User talk:Francisx

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

what is your source for the "Greenhouse Effect" in the Linda Greenhouse article?Kiwidude 00:13, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

  • The link doesn't seem to work. Kiwidude 01:40, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Sorry about that, it should work now. I'm not trying to dump on Linda Greenhouse, fwiw, (I'm a fan) but I think the "Greenhouse Effect" criticism is significant even though it's wrong.

Contents

[edit] Looking for articles to work on?

Hello, Francisx. I'm SuggestBot, a Wikipedia bot that helps new members contribute to Wikipedia. Based on your previous edits, I have made a list of articles you might like to work on. I hope you find this useful. -- SuggestBot 01:49, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Wesleyan University alumni

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Category:Wesleyan University alumni, which you proposed for deletion, because the page you proposed for deletion was not an article. If you still feel the page should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to it, as proposed deletion is only for articles. Instead, consider using WP:CFD for this page. In some cases, a speedy deletion criterion may apply. Thanks! Mangojuicetalk 15:26, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Candidates and AfD

Regardless of party, if an article on a politician is only stating that they're a candidate, I move to delete it. What does someone in Seoul care that so-and-so is running for the 1st Congressional District in West Virginia, if that is all an article says?

OTOH, if the article reads like a an ad from one's campaign, it should be deleted with predjudice.

You'll note I agreed with you on keeping the Murphy article. That was an example of a properly written article on a current candidate. The others, for the most part, have not been. --DarkAudit 01:37, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Someone in Seoul probably doesn't care about who's running in West Virginia, nor do I care about Politics_of_South_Korea (for example, I just learned that Kim Hyung-Su is the current magistrate of Yeongdeungpo-gu, a midsized administrative district in Southwestern Seoul) or several million other topics covered by WP. The point of an encyclopedia isn't to be immediatly of interest to every viewer, it's to provide useful npov information about important topics. Most independent observers consider Connecticut's Second (Courtney) and Fourth (Farrell) Congressional Districts to be among the ten closest and most closely contested Congressional races in the United States this year, and Farell and Courtney are household names to millions of Americans. Nonpartisan, npov information about these important public figures is difficult to come by, and WP provides a vital role by presenting neutral biographies.

No, not too many South Koreans are going to be reading these articles (unless they're researching American politics, which is completely plausible) but many Americans need the information. If the articles read like campaign ads, then please, by all means, help make them NPOV. That's exactly what I did with the Murphy article, which I largely wrote. But don't delete them, because we need them on WP.--Francisx 04:44, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Diane Farrell et alia

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Diane_Farrell
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diane Farrell (Second nomination)
Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2006_October_8#Diane_Farrell

Hello. I'm here to hopefully nip any further misunderstandings in the bud, and because a user expressed concern on my user page.

I'd like to begin by talking very briefly about {{vandal}} and {{Drmafd4}}:

  • The first one (referring to the noticeboard) is a straight-forward crossed wire: the tag is an easy one to use when linking a person's name, and gives useful background to anyone whom needs it. It should always have Template substitution applied so that no one ever sees the word "vandal" but it does not mean that the person is being called a vandal per se.
  • The second one (referring to the second deletion discussion) is a matter of degree. It was a mistake for you to remove the tag from the top of the article. There is no question about that. But your edit summary makes it clear to me that there was no question of your good faith in doing so.

So I'd like to hope that that rubicon has been crossed at least.

With regards to civility, there have been a few slight lapses that under normal circumstances no one would have noticed... in very much the same way that you would probably not have noticed the template that was used to link your name in other circumstances. This has been a bit rough-and-tumble, and it's often easy to worry about (and comment on!) people's motivations. It's almost always a bad idea.

If you have any questions (or just want to tell me to get bent) my talk page is always open,
brenneman {L} 01:55, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, Aaron Brenneman. It seems easy for people like me to misinterpret the vandal tag as an ad hominem attack. As for removing the AfD tag, I acknowledged that it was a mistake -- I think everyone now agrees that my basic concern, that having multiple simultaneous debates regarding the status of a single article is crazy, is correct -- even though I went about fixing it the wrong way. I will make every effort to remain civil, although please note the continued effort by two posters to (1) Delete [[Diane Farrell] or, failing that to (2) fill it with anti-Farrell POV information. One poster, {User:Aaron} even stated on the first AfD Discussion page for Farrell that he "would never vote for her." I think that demonstrates rather heavy POV against this particular bio.
It appears that things are settling out, and the editors on the Farrell talk page seem reasonable enough. With regards to editors having a bias, one of the most challenging things is having a predilection while still writing without one. We as wikipedians are usually free to express our opinions, such as in a forum like deletion nomination, without it having a prejudical effect on the perception of our editing. (I've re-written that sentance three times and it's still a bit unclear.) If there are any particular concerns you have, say with an article edit you consider unhelpful, please feel free to use my talk page. Providing a link to the actual edit is always helpful as well. - brenneman {L} 22:36, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Oh yeah, I forget to say that removal of a sourced statement is always a provocative action, even if it's a correct one. One of the biggest problems facing Wikipedia is lack of citation across many articles, so people are very sensitive to the removal of anything that even resembles a reference. In controversial article (Like the Farrell one!) in particular, I use the talk page and write out why I'm removing the section and provide the references I'm removing. Only then do I do the actual removal, with an edit summary saying "see talk." I also try to limit myself to one revert in all cases, but that's another story...
    brenneman {L} 22:50, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Francisx: Labelling Aaron as someone with "heavy POV" doesn't really do us much good. I don't really see where you think you'll get by namecalling. Attempting to discredit other editors, whether they deserve it or not, is completely meaningless in comparison to... say... improving the article. I mean seriously, at the end of the day you can either say "I made someone look stupid!" or "I helped build an encyclopedia!". Choose wisely :) --Anaraug12:18, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Failure to assume good faith

Francisx, I understand that you categorize yourself as a newbie, and I've tried to explain Wiki policies to you: your escalating failure to assume good faith is concerning. Letters to the editor are not reliable sources: that should not be hard to understand, since anyone can write them and they aren't subject to journalistic fact checking. I spent a lot of time typing that information for the benefit of all the new editors on that article, to help them learn policies. You have now escalated to the fifth failure to assume good faith with me (without mentioning the others towards Aaron). One or two failures to assume good faith is understandable from someone who categorizes themself as a "newbie": five are not. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] Please return to civility. I can see that you are very vested in this article, and it's a month still until elections: let's get along, please. Well-sourced text written in a neutral tone is not POV, and please don't accuse others of such: letters to the editor, on the other hand, cannot be used as a source. I look forward to working together cordially, Regards, Sandy 23:09, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

As someone who goes shopping around for Admins willing to block me, it seems strange that you of all people would accuse me of acting uncivilly. I have remained civil to you, despite your ad hominem attacks, and your repeated attempts to inject POV information (like the Shays' campaign's tax rate smear) into the Diane Farrell article. While you are clearly emotionally wrapped up in the article -- and even, by your own admission, in the outcome of the election (see: "I'll never vote for her" at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Diane_Farrell]]), I'd appreciate a more civil tone. We all know that you have spent a lot -- some (not me) might say inordinate amount -- of time on this article, but that doesn't give you the right to bully away persons who don't agree with your obvious (and admitted!) POV. You have every right to your POV, but please don't try to use it to skew this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Francisx (talk • contribs) 06:35, 10 October 2006 UTC
I have not "shopped for admins to block you", nor have I even come close to asking or even suggesting anywhere that any admin block you: please don't make false accusations. I have not injected POV, or anything close to it, into any election article: again, please do not make inaccurate statements about my edits. You have taken out of context my comment that "I'll never vote for her", which was in the context of I was willing to reference the article from an NPOV if it survived an AfD in which I didn't even vote. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diane Farrell. You don't know where/if I'm registered to vote: if I am a registered New York or Massachusetts voter, or lived in China, would you still expect me to vote for her? Please stop failing to assume good faith and attributing motives to my edits that aren't there. There is no need for hostility: please help build a neutral, balanced, encyclopedia here. Neutrality on Wikipedia means that any candidates article will naturally include information favorable, and less favorable, to the candidate. Of importance is that the text be written in a neutral tone, and referenced to the highest-quality sources per WP:BLP: Letters to the Editor are not reliable sources. WP:AGF is an important Wiki policy: without it, Wikipedia could become an unpleasant place. I hope you understand the need to assume good faith from other editors, and work together towards neutral, balanced articles. Regards, Sandy 13:53, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Please remember that article edits can be discussed on article talk pages. As we are both following CT election issues, I'm sure we'll cross paths in many places: please refrain from unfounded accusations, as they may appear as a failure to assume good faith. Thanks, Sandy 05:40, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Your interest in Connecticut politics appears to have grown dramatically, from nothing (a few weeks ago, judging from edit history) to a wide number of articles precisely mirroring my interests. I commend your new-found interest and obvious enthusiasm, and again ask that you take a minute to familiarize yourself with wikipedia:wikistalking. Thanks!Francisx 19:27, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shopping around?

Really mate, everyone has been pretty patient up until now. Wikipedia is a place to fight it's an encyclopedia. Forget about the other contributors, forget about the "wikistalking" just concentrate on providing good solid content backed up by reliable sources.
brenneman {L} 23:20, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I have not been looking for a fight, but I do object to the continued removal of sourced text, the continued insertion of POV information, and a poster who has asked several Admins to block me. That said, I have tried to remain civil, and have continued to add well-sourced NPOV information to WP.--Francisx 03:06, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
That is a good thing, but you're also talking a lot about other editor's actions, speculating on their motivations, etc. If other users are giving you the irrits, the best thing to do is ignore them. Just pretend that they don't exist, only the edits to the the article page exist. If there are any disputes about an article edit, for example, try to restrict yourself to talking about the edits, the sources used, etc. Does that make sense at all? - brenneman {L} 03:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
My problem is that my hard work -- sourced, NPOV material -- is being consistently removed by this poster. At first it was just on one article, then it became two, and now this poster is trying to remove practically every edit on every article I make. I don't know what her motivations are, I'm just not going to speculate and they may well be in good faith. But it's difficult to remain focussed on the content when all new content is being removed. To wit, look at Sandy's latest effort to remove the entire "Views on Iraq" section from Chris Shays, a congressional subcommittee chair who's job it is to provide oversight for the War in Iraq. After I worked hard to pretty exhaustively document Shays' views, she has repeatedly tried to revert the entire section.Francisx 19:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image tagging for Image:Chrismurphy.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Chrismurphy.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 09:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image tagging for Image:Diane_farrell.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Diane_farrell.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:35, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image tagging for Image:Joe_Courtney.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Joe_Courtney.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 08:27, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:71.143.16.237

According to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:71.143.16.237, this user is not blocked. Please don't put a blocked tag on a page when the User isn't really blocked. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:54, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Not a problem.  :) User:Zoe|(talk) 21:13, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] OR in AfD debates

Original Research doesn't belong in articles. The use of OR in AfD debates is not only legitimate, it is arguably necessary to evaluate claims made. Rock on. Pete.Hurd 17:00, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually I wrote _"school"_ in place of _school_ the first time round, then realized that it ruined the _"crafty"_ earlier in the sentence, so I changed it to _!school_ (note the exclamation mark, used as a logical negation in many programming languages, and colloquially on WP - as in !vote). "!school" is pronounced "not school". Rock on, Pete.Hurd 15:28, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image licensing

The image Image:DianeFarrell018-HR.jpg has two contradictory licensing tags on it. One says it is fair use, and the other says it is public domain. If it is public domain, please provide the documentation, as the campaign website has a copyright notice. If it is fair use, then it is being used incorrectly in the article Diane Farrell; under fair use it can only be used to illustrate the source of the image (i.e. in an article about the website or a poster in which it appeared, not about the candidate herself). Thanks in advance for your reply. --Ginkgo100 talk · e@ 22:11, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] mediation

hello Francis, as you are engaging in discussion concerning depictions of Muhammad on Talk:Muhammad, you may wish to consider participating in the formal mediation we have established on the topic at Talk:Muhammad/Mediation. thank you. ITAQALLAH 17:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!--Francisx 18:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC)