User talk:FrankTobia/Archive 0

Welcome!

Hello, FrankTobia, 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:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ~~~~; this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! Miranda 17:19, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

My RfA - thanks

Thank you for your support in my request for adminship, which succeeded with a final tally of 38/1/0! I hope I can live up to the standards of adminship, and I will try my best to make Wikipedia a better place. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 18:29, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Federal Reserve Bank of Boston Dilatant Medical ethics Chontales Collective rights Holding Timeline of environmental events Human rights law Roy A. Young International human rights law Human Rights First Marriageable age Federal Reserve Bank of St Louis International bill of rights Mark Jason Dominus Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 Owner-occupier Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties

Cleanup Citizenship Janet Yellen Highest-income counties in the United States Merge Polypropylene Megan Kanka Pueblo people Add Sources Hauptwohnsitz Houman Younessi Welfare economics Wikify Luisa Morgantini Deposition (law) Edward D. Miller Expand Promise Gemeindeordnung Mathematical economics

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 19:25, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Internet Protocol

May I suggest, in the principle of good faith, that if you decide something is "unencyclopedic" but that, by your own admission, you do not know how to rewrite it in an improved manner, that you bring the matter up for discussion rather than simply deleting it? If you did not like the way I illustrated the functionality of the network layer, it might have been more productive for all concerned if you had noted that on my talk page or on the talk page of the main article.

As opposed to IETF documents, ISO documents are generally not in the public domain and are not available without charge. If you disliked the less formal description of the functionality of the Internet Protocol, you certainly could have given a direct link to the relevant IETF documents. There are also peer-reviewed secondary sources, including textbooks I have written, or my university lectures. There are any number of good-faith ways to resolve concerns about the formalism of language, but simply deleting with the comment that you could not come up with an rewrite acceptable to yourself does not add value to Wikipedia. If your idea of "encyclopedic" is to be completely formal, than I suggest that you might prefer something written as a series of finite state automata, with BNF or other grammars of the protocol data units. Of course, that would be duplicating the RFC, so why have the Wikipedia article at all if it cannot be a reasonable introduction for people that may not have the theoretical background for formal protocol descriptions? Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 05:18, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

First let me apologize for offending you. It was not my intention. In regard to my edit, I'd like to explain my rationale. As I was reading OSI model, that particular paragraph jumped out at me as being out of place. Notable was an initial contraction, the trailing ellipsis, as well as the foray into what sounded like a tutorial; additionally, I did not find the metaphor particularly useful as it stood. As I tried to rewrite it, I decided that it was more trouble for me to salvage than it was worth. After all, I am not an expert in this field, and I knew that another editor would be much better suited for such an edit. That said, I still believed that removing the passage was a net improvement for the article. I understood that someone may take issue with such an edit; my edit summary was for the purpose of such an implication. My edit was in the spirit of the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle: I thought that simply making the change and waiting to see if it was contested was a more efficient use of time. Clearly the latter was the case, and what's even better, you rewrote the section without my having to ask, which I appreciate. In any case, I look forward to continuing this discussion on OSI model's talk page. -FrankTobia (talk) 21:41, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

No problem at all. You are, I suspect, running into a problem that many well-meaning people do: assuming that protocols are designed on the basic OSI Reference model (ISO 7498). There are two problems with this:

• ISO itself recognized the limitations of the basic model, and, in various annexes and separate documents such as the "Internal Organization of the Network Layer", broke out sublayers, management stacks, and other things that make it more realistic. Unfortunately, very few academics or commercial trainers go beyond the basic 7-layer model, and people learning it believe they have to force real-world protocols into that model.
• IETF never has paid any significant attention to the OSI model. Yes, it does use the abstraction of layering at times, but there are several architectural documents that consider strict layering a very bad thing. I came to the IETF from working in OSI standards development and protocol testing, and it was a real mental shift to work with the new model.

In retrospect, you did a good thing in getting me stirred up enough to rewrite! :-)

I probably owe you an apology for sharpness, as I am currently in a battle with an administrator who, without any discussion, deleted an article of mine, part of a series on intelligence that may become a formal project under Military History. This individual wasn't discussing in the manner you and I are, but was both actively hostile and ill-informed about the topic. That wasn't as dramatic as the confrontation I once had with a professor, who, after I politely disputed his interpretation of a performance measurement standard, with dripping sarcasm asked me to enlighten the class as to why any person would think that the committee had possibly meant by my interpretation. I looked him in the eye, told him to read the list of authors, and informed him that what I was describing was what I meant when I had written the section in question. :-;

Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 21:54, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Banks of Scotland

Lord knows I've no reason to be a particular promotor of Scotland, but the example of the pound scots as being a banknote which is not legal tender, and thus functions entirely as a promisory note, yet serves as good money, is as good an example as I could find of "credit money" being used as general circulating currency. In this case, a sort of "credit money" is the national money, without being a fiat money. If you've got a better example of the difference, please use it. If it was out of place, move it to the proper place, rather than deleting it. Wikipedia's motto: don't delete, improve. I don't mind when redundant material is deleted, but I hate it when it's deleted without anything to replace it, and there's nothing in the article on money which illustrates "credit money" quite so well. Your thoughts? SBHarris 02:31, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it's a good example of credit money. I deleted it from the subsection on fiat money because an example about credit money doesn't belong in the subsection of fiat money. If anything it belongs in the subsection about credit money. Upon closer inspection, when I was going to move it there, I noticed that the case of the Pound Scots was already mentioned in the article on credit money. As such, I consider the material I deleted to be redundant. Of course I'm more than willing to work with you on detailing the example in either the credit money article, or in the credit money subsection of the money article. Let me know. -FrankTobia (talk) 02:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I struck it in the credit money article as an example, after it was deleted in the subsection of the money article. Figuring it was so good it had to go somewhere.

Of course the mention should not be as long in the full article (which has a section on credit money longer than the credit money article-- which maybe is the real problem). Perhaps we should work to swap these a bit? I merely wanted to be sure that somewhere in the main money article, there was a mention of a national monetary system based entirely on credit money which wasn't fiat money. Meaning that the fiat is not as important as trust in the main banks of a particular State! (Which is why I think I put Pound Scots first in fiat section-- to make this very point). Anyway, I shall leave the next suggestion on how to deal with these sections up to you. SBHarris 03:03, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

All seems reasonably fixed now, though we need a history-of-banking expert for some of this. Example, I've been reading a history of Theodore Roosevelt's presidency and this includes the panic of 1907, and at one point when banks were in danger of failing, the government issued US bank "greenbacks". This is in an interesting era when there was no federal reserve system (that came in 1913) but during which a series of national banks issued a sort of odd credit money which consisted of US banknotes which were backed by US bonds. I'm not sure if they actually said "gold certificate" on them or not. I think not. See history of central banking in the United States. (Added note: they didn't. They were not gold certificates, as I now see in the United States note wiki. But they were legal tender, as fiat money backed by bonds, from 1862 onward. For a time, actually till 1963 when the US went off the silver standard, both fiat money and representative money banknotes existed side-by-side. The "greenback" originally was only the former.) SBHarris 00:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Complex Fluids

I have a PhD in complex fluids so obviously the field is very important to me! There are lots of links out there referring to complex fluids such as:

Behringer's Lab Makse's Lab Week's Lab Granier's Lab

I hope to work more on this article soon and make it much better. Thanks for any help you provide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Miketwardos (talk • contribs) 08:16, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

List of Chairmen of the Federal Reserve

Greetings. Thanks for looking over the article. Its good to have someone else to review the article. I was wondering if you could try to find Roy A. Young birth date. That is the only citation I am missing for the article. Also, if you do not mind, could you look for photos of the Chairmen that I have not found yet. Thanks, PGPirate 02:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thank you for this edit to economist. You got the gist right! Regard, Signature^brendel 00:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

AfD question: Recombinant text

I have very little experience in AfD matters, and am asking for your input before nominating an article for deletion, because, quite frankly, I do not want to be seen as someone who capriciously nominates articles which do not meet AfD standards.

If you have time, please take a look at this article. It was created by the person who—as the intro asserts—is the very person who coined the term. Most of the edits are by that person. Most, if not all, of the sources link back to this person. I mean, at best it appears to me to constitute OR, at worst, self-promotion. But maybe I'm seeing it wrong. What do you think?

I selected you and many other editors pretty much completely at random; I picked one day's AfD archives, and clicked on the talk pages of the first two or three dozen editors' talk pages I came across. I hope that in using this selection method, I will get editors who are well-versed in AfD policies, yet who also represent a good cross-section of AfD philosophies. I will monitor your talk page for your response. Thanks. Unschool (talk) 07:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Your User Page

"My name is Frank Tobia, which is coincidentally my user name."

-how is this a coincidence? It was obviously intentional. --MorrisS (talk) 20:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

--yeah, I was just having fun with you, too... --MorrisS (talk) 00:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Surf Spot

I just started an entry about Surfspots and I was planning on providing reasonable links. There should surely be an article about surfspots. They are are prevalent coastal feature, large tourist attractions, revenue generators and interesting ecosystems. How do I get back my original article about surfspots to make it better and add links to it? (Miketwardos) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Miketwardos (talk • contribs) 04:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia "meetup"

That sounds like it might be fun. I don't really do much actual writing anymore, most of what I do is watchlisting and categorization. Still it might be cool to get together and discuss things that could be done. Right now I happen to be extremely busy till the weekend. I added you on as a friend on Facebook, we can chat later. Danski14^(talk) 06:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

If I can find the time, I'd really like to be there; I don't have much I can add as far as content goes, but I do have some photos that I have been meaning to upload. Let me know; we can get this to FA. OneScholar (talk) 04:27, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Your Welcome: History of the Federal Reserve System

Your welcome. Another editor informed me that Federal Reserve System was too large to add anything else when I suggested to move some content from another article to that article. There is still problems with both the new article and the summary I left behind. As it stands, nothing historically notable occurred between the Federal Reserve Act and the appointment of Paul Volcker. --EGeek (talk) 08:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Hofstra

Thanks for handling that one, I have a COI that somewhat prevents me from adding laudatory things about the school (I mainly do the formatting and historical facts). MBisanz ^talk 02:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Self replicating machines

Thanks for your comment on my work on this article. Its nice to know that I am on the right track. I figured if I tried to be fair to everyone involved and just rewrite the article from the known sources that we should end up with a reasonable article. It turns out all of the wikipedia pages on how to be a good editor are actually good advice.

Also thanks for the archiving help. It should help a lot. I was afraid to break the page since it had important and ongoing conversation. Bobprime (talk) 23:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I had wondered why Fraberj totally went off on your comment on the talk page and that he kept calling you populous. I didn't see that some anonymous user deleted the whole section, then that got reverted by a bot and then populous deleted and rewrote the whole article as well. All in 24 hours. Man that's a popular article. Also I think my next project will be working on the Code Smell article. I saw it on your user page and I would love to help as that is a field I am an expert in. Bobprime (talk) 02:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I see two problems in this. The first is that FraberJ is a bit touchy and may freak out. I think though that he would accept your suggestion. The second is that a full article on F-Units may fail the notability. I do agree though that it would really clean up the article and help cut down on drive by deletings. Currently we have a WP:truce with Fraberj, so I would run anything by him first to avoid breaking that. The truce seems to have significantly cut down on problems.

I was hoping to create the F-Unit article myself (I had never created an article before) but I think good editing should come before personal desires and I will be busy tonight. I suggest you create the F-Unit article with the full text and show it on the talk page for self replicating machines so that FraberJ doesnt just think you are trying to delete all of his content. Then suggest you swap out the article for its replacement text + a link to F-Units. Bobprime (talk) 17:50, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Roman numerals in Knights of Cydonia

Just wanted to make a mention about your edit summary sortingout my last edit in the above article, don't worry this isn't a flamer.

The number dosen't relate to a normal roman numeral as MCLMXXXI would be broken down as M, CL, M, XXX and I. This dosen't relate to a number as it would be

(1000 + (1000 - 150) + 30 + 1)

(M + (M - CL) + XXX + I)

Which would come out as 1881 if it was anything. when using roman numerals you never subtract in more than one unit, i.e. you subtract in either tens or hundreds or five hundreds not one hundred and fifties.

In actuality it would be 1000 - 100 + 50 + 1000 + 30 + 1 = 1981 if proper methods were to be followed which wouldn't make sense as you would have it written as the bnumerals at the end of the track.

1881 in roman numerals would be properly rendered as MDCCCLXXXI

(1000 + 500 + 100 + 100 + 50 + 30 + 1)

(M + D + C + C + C + L + XXX + I)

You're welcome to check it here if you want. BigHairRef | Talk 18:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

F-units

I think you and Bobprime are being far too kind to Fraberj. All I can see is a highly self-opinionated inventor pushing a non-notable idea. I have sent F-Unit (self-replicator) to AfD. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 13:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

FED

Noone has actually answered such simple questions in the article. After reading it, I came into the conclusion that the banks earn money after each operation -> and consequently more and more money is created. In addition sometimes FED "loses" money (so it is printed?) and sometimes the FED "gets" money (is it "erased"? or kept at some account and paid to the "owners of the FED" - whoever they would be). Perhaps someone smart will read my question and answer it. Agameofchess (talk) 21:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

There is no clear, step by step explanation how do these operations look like. Consequently, as I understand (perhaps I am wrong), both types of open market operations lead to banks earning money - money that is "magically" created by FED. I wonder if this new money doesnt cause inflation, because the banks could use it to give credits and create even more money.

In addition, one of the operations leads to a loss incurred by FED (at least I understand it this way - because there is no clear definition). I wonder what happens next. Do they "create" money to pay off the debt? Doesnt this cause inflation? Another question is the fact - what happens when the FED earns money. Where does this money go? Is it "erased" (something opposite to "creating" money) - or send to the owners of the bank, whoever they would be? Or perhaps is it held to pay of the debts in the future? Agameofchess (talk) 00:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Free will

As someone who has edited recently on the free will talk page, When you get a chance, can you look at the additions to the talk page by LoveMonkey? I've already had a revert war with him on the talk page, and I've decide that, as long as it's on the talk page, I'm not going to worry about it, but if you have any thoughts on this, they would be appreciated. Either he's way off the mark, or so brilliant it's beyond me. Edhubbard —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.169.117.225 (talk) 22:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Your edits to Network security

Hi! I observed that recently you removed one entire section from the article. Actually, that section was the very justification for a separate existence for the article. Before I expanded it, network security was a simple redirect to computer security. I wanted to make that distinction very clear in readers' minds. So I suggest you to please restore that section at its place. Thank you in anticipation. Raanoo (talk) 15:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Done and done. I apologize for the removal: I should have paid closer attention to the talk page and your todo list. I'll try to help you with your improvement of the article going forward. -FrankTobia (talk) 18:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Your gesture of help is much appreciated. Actually I would like to undo multiple edits that were done to the section that has reduced its size as on today. Raanoo (talk) 06:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your support!

Hello, and thanks for your support in my recent RFA! The final result was 61/0/3, so I've been issued the mop! I'm extremely grateful for your confidence in me and will strive to live up to it. Thanks again! —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 07:36, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Traveling Wilburys

I was reverting a sockpuppet, and hadn't noticed that I also reverted your better sentence. Obviously it should have stayed, so you were completely right to reinsert it. Thanks for dropping a note! Fram (talk) 14:01, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

RfA

Hey FrankTobia - thanks for your support on my recently unsuccessful RfA. I'll be back in a few months with more experience and more coaching, and I hope I still have your support then. Thanks again - Tanthalas39 (talk) 22:31, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Beekman Fire District

Hey thanks for helping out, I appreciate that. I posted on WP:FD but have not heard from anyone at the project. If it gets deleted I will take it to DRV. I'll watch your page so you can talk here :) - THANKS!!! --English836 (talk) 03:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I just wanted to drop in and say thanks for your help cleaning up the Beekman Fire District article. The AFD resulted in a keep, and I think the article will be expanded into an excellent GA.--English836 (talk) 21:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

AfD on radio shows

Hey, I have been considering nominating those pages on WRPI radio shows for some time, I just wasn't sure weather I should try a Prod (proposed deltion) or just the regular nomination. I am generally an inclusionist, but these pages are truly non-notable and Wikipedia is not a show listing or advertising service for WRPI. So I finally got around to it and nominated them both for deletion here : Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Love Line. By the way, nice work with the RPI free culture stuff. I assume you probably already know about the "Not the Rensselaer Wiki" ([1]). There is also http://www.rpiwiki.com, but there doesn't seem to be much activity on it. Danski14^(talk) 20:27, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Subpoena

Hi Frank, thanks for your corrections and suggestions. I thought I was following the "Harvard method" of referencing. I am not finished putting them all in. I am not married to this system, but I don't know how to put the "numbers" in then text and have them show up on the reference list. Any suggestions? ThanksA E Francis (talk) 01:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Patrolling!

I see that you're currently patrolling new pages. Could you lend a hand with the backlog? That would be great. No reply needed. Happy editing. Keegan^talk 05:05, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I am new to it as well, DragonflySixtyseven asked me to help out and gave me the crash course, which is mainly three points:

• If it is speediable, just do it
• If it is PROD or AfD, mark patrolled and then edit the page.
• If the page is fine but needs cleanup, mark the page and then edit. This applies to pagemoves as well. Mark as patrolled, then move.

So that's the basics of it. Mark patrolled a page that has been reviewed and suggests merit for inclusion. Keegan^talk 05:57, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Intellectual property

Thanks, good additions and correction on my new entry on the IP article. Much appreciated. --Stargat (talk) 21:17, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

added source to "Fair Use in Israel" portion of the Fair Use Article Sarterus —Preceding comment was added at 18:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you !

Thanks for the kind words and the barn star! It's my first :) Canadian Monkey (talk) 01:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Notes in article space

Thanks for the patrolling, but please place notes to editors on the article talk page, not on the article itself, as you did with Nyu in London. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 15:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Blueprint

Re: Blueprint - Hi Frank, thanks, I was going to make a note on the discussion page that I have problems with certain characters on my keyborad and am also not able to use the above formatting bar! Sorry, I know it's frustrating. I'll try to take care of it.Refcahman (talk) 17:15, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks on Ein Rafa

Thanks for the assistanceSeth J. Frantzman (talk) 18:51, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Any time :) -FrankTobia (talk) 18:54, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: WikiProject Economics

Hello, FrankTobia. You have new messages at Gary King's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Please take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Economics/Featured Article drive. Thanks! Gary King (talk) 20:53, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Hair-trigger move to delete Nova Development

I moved to make the site, from the following sequence: With the demise of MS Publisher, there is still the market for budget software for desktop publishing. It is odd that there are endless articles for a myriad of little programs, yet there is an immediate move to delete Nova Development.

Nova Development arose to my attention as I was researching commercially marketed d.p. programs. There are apparently stability issues with Print Shop (formerly by Broderbund). N.D. also stood out since MS Publisher is defunct as earlier noted before, and MS Pub was only for MS Windows and Nova Dev publisher programs are also for Mac.

Finally, Nova Development notes that its ranking no. 4 in home graphics, citing a third party industry publication.Dogru144 (talk) 04:11, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Industry ranking reference and webpage dedicated to company products on C|net software reviews website. Please see talk page of Nova Development article for these references.Dogru144 (talk) 04:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Again, I am wondering about the inconsistency here: How did the myriad tiny market presence of these programs let the articles in this article evade article-for-deletion status: Comparison of raster graphics editors??? Dogru144 (talk) 04:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Violation of due process on Nova Development article

Why has the article been deleted with less than 14 hours discussion??

I will resurrect the article. If the article gets speedily deleted I will take this up with upper administrators.Dogru144 (talk) 18:02, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

What right to speedy deletion of article?

What right do you have to commit a speedy deletion of the article, Nova Development? Dogru144 (talk) 19:07, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Help to restore

Yes, I'd appreciate your help in restoring the article. Thank you. Dogru144 (talk) 22:34, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Where's the help?

I put a lot of time into meeting the criteria for the survival of the article, Nova Development --and I did this on the page for /Nova Development.Dogru144 (talk) 00:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Could you please help resurrect it?Dogru144 (talk) 00:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

The article looks in good shape. I like your modifications. Yes, could you re-launch the article? Thanks for getting back to me. Dogru144 (talk) 00:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Adam Smith has been chosen as the first article in WikiProject Economics' first Featured Article drive

I am contacting you because you Supported the decision to choose Adam Smith as the first Featured Article that WikiProject Economics would work on. If you can, please help out and make this goal a reality! A discussion on this has begun at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Economics#The Featured Article drive is now closed. Thanks for your time! Gary King (talk) 16:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Mount King William

The NLA external link is sufficient to show it exists - therefore it is in the furthest stretch a ref/cite - however point taken SatuSuro 14:28, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

No worries I am avery anti oggle individual - I have sufficient refs to crowd it - thanks for your work though - its reassuring to see that new changes picks up things - Id rather get challenged by one of you guys than watch my watchlist fill up with vndlsms from 12 hours ago that no one has picked up :( (which happens regularly for m,y weird watchlist) - cheers - SatuSuro 14:41, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again for your help and the redirect too - cheers SatuSuro 14:48, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Frank I hate you

First of all, we can't edit Wikipedia from work which is where we do our racing. Second of all, to delete the article would be to shoot the sun out of the sky with an illegal weapon and cover my world in darkness. Lauren thinks you're lame. She's crying. She just wanted to be famous. Nobody links to Lauren's page so its not like we're spamming Wikipedia and creating false links. It's something for me and my two roommates to share. I HATE YOU FRANK. Teddyrbear (talk) 21:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

RPI Wiki Party

Unfortunately, I can't go; I've got a geometry take-home exam to work on. I appreciate you inviting me, though. Quicksilvre (talk) 22:14, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't make it either, but would love to collaborate on the RPI article, or whatever else came out of the event. --Zr2d2 (talk) 05:56, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

So sorry I couldn't make it; I've been away from Wikipedia for a while. OneScholar (talk) 19:02, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the invite, but (a) I didn't see it in time, (b) I haven't been a student since 1986, (c) I live several hundred miles away and (d) wouldn't see the point of coming since I wouldn't know anybody anyway. --Rpresser 03:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Hauser's Law

Reply on my talk, regards – Zedla (talk) 19:55, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Look forward to working with you re: Adam Smith

I've never had anyone accept that I had good faith during a revert before. I add well cited information and always have a confrontation I don't want. I appreciate your willingness to consider the intentions of the author, and take it to the talk page where it can be discussed. Thanks. q (talk) 22:24, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:The Conscience of a Liberal cover.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:The Conscience of a Liberal cover.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 14:13, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

RfA thanks

My RfA

I hope the other kids at school play with me...

Thank you for your support in my recent RfA, which closed successfully. I felt the process was a thorough review of my contributions and my demeanor, and I was very gratified to see how many editors took the time to really see what I'm about and how I can be of help to the project. As a result, some editors changed their views during the discussion, and most expressed specific, detailed points to indicate their opinion (whether it was , , or ).

A number of editors were concerned about my level of experience. I was purposeful in not waiting until a particular benchmark occurred before requesting adminship, because I feel - as many do - that adminship is not a reward and that each case is individual. It is true that I am not the most experienced editor around here, but I appreciate that people dug into my contributions enough to reach the conclusion that I seem to have a clue. Also, the best thing about this particular concern is that experience is something an editor - or administrator - can always get more of, and I'll continue doing that, just as I've been doing. (If I seem a little slow at it, feel free to slap me.)

Thanks for noticing and supporting...and I also appreciate your early congrats on my talk page. Thanks!

I am a strong believer in the concept that this project is all about the content, and I'm looking forward to contributing wherever I can. Please let me know if I can be of any help. In the meantime, I'm off to school...

Thanks again!

 Frank  |  talk  13:38, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Kyouya Ootori notability tag

You added the tag earlier, and I've made some edits (added infobox and put in some references) to it now, so I'm just wondering if it's good enough for you to remove the tag :X — Yurei-eggtart 13:53, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the tag per your request (and because I think you're right :). You did a good job with the article; I'm glad it's reasonably well sourced now. In the future I think it's well within WikiEtiquette to remove the tag yourself if you think it no longer applies, as long as you use an edit summary explaining your actions. But I do appreciate your asking me for feedback. Keep up the good work! :) -FrankTobia (talk) 14:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh okay, thanks. :D — Yurei-eggtart 15:04, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Ed Jakmauh

Hey, well.. I don't really have any interest in this article.. and he doesn't see to be notable. I would like to see a real deletion debate on this, but chances are it would get deleted either way. The article is a conflict of interest, and those are usually frowned upon. I am just going to wait and see what happens. It is possible an admin may reject the prod and move it to AfD, in that case I would probably vote for weak deletion. ttyl Danski14^(talk) 02:06, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Reader (Anglican Church)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Reader (Anglican Church), and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.readers.cofe.anglican.org/info.php. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 00:51, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Reader (Anglican Church)

I have nominated Reader (Anglican Church), an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reader (Anglican Church). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:28, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Frequenty viewed economics articles

This is a reply to a question you asked on the mathematics project talk page about Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/Wikipedia 1.0/Frequently viewed/List. I created that list based on article viewing statistics that have been released by the server admins. One interface to these is the site http://stats.grok.se. I used a list of all mathematics articles, together with that data, to make the list of frequently viewed math articles, and I plan to update it occasionally (every few months, if I remember). I don't mind setting up the same thing for economics. Unless you have a list of all economics articles somewhere, I will use the list of economics articles that are listed in the WP 1.0 assessment tables. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Utility

I'm writing here in response to your question about a book covering utility theory. I've always liked Varian's Micro Theory texts - you can pick whichever seems to be at the best level for you. For something a little more challenging, there's Riubinsteins Lecture notes in Microeconomic Theory: The Economic Agent. For a historical look, the article on Utility in the New Palgrave is good. Best, JohnJQ (talk) 05:18, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: Featured Article Drive status

I'm not sure anymore. I think you should take the lead as I don't have as much time for WP:ECON :) I'll certainly follow your lead, though. Gary King (talk) 06:56, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

general discussion

I saw your comments on Federal Reserve System (interesting new history to me, btw). It made me wonder if there is a good way to branch of general discussions. I know WP isn't meant to be like that, but posting questions on an article's talk page seems an obvious way to try to get expert response. Cretog8 (talk) 17:19, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

That's a good question, and I'm not sure I have a good answer. A possible solution to the problem of new users constantly asking the same Fed-conspiracy-type questions is developing a FAQ (Template:FAQ) that we can put at the top of the page. As for a place to branch more general discussions, I think we could offer WP:ECON and its talk page as a possible place for it. At least, I can't see why that would be a bad idea. I don't mind when people ask such general questions on a talk page, but it becomes problematic when 1) the discussions keep going, and 2) the same questions keep being raised. If you think these are good ideas, we can try implementing them. Let me know. -FrankTobia (talk) 00:40, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure. It's frustrating when the same questions keep coming up, so having some kind of FAQ (or index to discussion history?) might be useful. At the same time, if it's on any moderately-controversial topic that might just introduce a new place for endless debate. I'm going to avoid boldness on this one, at least for the time being. Cretog8 (talk) 00:52, 24 July 2008 (UTC)