneau?
(UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 10 |
You stated that my answers to questions 1-6 showed that I shouldn't be an admin. I assume you mean all of the answers. In question one, I state that I don't like blocking people nor do I like deleting pages. Are admin supposed to like these things? In question two, I state that I don't really like the idea of people showing off and claiming things as their own as if it is some kind of award. Are admin supposed to show off pages and articles as if they are awards? In question three, I state that I wont badger opposes in the RfA oppose section as what happens in many RfAs in the past and caused a lot of concern on the RfA talk page. Are admin supposed to badger opposers even if they have made it clear in places like this that it really doesn't matter what I say? In question four, I describe my involvement working with Jimbo over at Wikiversity during a ban of a user. Are admin not supposed to understand what goes into a ban let alone have involvement with those like Jimbo during such things? Question 5 is a small joke based on the constant throw away support saying "he won't delete the main page" and is marked as a joke. As being the only thing that is "silly" for April 1st, are admin not supposed to be so limiting in that way? Or just not have any sense of humor? In question six, I showed where I advocated for other users and performed actions like this. My standing up for Mattisse and being willing to recognize that they were a user who, although problematic in some regards, is not a horrible person and tried to work with them towards improvement. Even though many people, including many well known admin around here, praised my efforts, that is something that an admin shouldn't do? Other people have brought your statement to me out of concern. I would like to know the answer also. Ottava Rima ( talk) 21:10, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
You are attributing thoughts to me that I neither stated nor implied. You are welcome to disagree with me, and of course you're welcome to your own interpretations, but you are drawing inferences that I have not implied at all. I have no idea about what RfC you're referring to; nor is it important. I did not hunt around looking for evidence in writing my oppose; I found it right on the RfA page and said so. Frank | talk 21:59, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
It would probably help to check contributions before such a rant. In the meantime, if you ever have any problem with any of my actions - either as an editor or as an admin - please feel free to contact me. I remain committed to this project, whether you "stick around" to see it or not. Frank | talk 23:14, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Aitias/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Aitias/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, [[Sam Korn]] (smoddy) 22:10, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
My RFA passed today at 61/5/4. Thanks for participating in my RFA. I appreciate all the comments I received and will endeavor to justify the trust the WP community has placed in me. Have a nice day. :-) AdjustShift ( talk) 21:32, 11 April 2009 (UTC) |
On behalf of the Kindness campaign, I just wanted to wish my fellow Wikipedians a Happy Easter! Sincerely, -- A Nobody My talk 07:46, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Curse you, Frank! You stole my last-support position! Vengeance will be mine. – Quadell ( talk) 13:05, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on User:Samenus/Remy Corporation, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be blatant advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the guidelines on spam as well as Wikipedia:FAQ/Business for more information.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{
hangon}}
to the top of
the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on
the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact
one of these admins to request that they
userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you.
Alexius08 (
talk) 07:51, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Geekologie. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Computerjoe 's talk 21:13, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Agreeing with your consensus and that of the community that Square Enix Music Online is non-notable, can you please respond to the editor of that page having taken to spamming composer pages. The editor will not respond to mail. Please see the external links sections of the following for links to this non-notable fansite "Square Enix Music Online" - Yoko Shimomura, Hiroki Kikuta, Yoshitaka Hirota, Joanne Hogg, among others. Can someone please intervene? Jeriaska ( talk) 4 May 2009 (UTC)
I am using both User:Cody Cooper and User:Cody.feilding.nz because I wanted to use my real name, but the admin who changed it over said just create the new account, and refused to move my edits. That is why I have to accounts, feel free to delete or remove User:Cody.feilding.nz if you wish, as I am most activate on User:Cody Cooper.
Cody Cooper Talk 00:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
The name of the team was Black Hawks until 1986. We generally leave the article names to be the name of the team -at the time-. So the article stubs I've been creating prior to that time use Black Hawks, and Blackhawks after. Hope this helps. We also generally keep both names around, pointing to the same article, so I doubt there's any problems... Alaney2k ( talk) 01:28, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi! I assume you meant to delete under WP:CSD#G11? Since "flags" do not meet A7. decltype ( talk) 12:04, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry if I wasn't quick enough with references, but I didn't even have time to insert the "hangon" note before my article was deleted. I think it was a little harsh. I will try to prepare the references. RickH86 ( talk) 12:07, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
I saw you declined my request to speedy delete Chris Franck under the band criteria. I requested db-band as the article was on a musician of doubtful notability, instead of the more frequent use of db-band as applying to the musical group. I'm not too concerned, though -- under the snowball clause, I expect the article to be deleted soon enough if sources don't suddenly show up. -- A More Perfect Onion ( talk) 15:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
A More Perfect Onion (
talk) haz givn u
Cheezburgr! Cheezburgrs promot
WikiLovez and hoapfuly thiz one haz made yore day bettr. Spreadd teh WikiLovez by givin sumone else Cheezburgr, whethr it be sumeone youz hav had disagreementz with in teh past or a gud frend. Hapy munchins!
Spredd teh goudnesz of Cheezburgerz to all lolcat buddiez by addin {{ subst:Cheezburgr}} to their talk puj with friendly messuj to all.
A More Perfect Onion (
talk) has given you some mustard, for as a topping on ur cheezburgr! You see, these things somehow promote
WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else some mustard! Enjoy!
Spread the goodness of mustard by adding {{ subst: BlankWikiLove|border=dark-green|bg=gold|image=David holding mustard.JPG|article=some|item=mustard }} to their talk page with a friendly message.
i was wondering how to get a cool user page and sig if you could point me it would be greatly appreciated. that and is it to soon to request for rollback permission yet ? ~~0xRanDomx0~~ ( talk) 00:09, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
thanks man will do what about the rollback thing???
why did you delete my page was it too lite on content? Jetskiimike ( talk) 00:10, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Frank, Gaia Octavia Agrippa has smiled at you! Smiles promote
WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Gaia Octavia Agrippa
Talk |
Sign 20:21, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Smile at others by adding {{
subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Frank, your vote gives me the impression that you think I oppose the use of consensus. My viewpoint is simple: consensus can only be determined by the agreement of participants in a discussion; it cannot be determined by a single person who looks only at the strength of the arguments among those participants. One might as well as say that, if one believed Obama performed better than McCain in the presidential debates, that the consensus of the debate participants (Obama and McCain) was in favor of Obama's positions. I think that is a serious distortion of the meaning of consensus. Consensus is not about who has the better argument; it's about whether or not people agree. Everyking ( talk) 17:45, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi Frank, I would like to know your reason for deleting the Brothers of the Forum wikipage. Are you an authoritative figure in wikipedia or are you simply another user of it? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that is open to the public to either add or edit. I strongly disagree with your actions and I expect an apology. Brothers of the Forum is a team of individuals similar to Manchester United, the La Lakers or even Ac/Dc, and it is unfair to simply delete pages on wikipedia especially after a lot of effort has gone into creating the page.
This is disappointing As I mentioned earlier i expect an apology.
Thanks,
wikiebotf —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiebotf ( talk • contribs) 13:11, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Frank. I'm just curious as to why you reverted harej's edit to Frank Melton's talk page (diff can be found here: [1] ) without any explanation beyond a simple rollback. From what I've gleaned and been told in the past, rollbacks without further explanation are for blatant vandalism only; while I agree that harej's comment was uncalled for and in poor taste, I don't see how it's blatant vandalism. Nothing major, I was just curious. One ( talk) 16:21, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
I cited it and everything...what's the problem with that? 199.88.20.8 ( talk) 20:16, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi there,
Wondering why you just took the Christopher Falkenberg page down? You citing that it was too much of a promotion - but it is biographical information on a person who is an expert in the secruity field? there are many other articles with bios - and I am curious to why you pulled this one down?
Thanks. AGDonohoe ( talk) 21:18, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
With respect Frank...what about an article like this? http://www.businessweek.com/managing/content/apr2009/ca20090429_288478.htm and there are a number of media outlets such as CNN, CNBC and Fox that use him as a professional security source.
AGDonohoe ( talk) 14:44, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
can you please restore the page i was working on for grammy award winning record producer Mark Howard. i understand there was a paragraph that was copied from his myspace page but i am willing to delete it although i have full permission from him to use that. noone gave me a chance to put that in writing and it was deleted straight away. please restore my page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Charliedylan ( talk • contribs)
..the Jack Mancino page were similar designed as other contemporary art painter`s page..3 times was reduced and was always deleted by new reasons!...could you explain if the wikipedia has some strange reasoning policy applied for picked pages and the same policy wasn`t applied to others?....Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgeborg ( talk • contribs)
Hi Frank, most of your edits this morning at Fawcett's bio were great. I wanted to restore two things and thought it best to discuss it with you. First, I was wondering why you removed the details of the course of her German treatment in your final edit. I had referenced the documentary for these details. I had notes from the doc, including the spellings of the doctors' names. Obviously I made a spelling error with "profusion" instead of "perfusion". When I had clicked the link to "profusion", I realized it wasn't addressing the relevant point, but thought I'd research it today and/or hoped someone else would correct it, as they did.
I don't know if you saw the documentary, but a great deal of it involves her German doctors and their treatments, following her into treatment rooms and actually showing those treatments, from scans to the insertion of the laser needle through her ribcage and into her liver. It was harrowing stuff, but her inclusion of these details in her documentary make it both clear that she wanted people to know about this and also make it notable and citable.
She also makes a point of contrasting erroneous published reports with what was really going on. The other issue may seem minor by comparison, but Fawcett never refers to her own treatment as "holistic", this was press conjecture, and my recent edit noted it as such. We like to think we have the most modern treatments in the world and anything else must be some flower-child yoga, herbs or voodoo (read: stem cell treatment), but the point of that sentence was that although it was reported as "holistic" (note the article that links to), it was actually very high technology. Again, what the article stated was referenced in its use of terminology ("holistic", "aggressive") as well as supported by the precise course of treatment as described.
For both of these edits, my purpose is to present what Fawcett presented in her documentary, which came from the mouths of her doctors themselves. Abrazame ( talk) 19:17, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
FYI I've put this up at T:TDYK with you as the original author. And sorry for messing up some of your edits at one point, I was caught up in an edit conflict and had trouble resolving it without losing what I had done. Wasted Time R ( talk) 23:35, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your message. User:Mythdon did rather admonish me without substantiated rationale over my usage of 'rollback'; which I did not think was fair, particularly helpful or even handed. However, I have no wish to get involved in the ongoing arbitration process. Could I ask you to look at the recent Brian Hyland edits, based on my message to Mythdon ? Frankly, I do not know where else to turn - most of my Wiki buddies from the past three years, or so, seem to have hibernated, given up or died. Probably says more about me than anything !?! Any help is much appreciated. Regards,
Derek R Bullamore ( talk) 22:47, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Kudos. Very nice work. Thank you. Cheers, David in DC ( talk) 01:15, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for participating in my
"RecFA", which passed with a final tally of 153/39/22. There were issues raised regarding my adminship that I intend to cogitate upon, but I am grateful for the very many supportive comments I received and for the efforts of certain editors (
Ceoil,
Noroton and
Lar especially) in responding to some issues. I wish to note how humbled I was when I read
Buster7's support comment, although a fair majority gave me great pleasure. I would also note those whose opposes or neutral were based in process concerns and who otherwise commented kindly in regard to my record. ~~~~~ |
Hi Frank! I saw that you deleted an article I added about my company, Corrigon. You claim that this is promotional (unlike BayTSP or Attributor? ) What can I do better to make it less promotional and more informative? I don't see the problem. I also apologize if this is not the appropriate way to contact you - this is the only way I found. Please help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thitpx ( talk • contribs) 13:16, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Some external, independent citations:
http://www.tradingmarkets.com/.site/news/Stock%20News/1855044/
http://www.startupisrael.com/lab-one-incubator-invests-2m-corrigon
http://www.babylon.com/definition/Corrigon_Ltd._(PicMole)/
http://www.ivc-online.com/G_info.asp?objectType=1&fObjectID=9832
http://www.ivc-online.com/ivcWeeklyItem.asp?articleID=7559
http://www.globes.co.il/news/article.aspx?QUID=1056,U1229242278974&did=1000406688
http://www.globes.co.il/serveen/globes/DocView.asp?did=1000377412
http://www.takdin.co.il/searchgl/%D7%98%D7%91%D7%99%D7%A2%D7%AA%20%D7%90%D7%A6%D7%91%D7%A2%20%D7%9C%D7%AA%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%A0%D7%94:%20Corrigon%20%D7%9E%D7%A4%D7%AA%D7%97%D7%AA%20%D7%9E%D7%A0%D7%95%D7%A2%20%D7%97%D7%99%D7%A4%D7%95%D7%A9%20%D7%95%D7%99%D7%96%D7%95%D7%90%D7%9C%D7%99_h_hd_2L34sCpKsCLmnC30mD30sDZWuBcXqRMm0.html
http://www.incubators.org.il/30014.htm
Thitpx ( talk) 13:57, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Is there a way that I can reach to the content you deleted? I put quite an effort into to it and it looks like the history is also lost with the deletion. Thitpx ( talk) 07:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! Thitpx ( talk) 09:37, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
I wouldn't trust IMDb as it's user submitted. I've added a couple print sources, including another that verifies his birth name as Alvis Alan Owens. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ( Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 03:19, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
There's obviously no point in continuing this argument at Talk:Air France Flight 447. I am honestly frightened by the policy quotes you are making. Do you know that Queen Victoria or Abraham Lincoln are dead? I'm sure you've never seen any judicial proof of it! As if judicial proof was some sort of absolute proof – any decent philosopher will tell you that absolute proof is unattainable. The verifiable facts about AF447 are such that no reasonable person doubts that these people are dead. That information might change, but it is very unlikely. I might win the lottery on Friday, but it is very unlikely, and so I do not describe myself as "possible a millionaire". The Five Pillars of Wikipedia require us to write an encyclopedia which normal people will read, not just WP editors, and so to go with normal standards of proof/refutation of hypotheses (also found in WP:V, WP:SYNTH, WP:UNDUE and numerous other policies and guidelines). Please stop pretending that these people might reasonably be expected to be alive: it is indecent. Physchim62 (talk) 15:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Go ahead. Unprotection is always worth a shot! -- RegentsPark ( My narrowboat) 17:51, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
I am quite confused. I do not see any indication that you are an administrator; nor do I see that you were involved in protection of the page. I did, however, contact the admin who did protect the page before I unprotected it. As for the "re-protect", I made two different changes: one to allow all users to edit the page, and another to disallow anonymous users from moving it, which its own form of vandalism. Frank | talk 19:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
(outdent)I'm a tad astonished by the reaction! For the record, I did not assume that there was consensus to unprotect on the article talk page. I assumed that Frank wanted to see if unprotecting would work (i.e., the level of vandalism would be low) and was sure that he would monitor the article (as I would as well) to reinstate protection if necessary. In general, articles, including BLPs are not automatically semi-protected unless there is a long history of a 'vandalism/blp violation - protection - unprotection' cycle, which is not the case with this article. We value our IP editors and must make every reasonable attempt to allow them to edit. -- RegentsPark ( My narrowboat) 21:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Mifter ( talk) 23:40, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
My limited knowledge of Yiddish was acquired years after learning German. Due to the large number of cognates between those two languages, I tend to use German phonetic spellings. Most of the people who speak both Yiddish and English have minimal knowledge of German and approximate English pronunciations when writing Yiddish in the Roman alphabet, but German is a much more phonetic language and more closely related. So that's the reasoning behind the somewhat unusual spelling. Durova Charge! 01:22, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Let me know if I can be of assistance in editing (up to policy) the East Central Community College as I have done with the Southwest Mississippi Community College page. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 03:44, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
This may be of use in your current efforts. // roux 15:12, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
If you think it needs to be removed, take it up with WP:TVS and get consensus. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 23:47, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't object on the basis of referencing; I object on the basis that it's simply not necessary. If a subject is notable enough to have an article in the project, a wikilink is sufficient. If not, it's questionable whether they should be mentioned at all, but if they are, there's no reason to then add a description of them. A reference is enough. This is how it works elsewhere on Wikipedia; I cannot fathom a reason that WP:TVS should make up its own rules that digress. Frank | talk 00:47, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Greetings! You added a comment to my talk page about lists of TV personalities in Wiki articles on TV stations. So you probably will be interested in the discussion that's been opened in [3]. Best Regards, Piano non troppo ( talk) 12:23, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Please have a look at this section Jackson, Mississippi#Crime, the last paragraph written by me and verify whether or not it is a copyvio. Thanks. - ALLST✰R▼ echo wuz here @ 15:10, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
So explain this edit summary by Moon for me. I have never in my 3+ years seen anyone say anything about "if you split an article, you must give credit or you are violating the GFDL". I've never even seen anyone reprimanded, notified, coached or anything else about such a "violation". I've never even seen the associated template, {{ Split-to}} before and only became aware of it by see her edit here. I'd be curious to know how many people are even aware that such a violation is possible and that said template exists. I've seen many an article split in my 3+ years here and have never seen anyone question a "violation of GFDL" in this manner nor have I ever seen the template used. I may be paranoid but this just seems like now nit-picking towards my every move.. so please help to understand this supposed kind of violation. I just seems to be that GFDL attribution is obvious in the edit history when an article is split. - ALLST✰R▼ echo wuz here @ 23:36, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
To conform with §4(I) of the GFDL, the new page should be created with an edit summary noting "split content from [[article name]]". (Do not omit this step or omit the page name.) A note should also be made in the edit summary of the source article, "split content to [[article name]]", to protect against the article subsequently being deleted and the history of the new page eradicated. It may also be helpful to place the {{ Splitfrom}} template on the talk page of the source article to further safeguard against deletion.
I don't think you should have deleted that page. I was in the middle of trying to add to it. I made no endorsements nor did I discredit. Being impartial is hardly grounds to claim advertisement. Many products have pages, as well they should. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkiker2089 ( talk • contribs) 18:57, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Rather than just deleting please help me with it then or at least flag it as a stub so others can. By deleting it you are destroying it's chances. Yes I'm new here, but I am trying to help. 75.181.83.111 ( talk) 20:04, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
I had told the user I was removing any further comments from him to my user talk page without comment. But as you replied to him in his last comment, I am just notifying you that I have removed your comment as well, because if I left it it'd be out of context.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙) 22:51, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Before you start lecturing me, do you think that perhaps Ryulong's comments and accusations towards me damaged the community and detered my involvement? The community's recent judgement on Ryulong conduct seems pretty clear and yet, with his track record, you still seem to default to lecturing me on my conduct. All I did was ask him whether he felt his comments towards me were fair and constructive. I didn't cast the first stone. It seems that his recent conduct has been appalling and has been dealt with as a serious matter. Frank Bruno's Laugh ( talk) 13:38, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Show me the diffs where you were attacked; I didn't see that. As for taking sides, you are quite correct; I am on the side of the community. It is plainly unacceptable anywhere on Wikipedia to attack another editor, and it is unacceptable to be disruptive. If you perceive that more than one editor pointing this out to you is the equivalent of "ganging up on you", that is your right, but it does not change the fact that certain behaviors are unacceptable and may result in a block. Frank | talk 14:41, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
I draw your attention to your comments on the ASE post I started....
Was it necessary to bring me into the conversation? I am not on any side of the fence. I want to ASE unblocked (he is) but I also want to see him working on the cleanup of the copyvios (he is). I don't see how that is a bad thing or my wanting to be a mentor to ASE if he or the community so choose. Maybe you could explain this to me. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 03:57, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
I didn't realize that I had to include explicitly why this company was notable. It is notable as it has invested in at least 3 companies and directly employs 8 people. It is the first Venture Capitalist company of its kind in Bloomington.-- Zdwiel ( talk) 22:03, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Frank, please stop taking sides, check out my talk page and you will see that Ryulong is continuing this, tell him to stop, don't let him abuse me without my right to respond. Frank Bruno's Laugh ( talk) 23:19, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm rubbish with templates. :) -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:32, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
About Cronkite, if it's a blog, I agree with you. However, the Chicago Sun Times reports
Legendary CBS anchorman Walter Cronkite, 92, long known as the "Most Trusted Man in America," is gravely ill, according to multiple CBS News sources and published reports.
I hope Cronkite gets over the hump and lasts many more years. Living to the late 90's is not unusual now. User F203 ( talk) 16:13, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
NEW YORK – CBS isn't commenting on reports that veteran newsman Walter Cronkite is gravely ill.
The 92-year-old former anchor of "The CBS Evening News," who has been ailing for some time, has reportedly taken a turn for the worse, according to TVNewser and other online sites.
The first part can be fairly included. The striken out parts is the blog parts. My idea would be just to put the non-striken parts. User F203 ( talk) 20:37, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
You must be a real Wikipedia old-timer because of your username, Frank. I kept trying user names that were already used until I gave up and chose a number. User F203 ( talk) 16:15, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
You are single handedly removing the blog reports of Cronkite taking a turn for the worse. This is a noble effort but could violate 3RR. To help you out, I've started a discussion on the talk page so that others who want to say he's dead can discuss it (they may not discuss it, though). User F203 ( talk) 20:30, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Since we're the only ones talking on the Walter Cronkite talk page, I'll remove the entire thread because we need a united front against the people who want to say he's dead. I hope this is ok with you. User F203 ( talk) 20:42, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
I had articles, I had information, I had everything. Why did you delete my article on Garneau?
(UTC)