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)

Hello, status quo since the last Mediation comment by the involved parties. The issue seems to have died down since the last edit concerning Mitrokhin. A mediator blessing the existing edited arrangement would finish the problem, I think. Thanks for looking into this. Abe Froman 12:36, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Indef Block of User:XP

What was your rationale for determining User:XP to be a sockpuppet of User:Rootology? User:XP had a multi-month long edit history [2], and denied being User:Rootology when asked. [3] Abe Froman 18:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

The identity was determined through a combination of technical and other means. Any administrators who would like to know more can contact me. The history of the user in question requires certain protections be taken, but the identity is not in doubt, and this is not a theory. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 18:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I am concerned a legitimate user with a divergent opinion [4] from the majority of admins commenting on the Request for Arbitration in question has been blocked. No rationale for why this user was determined to be a User:Rootology has yet been given. How were these two users determined to be the same? Given that User:XP was expressing opinions anathema to dozens of Admins following the Request for Arbitration [5], I hope you understand why I am concerned an Admin simply silenced him. Abe Froman 18:53, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I appreciate your concern and I support your inquiry. Indefinite blocks should not be casually used, and the integrity of Wikipedia admins must paramount. Please note that I was not involved in the discussion you mention and am a neutral party. The evidence used to make the decision, furthermore, was unambiguous. I would rather a hundred vandalsocks go unblocked than ban a single innocent user, so the quality of evidence in this had to, by definition, be neutronium (as a measure of solid). - CHAIRBOY (☎) 19:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi Abe! Just wanted to let you know that Thatcher131 has completed his analysis of the evidence and posted on the WP:AN thread. If there's anything else I can do for you, let me know! Best regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 02:11, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Thatcher131 reviewed the data and I am satisfied with his review. Thanks for being open to it. Abe Froman 00:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
My pleasure, and thank you for keeping an eye out for fellow editors. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 01:05, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] XP

Here is the full message on the ANI, I decided not to post it all there:

Abe, I trust Thatcher131, although we have different views about a lot of things, I respect his integrity and I am impressed how he has helped me several times before.
I honestly don't know all the sorid details about why rootology was desyoped, and I probably never will. All I know is that 6 people who were elected by wide margins to be arbcoms because of their history of being impartial, fair, and great editors, decided to desop him. Other things about the MONGO arbcom trouble me a little, but not this decision. rootology's behavior right before he was desoped was stupid and suicidal. It is hard to justify that. I think if Rootology wants to come back to wikipedia, he can apply to come back, because only he knows the reason why he was desyoped, better than me and you Abe. I believe in second chances, being a product of many second chances myself, but I also support the 99% of wikipedia rules, and think they are here for good solid reasons.
I have got to change my strategy in attempting to help people like rootology. Some wikiusers I have stopped from going over the brink, and they are still editing here on wikipedia, but several, like rootology, have started sockpuppet attacks, etc. This makes me look really bad for trying to help them. If you have any suggestions on how to approach this, I would welcome your advice. Travb (talk) 03:37, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Carl Levin

He's the article's featured person; how is it not relevant? Professor London 18:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Pointing out Levin's hairstyle in a pejorative manner has no place on Wikipedia. The picture on the comb over article may change at any time, leaving your unfortunate edit senseless as well. Abe Froman 19:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

It's not a pejorative, it's a fact! Go to the Carl Levin discussion page. Professor London 20:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks is now on RfA

See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration for more details and add your tuppence to the debate... — Rickyrab | Talk 18:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Yep! can't be everywhere though! I haven't have a chance yet to read much about the controversy in the UK regarding the Commission over there, but one thing is sure, is that, beside the controversy around the archives themselves, Scaramella, Guzzanti & al. have lost all credit in Italy. Not that any reasonable person would really believe that a former President of the European Commission, and liberal-minded at that, was "the KGB's man in italy"... Tazmaniacs 23:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/b/e/User_talk%7EAbe.Froman_5e40.html"