User talk:Abe.Froman

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Welcome!

Hello, Abe.Froman, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  Cheers, TewfikTalk 23:51, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] 3RR

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. --tomf688 (talk - email) 10:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

The reverts removed duplicate information contained in the article. Tom Leykis outing the accuser was listed, twice. See the diff for yourself [1]. I do not think this would fall under the 3RR rule, but I'd be happy to ask other admins to check your allegation. Abe Froman 12:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

You have violated the 3RR again. Please refrain from violating this rule. Mutant Zero 21:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Reverting vandalism does not fall under 3RR. Review the article if you need pointers. Abe Froman 21:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I think you have a great misunderstanding about the definition of a U.S. Military Veteran. Would you be interested in knowing the qualifications one has to meet in order to be called a U.S. Military Veteran? I assure you, you will not find the answers in Websters dictionary. The United States Government has a list of about 50 qualifiers that you have to meet in order to be called a Veteran. Depending on when you served, you may not be eligable for Veteran status if you did not serve in combat. You may not be eligable if you received a general discharge instead of an honorable discharge. Due to a paperwork error, a buddy of mine received a general discharge instead of the honorable discharge he deserved. It took a couple years to get it straightened out, and during that time he couldn't claim any Veteran benefits, healthcare, education, etc. It is a badge of honor to be called a Veteran, and it takes much more than service to qualify. I invite you to go to your nearest VA and talk to people there about what it means to be a Veteran of this nation. I think you will be very surprised to hear just what it takes. Mutant Zero 22:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
The US military does not edit the english language. A veteran, out of www.dictionary.com, is someone who has served in the armed forces. Since none of us are trying to determine Mangum's benefits in her Wikipedia article, I'll fly with the dictionary. Thanks for your concern. Abe Froman 23:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Alright. I've attempted to have a civil discussion with you, but now I'm done. The U.S. Government disagrees with Mr. Webster on this subject, and I welcome you to bring your copy of Websters into a court of law and try to correct a Judge with it. Just remember this, the next time you're spitting in the face of the men and women who served this country with honor. Men and women, my good friends, and my uncle all died to protect your freedom and your rights. And if you can't respect them, then maybe you should show a little respect for the mothers and fathers who lost their children so that you could have your freedom.
This discussion is over.
How does Mangum conflict with the english definition of 'veteran', someone who has served in the armed forces? It's proven she served. I would hope Wikipedia users would respect that service, but apparently proof of service isn't enough for some critics of our vets. Abe Froman 23:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

As a generic term, a "veteran" is simply someone who once served in an armed force. As a term of art, as used by the Veteran's Administration, there are about 50 different ways a person could quality, some quite surprising, and a number of ways a veteran could be excluded from the status of a "veteran" potentially eligible for the services of the VA. Fred Bauder 19:58, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] You have been blocked for 12 hours

For violating the 3 revert rule. Please do not label legitimate edits as "vandalism". Mutant has been blocked as well for the same length of time. --Woohookitty(meow) 10:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Wal-Mart

I've added a new discussion, Talk:Wal-Mart#The road to featured article status that I should probably bring to your attention because I'd hate to post something like this right after you did. I have also been observing this "cowboy crusade"; some of these edits I like, but a lot of these I do not, primarily because of their lack of communication to other editors before making such major edits. The current article has serious flaws in it. The goal of my discussion is to restore consensus on the development of this article so we all know what the hell needs to be done. Before you ask, I do not work for Wal-Mart and may God forbid that I ever will. Regards, Tuxide 20:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Wal-Mart

First of all, I did not remove content from the article. I moved the 'employee and labor relations' material to the Criticism of Wal-Mart article, from its original location under 'business model'. It doesn't seem to fit there. I am not vandalising the article and do not appreciate any accusations that you and others seem to make that I am vandalising the article. I DO NOT work for Wal-Mart, nor any of its subsidiaries, and don't own stock in the company. I DO NOT appreciate accusations that I am whitewashing the article. I believe the article should be a NEUTRAL account of what Wal-Mart is, not a bunch of over-glorified PR promoting the company, nor a bunch of negative slander on everything evil that Wal-Mart has done. Dr. Cash 22:09, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] References

Hi, Abe. If you're going to add references to the Perverted-Justice.com article, could I ask you to please follow the established format (using <ref> tags)? Thanks! Powers T 19:48, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Seabhcan

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Seabhcan. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Seabhcan/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Seabhcan/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Cowman109Talk 23:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] USS Jimmy Carter

Hi. You added,

The MMP may also be used as an underwater splicing chamber for tapping of undersea fiber optic cables. This role was formerly filled by the decommissioned USS Halibut.

to USS Jimmy Carter (SSN-23). But USS Halibut (SSGN-587) says that ship "was mothballed to Key Port/Bangor, WA in 1976" — rather a long time ago. Perhaps you meant to refer to USS Parche (SSN-683)?
—wwoods 00:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] RfA Request

I would like to call your attention to this page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Seabhcan/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_User:Seabhcan

There is much contention about this case. I consider you to be a balanced and respectful editor whose opinions on this matter would be meaningful. Stone put to sky 17:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sandinista Page

There has been a very interesting development on the "Sandinista / FSLN" page; i don't know if you've been by there recently, but for my part i'd like your input.

Check the bottom of the page, where we're discussing a rather major revision of the page and how to go about it. Ciao Stone put to sky 13:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sept 11 article

You left some comments which I replied to. I am not sure if you looked up the sources but the articles provided are titled "Possible Longboat terrorist incident" and "Two hijackers on Longboat?" which is a little more then the newspaper stating just that "middle eastern men" were in longboat. --NuclearZer0 18:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC)"

[edit] Sandanista/Etc Mediation

Hi, I'm C.lettinga, the "cabal mediator" here to take a look at your case. If you could fill me in a bit on what's happened since your request I can see how to move forward.--C.lettinga 07:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/b/e/User_talk%7EAbe.Froman_5e40.html"