User talk:Ace Frahm

Agreed

=Wiki Guides= Writing better articles

=Handy Code For Working On Articles=

Create article

Requested_articles

Picture_tutorial

Manual_of_Style/Images

Math markup:Help:Displaying_a_formula

Graphics_tutorials

Graphic_Lab

Commons:Commons:Upload

Help:Interwiki_linking

Images

Archive a Talk Page


 * 1) REDIRECT

In case harmful editors start to grief you:

Tag bombing

Responsible_tagging

Tagging_pages_for_problems

Tagging_pages_for_problems

Ignore_all_rules

The_rules_are_principles

Wikilawyering

Use_common_sense

Wikipedia_is_not_about_winning

No_original_research

Speedy deletion nomination of BG-ED3


A tag has been placed on BG-ED3 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Gavin.perch (talk) 11:25, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Aztecing
Hello, Ace Frahm. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Aztecing, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:


 * 1) edit the page
 * 2) remove the text that looks like this:
 * 3) save the page

Also, be sure to explain why you think the article should be kept in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you don't do so, it may be deleted later anyway.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks, Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 23:19, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Deletion discussion about Aztecing
Hello, Ace Frahm,

I wanted to let you know that there's a discussion about whether Aztecing should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Articles for deletion/Aztecing.

If you're new to the process, articles for deletion is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide on how to contribute. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

Thanks, Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 12:50, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of View from Nowhere


The article View from Nowhere has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Neologism with no real noteworthiness. One philosopher uses the term in a different context which was borrowed by one political professor and not widely adopted.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:29, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Talk:July_12,_2007_Baghdad_airstrike
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:July_12,_2007_Baghdad_airstrike

Thanks for your input.

Check my comments at the bottom of the page. Activist (talk) 10:18, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Propenyl
Correct me if I'm wrong—I have only a rudimentary knowledge of chemistry—but isn't "propenyl" a synonym of "allyl"? הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 01:37, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Hasirpad,I just added this statement to the article: "Propenyl is  isomeric with Allyl & Glyceryl." Ace Frahm (talk) 00:01, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I think I've seen "2-propenyl" as a synonym for allyl—is that possible? (For context, see WP:Articles for deletion/Ethallobarbital and the sources linked there.) הסרפד  (call me Hasirpad) 05:39, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Randy Glass for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Randy Glass is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Randy Glass until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Kinu t/c 23:47, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Countable fallacy for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Countable fallacy is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Countable fallacy until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Paradoctor (talk) 19:28, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * As comment - it's really essential to have sources in place before writing Wikipedia articles. Many times I've looked up something and found I misremembered it, or it's not called what I thought it was called. As you can see in the discussion, everyone posting thinks this would be a valid topic for an article but we just can't find sources. Blythwood (talk) 05:46, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Help me!
Please help me avoid an edit war.

Some bad actors keep trying to insert a statement about a biased opinion poll that isn't sourced properly, is actually a sock-puppet article about a poll that can't be found, and, as an opinion poll, wouldn't be relevant to the topic of the article anyway, even if it was a truthful, unbiased poll published in a peer-reviewed journal, with multiple independently replicated opinion polls of high quality.

This is my edit some bad guys keep on reverting:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Google%27s_Ideological_Echo_Chamber&oldid=prev&diff=882147303

They make bad arguments in their reversions, but logic doesn't have an effect on them, and I have no real power to stop them unless a moderator steps in.

The "poll" in question cannot be found.

The edit they want to insert is not from the "poll", it is from a "The Hill" article suposedly about an unnamed, undated, online poll from a suspicious "harvard-harris" website, which does not identify any human authors or contact information.

https://thehill.com/policy/technology/348246-poll-google-was-wrong-to-fire-engineer-over-diversity-memo

So this "The Hill" article is itself not properly sourced in any way that would pass muster on Wikipedia or in journalism generally. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:NRVE&redirect=no

The edit they've included misleads the wikipedia reader into thinking the content is from a "harvard-harris" poll, when the edit they want is actually about an unsourced article from "The Hill", and their edit doesn't highlight that the poll's original source is MISSING.

Additionally, other forums online claim that "The Hill" writers have an undisclosed hidden relationship with "harvard-harris", which makes the polling biased original reporting and "The Hill"'s use of it inside their own articles is "sock puppetry", which would never be allowed if it happened on wikipedia directly. I can't prove "harvard-harris" is a sock puppet for "The Hill", but the edit they want is so badly sourced I can't disprove it either, which should be easy for an authentic, trustworthy poll.

The poll itself is not notable, and neither is the article from "The Hill". They are at best 3rd or 4th hand parties who did not affect the events or persons this wikipedia article ("Google's Ideological Echo Chamber") is about. So their reversion violates wikipedia's relevance guidelines. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Relevance

"The Hill" article in question has an extremely biased headline, which is not even supported by the content of the article! In it's own reporting, it says that only slightly more than half (55%) of the poll takers say Damore should have been fired, but the headline "Poll: Google was wrong to fire engineer over diversity memo" disinforms readers by making it seem like 100% (or close to it) are in agreement against Google. If "The Hill"  honestly titled the article content, it would have used it's own reporting on the strongest polling data in the mystery poll:"An overwhelming majority, 81 percent, say hiring at big companies should be blind to gender and race."

The bad guy revert editors are also violating the "Not A Soapbox" rule. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox_or_means_of_promotion

I have not found any specific guidelines about polls included as article content or how to definitively boot questionable ones in any wikipedia policies. I haven't found any specific method to attract a wikipedia moderator who can wield a "ban hammer" on these guys if needed, either. Can you help?

♠Ace Frahm♠talk 02:27, 14 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi Face-smile.svg think the best solution would be creating a new section on the article's talk page, explaining the problem as neutrally and concise as possible. After writing the neutral summary, provide your personal opinion at the end of your message. You can then invite editors to the discussion, but only those who have actually been involved in this specific case. To do so, add a short, neutral message on their talk page: "You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Google's Ideological Echo Chamber".If no agreement can be reached, start a neutral (!) WP:RFC at the bottom of the discussion. I have recently done this at Talk:Christopher Nolan; you can have a look there to see how it can be done, and how effective it can be.I hope this helps! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:58, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Two comments. Firstly, please assume good faith in other editors. If you start out assuming that those who disagree with you are "bad guys", that will make it so much more difficult to discuss the issue with them. Secondly, if a discussion on the article's talk page (where I have left a note about the poll itself) doesn't work, there are several dispute resolution processes that you may want to try; a request for comments is one of them, but maybe not the simplest one. Huon (talk) 03:32, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Charles Riechers for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Charles Riechers is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Charles Riechers until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Mccapra (talk) 23:30, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

July 2019
Your recent editing history at Korean War shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.No, per WP:BRD, the burden to begin the talk page discussion is on you, since you are the one who originally inserted the content. Jasper Deng (talk) 09:07, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

BRD
Bold, Revert, Discuss wp:BRD, no the onus is not on the person deleting new material, it is on the person who wants to add it to get consensus.Slatersteven (talk) 09:08, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

I Have now started the conversation, you now make your case.Slatersteven (talk) 09:24, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Crowdkill (January 1)
 Your recent article submission has been rejected. If you have further questions, you can ask at the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Crowdkill Articles for creation help desk] or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help. The reason left by I dream of horses was: This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. The comment the reviewer left was: Wikipedia is not Urban Dictionary. When you think of a more encyclopedic article, you can write one here in draftspace, or request one here.

I dream of horses If you reply here, please ping me by adding to your message (talk to me) (My edits) @  04:28, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Crowdkill


Hello, Ace Frahm. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Crowdkill".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the, , or  code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! Majash2020 (talk) 09:11, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Rokfin moved to draftspace
An article you recently created, Rokfin, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of " " before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page.  Onel 5969  TT me 14:39, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

David Ray Griffin
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:David Ray Griffin § Description and interests. &#x0020;Thank you. Roy McCoy (talk) 01:57, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Rokfin
Hello, Ace Frahm. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Rokfin, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 15:02, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Rokfin


Hello, Ace Frahm. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Rokfin".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 14:50, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions notification
FDW777 (talk) 11:58, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Chris Pratt. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. FDW777 (talk) 12:07, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

FDW777 Has wrongfully accused me of conducting an edit war, while conducting an edit war himself. I have improved the article on Chris Pratt, by adding information about him that wikipedia readers need to have in order to be fully informed. Other editors are trying to hide negative information about that man. A handful of them have made sweepingly over-general meta-arguments about wiki policies, without actually making any specific claim that a piece of my contribution has actually violated a portion of some wiki policy. In short, their actions are generally untoward, and any minor error I make, no matter how small, will be used as an excuse to delete my entire contribution. I have already made edits to my own content to correct one NPOV problem, which brings it better in line with wikipolicies, BEFORE I even saw FDW777 complain about it on his talk page. This proves I am self-correcting, self editing for the better. I behave honorably and am a good-faith editor of wikipedia, who complies with both the policies of wikipedia AND the spirit behind them. The issue at hand is not myself. I declare the ONUS for inclusion of the section called "Publicly Indifferent To Homophobic Policies Of His Church" is amply proved by the famous people and large piles of wealth that Mr. Pratt's character flaw affects ( or "virtue" if you choose to see it that way ). Whether any other editor wishes to suppress this negative information about the man ( or positive information, if you choose to see it that way ) is irrelevant; the readers deserve to have this information. The detractors have not yet claimed these reasons are insufficient to establish ONUS, therefore ONUS has been met. They have not supplied a dispute to ONUS. They have merely deleted content with reversions. Any chris pratt article that omits this information about him and what he & the other actors around him did is telling a lie of omission, for neutral readers who read the article without this data would come to very different, wrong conclusions about his identity and how he affects the rest of the world he lives in. I believe fair minded wiki editors will in the fullness of time agree on the consensus for INCLUSION, by virtue of the strength of quality of reasoning power, but probably not by mass popularity. ♠Ace Frahm♠talk 07:51, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * "I declare the ONUS for inclusion" Hi Ace Frahm. WP:ONUS is not exactly an incantation or spell that one conjures into being. Are you familiar with Wikipedia's WP:AAU program? It's a resource that pairs new(er) editors with more experienced ones to help them learn about the process of contributing to Wikipedia. It can be useful in helping build a better understanding of WP's policies and guidelines. I encourage you to check it out and see if this is something in which you might be interested. Chetsford (talk) 08:30, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Chetsford (talk) 16:00, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

July 2021
 You have been blocked from editing from certain pages (Chris Pratt) for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. --Chris &#124; Crazycomputers (talk) 16:30, 25 July 2021 (UTC)


 * I am not the one conducting an edit war. A small cartel of others are working hard to delete from the wikipedia negative information about a person they like.  They conducted harmful reversions without engaging on the talk page.  They had obligations to rewrite that they did not meet.  They made false accusations that policies were violated, but did not actually explain anything specific about how that was so.  Also, I notice you might have an intensely personal conflict of interest "I moved to Indiana after my parents joined Keynote, a division of Campus Crusade for Christ." in regard to this matter.  While it is *hypothetically* possible that your every intention has been pure, and that you simply made an "honest mistake" in placing this 24-Hours block on my account instead of the misbehaving editors, this information gives me ample just cause to suspect that you have abused your power as a wikipedia administrator for bigoted religious reasons.  You *might* be trying to prevent the bad behavior that reveals bad character of another religionist from being properly included on the Chris Pratt article, and *maybe* you're entirely impartial the way fair judge should be.  But surely you must see that I now have more that ample cause to distrust you.  The other editors behaved badly; did you give them equal 24-H blocks?  No?  A fair adminstrator would at LEAST have done that.  So how about you do the honorable thing and recuse yourself from involvement on that article and allow some other administrator, selected at random from a pool of administrators who do not appear to me to have such a very sharp personal axe to grind, take over the matter?   ♠Ace Frahm♠talk 11:09, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * So anyone who shares the religion of a famous person has a conflict of interest? Get out of here with that garbage.  I have no interest in Chris Pratt one way or the other and couldn't care less what his opinions are or what others think of him, I was only investigating a report on AN3.  There is no axe grinding going on here.  You can drop the personal attacks against me.  --Chris &#124; Crazycomputers (talk) 13:08, 28 July 2021 (UTC)


 * I have made one edit, and one edit only to the article at 12:59, 25 July 2021. This was a result of the post at Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard, caused by your edits to the article. Prior to that I had never even heard of Chris Pratt, after looking at the article the only film I have seen with him in it is Zero Dark Thirty, but since I pay little attention to the credits it's unsurprising I've not heard of him since his role appears to be a brief one. So perhaps you might realise there is no cartel, and the problem is you and your edits? FDW777 (talk) 16:00, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

American politics discretionary sanctions notice
NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:19, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of James White (Graphic Designer)


A tag has been placed on James White (Graphic Designer), requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:
 * It seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. (See section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Please read the guidelines on spam and FAQ/Organizations for more information.
 * It appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), individual animal, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. (See section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 01:40, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Jameco Electronics for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jameco Electronics is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Jameco Electronics until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 02:12, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Christine Axsmith for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Christine Axsmith is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Christine Axsmith until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished. Longhornsg (talk) 23:29, 19 July 2024 (UTC)