User talk:CanIBeFrank

Welcome!
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia from SqueakBox! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and becoming a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Here is a list of useful links that I have compiled:
 * Biographies of living persons
 * What Wikipedia is not
 * Neutral point of view
 * Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point
 * Attribution
 * Verifiability
 * Assume good faith
 * Civility
 * Words to avoid
 * Requests for oversight
 * Requests_for_page_protection
 * Requests_for_comment
 * Wikipedia:Block log
 * Requests for mediation
 * Administrators' noticeboard
 * Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
 * Administrators' noticeboard/3RR
 * Requests for arbitration
 * Articles for deletion
 * Images and media for deletion
 * Requests for checkuser
 * Usernames for administrator attention
 * Avoid the word "vandal"
 * No legal threats
 * Mediation Cabal

Again, welcome. Thanks, SqueakBox 03:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Your proposal looks interesting...
...and is a good idea; expertese in Wikipedia is something I at least hadn't considered before. (A question, though: Do experts in your scheme gain any privelege, or is it simply a "mark of distinction"?)

But you should understand that there is a great deal of hostility and suspicion among many Wikipedians towards any proposal which creates more hierarchy among editors--especially on the content side (as opposed to the administrative side, admins and bureaucrats are now accepted features of the encyclopedia). And, I might add--Wikipedia is becoming more professional these days even without formal hierarchies; policy changes in the past year and a half have made it easier to get rid of trolls, crackpots, and POV-pushers, and undo their damage. Many of them are still here, but a cultural change is occuring here.

(This is one reason I haven't been involved in this debate for a while--working on articles is more productive.)

Anyway, good luck.

--EngineerScotty 17:03, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Question for you
What username do you normally edit under? --Stormie 23:48, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am curious as well. Thanks. — Satori Son 00:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I normally edit under this username. Can I be Frank? (Talk to me!) 01:06, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You are especially well-versed in En-Wikipedia policy, terminology, formatting, and etiquette. But if you prefer to not to disclose your former username, I will respect your privacy. Have a good one. — Satori Son 14:57, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Council roll call
Hi there. You are receiveing this message because your name appears on the WikiProject Council participants list. The WikiProject Council is currently having a roll-call; if you are still interested in participating in the inter-project discussion forum that WT:COUNCIL has become, or you are interested in continuing to develop and maintain the WikiProject Guide or Directory, please visit WikiProject Council/Participants and remove the asterisk (*) from your name on the list of participants. If you are no longer interested in the Council, you need take no action: your name will be removed from the participants list on April 30 2008.

Melon ‑ Bot  ( STOP! )  22:13, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia's Expert Peer Review process (or lack of such) for Science related articles
Hi - I posted the section with the same name on my talk page. Could you take part in discussion ? Thanks ARP Apovolot (talk) 19:57, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

User: Shotwell suggested (on my talk page) "I would endorse a WP:EXPERTADVICE page that outlined the wikipedia policies and goals for researchers in a way that enticed them to edit here in an appropriate fashion. Perhaps a well-maintained list of expert editors with institutional affiliation would facilitate this sort of highly informal review process. I don't think anyone would object to a well-maintained list of highly-qualified researchers with institutional affiliation (but then again, everyone seems to object to something)."

We could start with that if you would agree ... - could you help to push his idea through Wikipedia bureaucracy ?

In my view people nominated as "expert reviewers" should be willing not to hide under the veil of anonymity. They should be able to demonstrate some level of the verifiable accomplishment / recognition in the domain of professional science. BTW, I do not see any reason why the anonymity of editors on Wikipedia is considered to be a "good thing". Above is my general opinion, so please don't take my statement personally. There is obviously a choice given for everyone in Wikipedia either to act "in open" or to hide behind meaningless assumed pseudonym and I accept this situation. BTW, I do understand current Wikipedia concept that in order to produce good Wikipedia science article, one does not need to be a professional scientist ... - that is fine with me ... But I propose to have (at least optionally) ability to review/qualify such article by the professional scientist. Cheers, Apovolot (talk) 15:39, 2 November 2008 (UTC)