User talk:TedFrank

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

If you are here because of a left-wing blog's comments section, please see the Wikipedia administrators' noticeboard discussion of the issue here and here.

Contents

[edit] Tort Reform

Thank you for the POV tag. I did this when I was very tired, and I edited too much too quickly. I reverted back, so authors can make piecemeal changes. I left the sentence on the definition of frivolous lawsuit, because the previous edit was extremely POV. Please discuss in talk what else a frivolous lawsuit could possibly be. The previous author inserted a paragraph for what should be as sentence. The previous edit was extremely POV.

Also, I left the new introduction. As previous talk page authors point out, the very term 'tort reform' is controversial and political.MollyBloom 15:08, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Class Actions

You removed a reference to a link to a step-by-step guide to class actions from the perspective of a plaintiff's attorney. Apparently you removed the link because you felt it was simply a venue for advertising. That is not so. I added the link specifically because there is currently a link to a "layman's" guide to class actions, which I believe is both slanted and inaccurate. That link also contains advertising. My personal view is that it better to simply give people the benefit of both sides of the issue rather than relying too heavily on deleting information. Nevertheless, I am new to Wikipedia and do not understand all of the etiquette. I am not even sure this is the right place to voice my opinion (if not, please accept my apologies). I'm interested in hearing your thoughts. --unsigned comment left by Special:Contributions/66.146.194.179

Both links should be out as inappropriate. -- TedFrank 22:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Medical malpractice

I removed the POV tag. No explanation was given. Tags for the sake of having tags do nothing but clutter up the Wikipedia. The article can't be fixed if the editors don't know what the problem is. Could you please explain your rationale on the talk page so we can try to reach a consensus? Be specific. Thanks. MoodyGroove 20:34, 3 February 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove

This article is hardly pov. It is a pretty dry explanation of what medical malpractice is. It describes the legal action. And it has well-cited statistics on medical error.Jance 05:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Apologies. I was amazed when a reporter who should know better cited the Wikipedia article to me as an example of why reformers were wrong; I checked the article and found it remarkably one-sided, so put the tag in and didn't have a chance to clean it up. I've since added discussion to the talk page with a partial list of my objections. -- TedFrank 01:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] SmackBot

Thanks Frank, problem fixed. Rich Farmbrough 15:33 7 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Business process reengineering

Thanks for reverting the vandal's edit. Kai A. Simon 22:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Robin Hood

It appears that my revert at Robin Hood wasn't correct, I must have misread some diff, but what do you mean by reading up on policies and guidelines? Corvus cornix 02:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I hit the wrong button on the TWINKLE interface, I just meant to revert without a message on policies and guidelines. Apologies for any concerns, and I apologize for not immediately leaving you a note when I saw the wrong edit summary had been made. -- TedFrank 03:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Not a problem. We both made mistakes there.  :) Corvus cornix 23:25, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism of atheism‎ reversion

Thanks, Ted, for your vigilant reversion of two edits by 68.6.209.141 - you marked your own edit as minor, but had the previous edits stayed, they would have effected a major loss. -- Jmc 06:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nelson Frank

Is your grandfather the reporter Nelson Frank? Just curious and you don't have to tell me if he was. Vassyana 02:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Why? --TedFrank 11:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Spurred by the AFD discussion, I looked out of curiousity. It seems he actually is notable. ;o) He was quite an active figure during the Red Scare, often cited by commentators and government officials of the time. It was actually interesting reading. Also, I found that I admire his rhetorical talent. As a writer, I really enjoyed reading his skillful use of language. You've got some excellant literary genes in you. o:-) Be well!! Vassyana 12:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I have to get back to library to find some of the references, but I'll gladly send you what I could find. Give me a day or two to compile some notes. If I neglect this (that is you don't receive a mail from me by Thursday), please drop me a reminder on my talk page. Sorry for the delay, I just researched it out of my own curiousity, not intending to keep notes. Cheers! Vassyana 17:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry

I'm sorry about the vandalism. I'm stopping now. 24.106.127.42 00:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] HEY

Hey Im sorry for the vandalism. I'll stop but my brother likes to play with stuff so he might start editng stuff on random pages anyway sorry for the vandalism bye Dipmaniac 17:06, 17 March 2007 (UTC)Dipmaniac

[edit] Israel Shahak

There is no consensus on the talk page. I will continue to remove defamatory material based on unreliable sources and the dishonest claims of Shahak's political enemies presented for the sole purpose of smearing him. --Zerotalk 12:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AIV

Thank you for making a report on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, administrators are generally only able to block users if they have received a recent final warning (one that mentions that the user may be blocked) and they have recently vandalized after that warning was given. The reported user has not yet been blocked because it appears this has not occurred yet. If this user continues to vandalize even after their final warning, please report them to the AIV noticeboard again. Thank you! John Reaves (talk) 13:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I've removed a few of yours, look through the history of AIV, you can see the ones I've removed. John Reaves (talk) 13:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
A vandal has been repeatedly blocked for vandalism; his talk page is littered with "last warnings" and a statement that he can be blocked without warning. The block expires, and he starts vandalizing again. Does one really need to waste time issuing another "last warning" before reporting to AIV? -- TedFrank 14:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ANI

Thanks for fixing the noticeboard. I was about to start doing the same thing, after seeing the edit that annihilated 8 days of threads: these kinds of repairs are difficult and fraught with edit conflicts because the place is so active. There is a bug that sometimes causes previous threads to disappear (it's happened to me on ANI) but I'm not sure that's what happened here. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 18:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] THANKS

For cleanup on Garvin.

[edit] User talk:Denny Seiwell

First, thanks for the cleanup. The account is indefinitely blocked, dozens of vandalism edits over months. However, in my research of those edits, I found one which may be correct, possibly just by chance - this edit seems to actually have the correct information per this site. Do you know anything about it, or by chance, can you read Farsi/Persia/whatever check out the University of Yazd official page? --AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[This English-language site says 1987]. Color me stumped. -- TedFrank 17:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Farewell

If you must go, I bid you go in peace. But I too have a conservative employer (not my day job, I'm afraid) and I've managed to stick it out here at Wikipedia for over 5 years. Please don't quit now, just when we're starting to get somewhere. I know on the Internet a few days can seem like a lifetime, but it really takes weeks or months for people to even realize something - and even longer to change a habit. Give it time.

I'm hoping to see Wikipedia pull back from endorsing either side of controversial issues. Patience and courtesy will help just as much as logic here. --Uncle Ed 20:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template you created

You created a template but the textual instructions do not make sense. You say:

To mark this particular passage merely edit in {{syn}} at the end of "flat." so that it will appear thusly:
  • If Jones's claim that he consulted the original sources is false, this would be contrary to the practice recommended in the Chicago Manual of Style, which requires citation of the source actually consulted. The Chicago Manual of Style does not call violating this rule "plagiarism." Instead, plagiarism is defined as using a source's information, ideas, words, or structure without citing them.[improper synthesis?]

But there is no "flat" in there. --Blue Tie 15:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll fix. TedFrank 15:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Israel Shahak poll

Please vote in the poll for replacing the Praise, Criticism and Accusations sections with a short summary. Your opinion is much valued. Thanks. Itayb 22:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/e/d/User_talk%7ETedFrank_2fbc.html"