User talk:Frmatt/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Frmatt. 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.

Can you please allow me to edit the article on anthrax toxin. It will take me several days to shape it up and improve it. First of all, I personally study the toxin. The authors I think only wrote a report on the thing. I also will provide images etc. Anyway as an aside, isnt this wikipedia. Why are you censoring me?

98.248.173.180 (talk) 05:33, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

A late review is better than no review. Thank you very much for your kind words. I can't say I've seen you around, but I appreciate your notice. Thank, and happy editing. Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 05:59, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I have 4 granted rollback rights to your account; the reason for this is that after a review of some of your contributions, I believe I can trust you to use rollback correctly by using it for its intended usage of reverting vandalism, and that you will not abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback and Wikipedia:Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Good luck and thanks. decltype (talk) 06:41, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi! I've removed your A7 speedy deletion tag from the Dragan Antic article. The article says that the subject has been awarded with 3 gold records, which is a claim of importance/significance (see WP:MUSICBIO), and as such the article is not applicable for speedy deletion under A7. You may want to try prod or AfD instead. Regards, Jafeluv (talk) 09:34, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Frmatt. You have new messages at Seb az86556's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hey there! Thanks for the heads up and kind words. I'm going to avoid doing anything more than commenting on the sockpuppetry case, as I'm already fairly intertwined with this as it is; I'm afraid I'll be accused of bias, or my opinion discounted due to my involvement in this. Thanks again for letting me know! Cheers, Master of Puppets - _{Call me MoP! :D} 08:37, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi, just reviewed you. Good luck in the future on Wikipedia, I hope our paths cross at some point! GainLine ♠ _♥ 14:29, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Frmatt. You have new messages at GainLine's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Twinkle didn't realise that it had been deleted in between. So it recreated the page when tagging it. To clarify: you loaded the page, it was deleted, you tagged it. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 14:47, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Gotcha, Thanks! Frmatt (talk) 14:50, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

You applied a speedy deletion tag to the newly created article Muhammad Jafar Jamal al-Kahtani.

The man was accused of being a senior al Qaeda operative. He was believed to have planned a daring escape from a high security prison, under circumstances that have triggered suspicion of a cover-up. You applied an A7 -- no assertion of notability. I find it hard to understand how you could have been serious in applying this particular tag.

I am going to remind you that the deletion policies recommend that quality control volunteers do not nominate articles within a single minute of their creation, as you did in this particular case. Geo Swan (talk) 03:56, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

acting purely as an editor, not an admin, I removed the speedy, as any editor can do--this seems to have a reasonable possibility of surviving, unlike some of the other articles here. Considering the previous disputes over them, it would seem appropriate to first give them a chance, and then if you still do not think notable, use AfD, not speedy. DGG ( talk ) 04:04, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

You are both right, and have my sincere apologies. That being said, I still don't believe that this person meets notability standards, but will leave it alone and if someone else decides to nominate it , that's up to them. Frmatt (talk) 18:08, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I am not in an edit war. There is an individual who keeps creating sockpuppets to vandalize the article. Here are the sockpuppets. Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Philbox17. This is the latest sockpuppet User:Québécois1837. This is the version of the article that is the consensus. Thank you 76.64.152.111 (talk) 09:50, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I notice that the User:Québécois1837 account has been blocked as a sockpuppet, which is good. This person is an Réseau de Résistance du Québécois (RRQ) member. These people are hardcore Quebec separatists with a similar mentality to Scientology or Al-Qaeda, meaning that the RRQ is their religion, i.e., they are not going to stop editing the article even if we keep blocking sockpuppets on a daily basis. Would you be willing to take over policing the article for me? I would like to move on and do other things! In addition, I would appreciate you removing your comment from my talk page that states I am edit warring, I was never involved in that. I look forward to receiving feedback from you on how best to handle a situation like this. Here is one tactic we can use and I believe it is the only one that will work article 1 and article 2. Thank you. 76.64.152.111 (talk) 20:06, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

the identical note was left for me. you might want to see my response. DGG ( talk ) 22:11, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 19:40, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

The template goes on top of the header. I fixed it for you. Bearian (talk) 20:04, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the fix...it was my first non-admin closure (heck, my first closure at all!) so appreciate the fix! Frmatt (talk) 23:55, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Frmatt. You have new messages at Atama's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

This version is better and neutral, can you tell me what is wrong with it. HabsMtl41 (talk) 01:02, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

On March 17, 2008, the RRQ protested the St. Patrick’s Day parade in Montreal claiming it was too English. Members of the RRQ waved Quebec, Patriote and Irish flags. Also the RRQ distributed leaflets commemorating links between Irish and Quebecers, including the involvement of Irish immigrants in the Patriote movement of 1837 in Lower Canada, as Quebec was known at the time. However, both the Mouvement Québec français and the Saint-Jean-Baptiste Society of Montreal distanced themselves from the RRQ's protest.

http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/story.html?k=19784&id=9563d5b5-456d-40cc-b97a-90e3c58bf3fd

http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news/story.html?k=19816&id=7ffd5a94-5a07-45c8-97ba-5eee95b8597e

I ask you to protect it if you can and make sure it stay neutral, thank you. HabsMtl41 (talk) 01:04, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

At this point, I am not interested in talking about this article with you. Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Philbox17. If this investigation finds that you are not a sockpuppet of Philbox17, then I will be happy to talk about changes, but at this point, I'm not interested in having this conversation with you. Frmatt (talk) 05:07, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

My information have references and is neutral. I ask you to protect it, thank you. HabsMtl41 (talk) 01:14, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Would you move the article back to Potomac Falls High School? As an IP, I can't. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 06:02, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, should be back to normal now! And you should get an account...it'll make your life a lot easier! Frmatt (talk) 06:07, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks (and no thanks) ;) 98.248.33.198 (talk) 06:14, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I saw the explanation on your talk page...very mysterious! Frmatt (talk) 06:15, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I took a look at this editors contributions, he/she is editing the RRQ article and related articles heavily. I suspect this person is either another sockpuppet or an RRQ member that lacks a NPOV. I will need help to deal with this editor to avoid 3RR. Thank you. 76.64.152.111 (talk) 14:13, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

No problem. The only reason I didn't delete the first article straightaway is that I wanted to give the editor a chance to provide sources. The deluge of articles tells me there aren't any, or he'd have beefed up the first one. Hence, I've deleted all 11 and closed the AfD on Season 5.

I could probably block the user as a spam account, given that the string "Uor" appears in his username. However, I think that would be too bite-y. So, I'll see what he does now that the articles have been deleted. —C.Fred (talk) 16:25, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Could you please advise what is needed next. I have entered lots of references. We are currently very busy but I will check each day for your comments. I did give you my email address so if you wish that for me would be easier. Thank you. ilonao51 —Preceding undated comment added 05:51, 29 September 2009 (UTC).

You're welcome, but it appears the one needing the real thanks would be Gavia immer who figured it out and fixed it so quick. I'm just like you; I don't know much about templates :) . . . .

Peace and Passion ☮  ("I'm listening....") 03:12, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

PS Sleep is good after that much work! Wikipedia and its quibbles after that could make you really go psychotic.....

Hello Frmatt, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I contested the speedy deletion of Vato Loco Boys - a page you tagged - because: Importance indicated by the claim of being the "Biggest Hispanic Gang in Wichita". PROD or AFD instead. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. Tim Song (talk) 07:27, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry - think I screwed up in the middle of an edit conflict! Black Kite 21:04, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

• Already done. Black Kite 21:06, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

That was very noble of you, and I thank you. I know you mean well and did not take it offensively. I dont care either way if said editor is blocked, I do want the offensive material he/she puts in removed and someone to keep an eye on him, apparently the other article recently mentioned is also by the same editor. There seems to be a pattern of this editor being interested in starting articles about Jews, and not in a good way. Perhaps an admin should look into his history of contributions and find out if there has been anything by this editor on legit Jewish-related articles along the lines of vandalism or disruption. A block is of course a last resort, but careful watching definitely needed along with some research as to whether its been a long-time coming for a block on him.Camelbinky (talk) 21:23, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I know that you made your comment in good faith, and I regret it if anything I wrote gave you or anyone the impression that I think otherwise. To me, the difference between anti-Semitism and a personal attack is that anti-Semitism (like other forms of racism, sexism, and homophobia) is an attack against a group, a collection of persons rather than one person. But it is still an act or set of acts. I'd never claim to be able to judge the character of another Wikipedian, only question his or her acts. Anyway, I appreciate your commenting on my talk page but it was unnecessary. If you think anything I wrote at AN/I misleads people as to how I received your comment as being made in good faith and with good will, let me know what to modify. Best, Slrubenstein | Talk 21:34, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I think your proposal is clearly made in good faith, but I think ill-advised (we should respect the AfD process for what it is, unerstanding that the deletion of an article - which by the way is by no means certain - does not stop an editor from editing, even on the same topic. Let's see how the AfD plays out and then we will be able to discuss more productively what compromises will satisfy everyone involved as improvements. To honor your gesture I have suggested a few ideas of my own but really, it is moot until the RfD is over. Slrubenstein | Talk 01:41, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Since it has been well over 30 days since you requested to be reviewed, I've gone ahead and archived your request as part of my effort to cleanup Editor Review. You may view your review here. Thanks & happy editing. If you have any questions, please message me on my talk page. =D Netalarmtalk 00:43, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I have blocked Chao19 (talk · contribs) for disruption. However, I am also concerned that you were reverting his edits as vandalism.[1] See What vandalism is not. Chao19's edits appear to have been content changes, and not vandalism. In the future, it would be better to work through Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, rather than being so quick to revert. --Elonka 04:21, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

My apologies, I thought I had made it clear in the edit summary that the first was not a revert, it was a removal of unsourced material. When that was reverted, I thought at that point it was vandalism as I had clearly stated my reasons for removing the information, and again made the request for WP:RS when I reverted the user again. Just so I am clear, repeated insertion of unsourced (and apparently unsourceable as there were no Ghits at all for any of the information I removed) information doesn't actually qualify as vandalism? Frmatt (talk) 04:28, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Correct. The term "vandallism" is only used on Wikipedia to refer to blatant situations, like blanking a page, or replacing an article's content with a picture of someone's genitalia. For other inappropriate edits, it should be dealt with differently. For example, if someone is adding unsourced information, then it can be reverted as "removing unsourced information, per WP:V". Or if you think it's possible that the information might be sourceable, then tag it with {{cn}}. --Elonka 04:38, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thank you for the clarification...I'll admit to being a little put out as I'm not usually on the receiving end of admonishments...but I understand the concern here. I'll be more cautious in the future. Frmatt (talk) 04:41, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

And when the editor in question has a long history of blatently adding unsourced material, removing {{fact}} and {{refimprove}} tags, and harassment and incivility? When the user has made the statement on several occasions that he does not care about policy? When the user (after his last block) was warned against continuing the harassment, and told to leave me alone? I hope you are ready and willing to re-block a day or two after this current one expires, because I can guarantee that Chao19 will not change his editing habits... - Adolphus79 (talk) 04:44, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Frmatt, nah, don't look at it as an admonishment, look at it as "friendly advice", or like I said at ANI, "counseling". If I were warning you, you'd know, trust me.  :) --Elonka 05:02, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for maintaining your civility on ANI. I understand your frustration and I hope that you understand that my comments were more for others benefit than yours. You strike me as one hell of a dedicated editor. I hope you have a wonderful day out tomorrow/today now. If you need an ear to bend feel free to drop by and chat me up.. I'm just a rambling stoner and not much of an editor but I really hate to see discord and am always willing to help!! Cheers!! - 4twenty42o (talk) 07:23, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Frmatt, you accused me of vandalism after edits that I made to the UTC-2 and UTC-3 and reverted the edits that I made. The one who is vandalizing is you by placing things that are false. Argentina no longer observes DST, and I am changing those pages to reflect that. Please do not revert my edits with falsehoods such as saying that Argentina observes DST. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.199.153.220 (talk) 02:58, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Frmatt, on the Rollback authorization page, I placed a request that your account be blocked from making Rollbacks for reasons that I stated there. I recognize that you are not the only editor that quickly dismisses anonymous edits as vandalism without analyzing the edit. However, this attitude creates a hostile environment for anonymous editors. In my opinion, editors that are too quick to revert anonymous edits must be stopped on an editor-by-editor basis whenever they are found. In addition, I also removed your "Assumes Good Faith" and "0 Edit War" tags from your page as I do not feel that they apply in light of these observations.68.199.153.220 (talk) 18:42, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

FYI [2] Slrubenstein | Talk 18:44, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

You are welcome - it seemed to me that as the originator of the vote, you deserved to know, regardless of your actual vote. For what it is worth, I voted to delete because I thought the article, conceived as an article, served only as a vehicle for promoting anti-Semitism. I did not think that adding "positive" views of Jews was any solution, because

• I think any such generalization about a race, whether positive or negative, reeks of some kind of racism
• doing so suggests that thinking well or ill of "Jews" are just two different points of view. Anti-Semitism is not a view, it is a form of assault.
• it is a no-win situation - to respond to anti-Semitism (e.g. by talking about the good things "those Jews" have done) is to dignify anti-Semitism. Anyone reading a seemingly balanced article with anti-Semitic comment and pro-Jewish comment, or even a defense, are still going to leave the article thinking that there is something wrong with Jews.

This is why I could not bring myself to vote for a merger. Yet my own view is close to "merger." The anti-Semitic material belongs in the article on anti-Semitism, where the encyclopedic thing to do would not be to add positive things about Jews, but to analyze this as a particular form of anti-Semitism, especially by adding whatever research scholars have done. Factual material - positive or negative - about individual Jews belongs in the article on Jews in America/Jewish-merican history, where the encyclopedic thing to do would be to analyze the forces that led many Jews (not "the Jews") into different parts of the entertainment industry. Finally, the material on racist stereotypes of African Americans belongs in an article on racism or specifically racism against African Americans. In that context, Farrakan's claim that these stereotypes are crimes of "the Jews" would simply have no place, as it is a fringe view (perhaps this is one of the things that really disturbed me about the article in question - it created a context where Farrakan's views are not "fringe." The only article, in my opinion, where Farrakan's views on the Jews should be included rather than removed as fringe is an article on anti-Semitism). The encyclopedia thing to do would be to examine these stereotypes in their cultural context. (I even refered to a book published by a U. Va. professor that suggests a link between Jews and minstrelsy, a suggestion that was ignored by Neolander and Equazcion because it was part of a larger recommendation to distribute material into other articles on the basis of academic research ... and thus a recommendation to delete the article.)

I hope you do not mind my writing at such length. I am not trying to change your mind about anything. But it is evident that (1) you care about this topic and (2) you have a thoughtful and open-minded attitude. So you seem like someone worth having a conversation with. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:51, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I am confused about the current status of Controversies related to prevalence of Jews in leadership roles in Hollywood - is it still deleted, but the deletion still under review? Or is it still deleted, and the review is over (as most people endorsed the delteion)? Ot has it been un-deleted, and merged with Anti-semitic canard? I consider the third possiblity plausible, although I personally have several caveats about a merger (which I explain above, and would still welcome your own thoughts on). More importantly, I did not see a consensus for a merger. Even more importantly I do not see any declaration that the review process is over, but maybe I misses something. Can you enlighten me? Slrubenstein | Talk 11:09, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I just replied. I'm sorry I couldn't get to it sooner, but I was busy with real-life stuff, and didn't realize you were planning to comment tonight. I hope it helps nonetheless. Equazcion (talk) 04:06, 27 Oct 2009 (UTC)

I read it, and thank you for your input and wisdom. I wasn't planning on responding tonight, but felt that it was an appropriate time. I've publicly said my piece and I'll let the chips fall where they may! Frmatt (talk) 04:15, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Brave comments at the deletion review. Coffee has dug his heels in and won't discuss the substance of the debate beyond sniping at my comments. As the close is being mostly endorsed, it seems that AfD is actually a vote and doesn't need to rely on policy. Majority preference decides. Fences&Windows 00:12, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi - thank you for offering to make the changes. The Request for Comment expires on November 1st, and I just wanted to follow up before it will be removed. Thanks again, Derri (talk) 18:36, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] RfC: Can Manulife’s Board be updated A user has requested comment from other editors for this discussion. Within 30 minutes, this page will be added to the Economy, trade, and companies list. When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. This tag will automatically be removed after 30 days. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Can Manulife’s Board be updated? Please replace Dominic D’Alessandro with Donald A. Guloien. Please add new board member Linda B. Bammann. Background: Dominic D’Alessandro retired effective May 7, 2009 as Manulife’s President and CEO and is no longer a member of the Board. As Manulife’s new President and CEO, Donald A. Guloien became a member of the Board. New Board member Linda Bammann has been appointed to Manulife’s Boards of Directors effective August 5, 2009. Disclosure: I work in Corporate Communications at Manulife Financial. [Iris Oberlaender, October 1, 2009]Derri (talk) 13:12, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

This appears to be accurate information and can be sourced here [8]. I have no problem making the changes. Frmatt (talk) 03:01, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Your opinion counts as much as anybody's, admins are just editors with a few extra software features. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Well said. I hope it makes sense to him too. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:25, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

On ANI you stated: "Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean that they are attacking you personally. Listen to their points of disagreement and find some neutral compromise that is acceptable to both of you. WP is not about having an article be your way or not at all, and yet you seem to not only see that in yourself, but in everyone else." Please see:

• Samuel Johnson and Samuel Johnson's early life - I do not agree with Malleus and we've had serious disagreements in the past. We were able to compromise enough (especially with me accepting his grammar style which sometimes gets on my nerves) to get both to FA.
• Nicolo Giraud - user Haiduc has accused me of homophobia and we had disputing before, but we were able to work together to get the page to FA.
• The Lucy poems - user Ceoil and I do not see eye to eye on a lot of issues and I've had some major fights with many of his friends, yet we were able to get the page to FA.

I can cite many others if you would like. Here is a list of DYK where you can see the groups of people I have worked with towards getting these sets put together. I have also dealt with other pages not at DYK or FA that involved serious compromises, such as Rosalind Picard‎, where multiple users were banned over the fighting. I was able to bridge the gap, fix the disputes in the page, and bring together a compromise with many different views. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:38, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

You commented at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive editing by User:Neuromancer, a thread which has now led to proposals that the user in question be topic banned or site banned, or that review of the issue be put aside while Neuromancer seeks a mentor. Your further input to that discussion would be welcome. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:10, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

No problem, and thanks for the apology. I saw the post and then didn't see it, tried purging the cache before looking at history. Blame it on your computer, that's what I do when I do such things.John Z (talk) 01:25, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I am an a wiki-break from regular editing due to a new job which requires 6 months of intensive training. Between January 2010 and June 2010 my editing will be sporadic, though I will try to check in a couple times a week for messages, etc. Please feel free to e-mail/leave a note on my talk page if you want to chat! Frmatt (talk) 04:25, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Whack!

You have been trouted for: Being such an incredible boyfriend! I love you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.26.201.136 (talk) 19:40, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm back!! Not that anyone seems to have missed me! Frmatt (talk) 01:34, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

The real COI happened with the website link at the bottom; it was changed from a deadlink to a 3rd-party booking website. I tidied the article and found what I think is the official website. Studerby (talk) 20:47, 21 March 2012 (UTC)