Archives

/Archive 0

In regards to your warnings about editing and removing information from articles and a threat of blocking access to editing - please note that, depending on the IP, it may be one of thousands, as the changes are coming from users at a Excellus BlueCross BlueShield, a large company in Rochester, NY. For example, I have a warning regarding editing an article on hot dogs - I have never visited that page, and have never made changes. However, in regards to the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute page, the 'source' that was given regarding the first undergraduate video game design degree was not only from RPI itself, but did not even provide proof. It simply says that they believe they might have the first in the country. I am not certain, but I do believe that the Rochester Institute of Technology had the first undergrad degree in game design, though I cannot find a source to back it up. So regardless, the article should not contain that information. Sorry if this is the incorrect place to discuss this, I am not an avid Wikipedia person. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.197.236.60 (talk) 18:23, 31 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No worries. I'm pretty quick to revert what appears to be wholesale content removal when there's no edit summary given (the little box right above the "Save page" button). In any case, no hard feelings, and I'll try to rectify my mistake. -FrankTobia (talk) 18:53, 31 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi
You reverted my edit to Tegan and Sara where I removed a link to Songs For Christoff, an article at AfD which is an unofficial fan compilation of some their songs. If there's some notability I'm not seeing or I'm wrong about it I suggest you go to the AfD or reword it in the article. In the meantime I re-reverted.
Cheers, Amalthea^Talk 23:15, 2 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bah. I only meant to revert the two changes to the "Personal lives" subsection. Your edit was completely legit and I'm glad you changed it back. My bad, and thanks for catching my mistake. -FrankTobia (talk) 07:07, 3 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Frank. Have you responded to the WTO asking them to send back the explicit permission? I haven't had a chance to, so I thought I would check in and see if you have done it already. Thanks so much. --Patrick (talk) 21:05, 7 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not yet, still trying to think of how to respond. I think the email we received is good enough to start using a few photos, but I would like to continue pushing for CC-BY. However, I think the bureaucratic inertia against this may prove difficult to overcome, so I wouldn't count on anything too huge. That said, I'm going to be pushing for it within a day or two, and I'll let you know how it goes. -FrankTobia (talk) 05:30, 8 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Heard anything? I sent a follow-up email a few days ago but haven't heard back. Also to let you know, I think I might be tagging Adam Smith as being non-notable. If he isn't the father of economics, then really, is he that important? Cheers --Patrick (talk) 00:44, 16 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unfortunately I haven't gotten around to trying a second time. My summer internship just finished up though so I'll have more time for my own projects (Wikipedia) before going back to school. I'll email the WTO a second time within a few days, and I'll let you know.

Also good call on Adam Smith. Too many of the alleged "main stream" sources are a clear violation of WP:RS and should be removed immediately. See you on the talk page. -FrankTobia (talk) 07:23, 16 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I disagree with your reassessment of Hicksian demand function‎, you can comment on this on the associated talk page. How important is the Hicksian? If I had to list 10 articles that would get "High" it would probably be on the list. Pdbailey (talk) 12:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is part of my recent effort to create article assessment criteria for for WP:ECON. I'm actually glad you've taken issue with it, because I need some constructive criticism (the other responses I've gotten have been agreements, see WT:ECON#Economics importance assessments). I want to encourage you to raise issues with 1) the criteria themselves, and 2) any specific assessments you disagree with. Listing it on WT:ECON means the broader Economics community can try to come to a consensus. Thanks. -FrankTobia (talk) 15:32, 13 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'll try to work on this soon but I'm not sure if I'll be able to get to it this weekend. Perhaps Sunday night or Monday. Morphh ^(talk) 21:11, 16 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey, I'd be happy to comment there, but can you give me a non-red link? Also, I think you can just paste my edit summary. I'm a little unclear as to why you down graded the Marshallian demand function, it's literally in the figure for the economics project. Does it go by another name, or is there something else that I'm missing? Pdbailey (talk) 14:56, 17 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It was only red because the page wasn't created yet. Cretog got there first though. As for my reassessment, I looked at the articles and it looked like it was the same case as Hicksian demand function. Otherwise I don't have in depth knowledge of either. That's why I'd appreciate your comments on the assessment talk page, just so we can all be the wiser. Thanks again. -FrankTobia (talk) 02:09, 18 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello--I appreciate the effort you're putting into assessment. It's obviously a tricky task. Anyway, I wanted to suggest that Agricultural economics is a tricky example for Mid importance. To me it seems like the kind of thing which concerns many layfolk as well as economists, and therefore ranks into High. This is particularly true if taking a world-view in which many people's livelihoods are more closely tied to agriculture than in the U.S. (where I am). Anyway, as I say it's tricky. (If you'd prefer these discussions in a particular place I'll happily move it there.) Cretog8 (talk) 02:55, 17 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for your accolades. Assessing agricultural economics does look tricky, and while I don't have a strong opinion either way, I do think High is a reasonable rating. I've added some dicta to the importance criteria that describes how I think assessments should be handled by WikiProject Economics. Here's what I'm thinking: you should assess agricultural economics to reflect what you think the importance should be. Then make note of it on the assessment talk page. If enough of us are bold, the criteria will spring forth as if by an invisible hand, and then any disagreement will lead to consensus decisions. And I think it'd be awesome for more people to own a piece of this undeclared assessment drive :) -FrankTobia (talk) 10:26, 17 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Don't worry, I know I was approaching 3RR. It's the 4th one that gets you. I'm going to write to WP:ANI since this has gone on for too long. He is clearly being a disruptive editor. I was hoping an non-involved editor might start talking to skip but that hasn't happened. --Patrick (talk) 20:44, 18 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just to let you I did go ahead and report him to ANI. Hopefully things can settle down. --Patrick (talk) 00:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wow, I was going to say that any mention of the necktie was wp:undue, but upon a web search apparently several people think it's worth talking about. Weird economists. CRETOG8(t/c) 18:47, 19 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Haha, go figure. Yeah I tried to cut out any shout-outs that didn't directly add some information about Smith's legacy. I mean, no one should care that such-and-such guy was important for such-and-such reason when they're reading about Adam Smith. On that note, the Noam Chomsky paragraph still kind of irks me, but not sure what to do with it. -FrankTobia (talk) 18:54, 19 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Should the deletion tag come off List of topics in industrial organization? CRETOG8(t/c) 20:47, 19 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah good call. I forgot to remove it when I delisted the article from AfD. Thanks for the heads up. -FrankTobia (talk) 23:49, 19 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello--I started to run with this, but noticed you'd assessed at least some lower, so I'll pause on making the changes. CRETOG8(t/c) 05:11, 20 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I was wondering if you would be able to join the discussion over at FairTax. This has become too difficult to address by disputed parties and the introduction of a first time moderator has recently made it worse. It looks like we may be heading to an arbitration, but we just need more people in the discussion. This article is seriously wearing me out. Most of the discussion is not really about content, it's more about policy and the basis for including and excluding content. Debates over WP:FRINGE, WP:V, and WP:NPOV. Thanks Morphh ^(talk) 16:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good and awakening job on Unemployment article.Some obviusoly tries to remove important materials that they for some reason don´t like. I have seen it before.Good job.--J. Milch (talk) 01:47, 26 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. I do what I can. -FrankTobia (talk) 01:48, 26 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've been advised that the page on New Politics I wrote has been deleted as it had no redeeming content. I was told to write to you to get a copy of what was deleted. I can't find anything like a message function in Wikipedia so I'm resorting to try to communicate with you here. Could you please send me the deleted page for New Politics. Thank you Bob Thomson —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bthomson100 (talk • contribs) 11:11, 27 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I requested speedy deletion for the article you created called Networked politics (New Politics still exists). I felt that the article met one of the criteria for speedy deletion, so I tagged it as such. However, I was not the one to delete the article; I am not an administrator, so I can't delete articles. User:Cobaltbluetony agreed with my assessment and deleted the article, and he can retrieve a copy of what was deleted. I don't have the power to do this. I hope this helps. -FrankTobia (talk) 14:35, 27 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No problem on the image, I've been looking for a good place to jump in on the GA changes. You've been doing such a great and quick job that I didn't want to overlap you. I'll research the image stuff and let you know. Morphh ^(talk) 15:45, 01 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I just realized the article has been nominated and reviewed. I'd be glad to help out wherever I can; there appears to be a lot of activity lately so perhaps you could fill me in on what needs to be done that you'd like me to do so I don't have to go through all of that text? :) Cheers! Gary King (talk) 17:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The only things that still need to be addressed are at Talk:Adam Smith#GA review comments. I want to finish taking care of them quickly since it's been a few days. I think we're winding down the time we have to improve the article before it fails WP:GAN, but we're really close...

Thanks Gary. -FrankTobia (talk) 18:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm gonna chime in here. I'm not a fan of sticking strictly to the 7 days bit. If you guys feel you are making meaningful progress on improving the article (or will soon), then I'm happy to wait a bit and pass it. If you think that you aren't but that another opinion would give some helpful insight or provide a better yardstick for GA status, let me know and I'll change the listing to 2/o. I don't really want to fail this article, but those few comments I left are important with regards to Smith's place in history. Protonk (talk) 14:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I recently made an ill-fated appeal to "truth" on the Federal Reserve System talk page. I should not have been so bold. I grant your point that truth is less important than verifiability, in Wikipedia and many other places. However, in reality, a blatant lie can often be "verified," as evidenced in the news media every day. Where is the line between "verified" and "corroborated"? Here is a list of "verifiable" falsehoods, for your consideration (yes, I am serious; research these matters and you will learn SOMETHING): HIV causes AIDS; the US income tax is legal; the United States of America is a democratic nation, with a legally binding Constitution; Pearl Harbor was a surprise attack; the Federal Reserve is a government agency; we can go on and on. Yes, let's please improve the Federal Reserve System page, but I will not refrain from noting lies and falsehoods when they are apparent. Sorry. If you'd like to back up the "facts" on that page with further references, feel free, but it will not alter the truth.Legalfiction (talk) 08:13, 26 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

FrankTobia, I am sorry to say, but when you say the debt can be paid off you are, in fact wrong, because of one and only one thing, the application of interest by the federal reserve that is applied to the only money printed and in circulation. So that fact being true in all terms, The debt will never be able to be repaid to that which is the Federal Reserve Bank. If the debt were repaid, the money would cease to exist leaving no value in the monetary system. Frank, im sorry to say that the only banking book that is a valued resource is the book Modern Money Mechanics written in 1913 by the Federal Reserve Bank. Also, if you look at the shareholders of each Fed Bank they will all lead back to the same people, mostly located in Europe. By saying that the federal reserve bank/system does not work for profit, yet they apply interest to all loans derived from them as a source is really denying that you are credible in any way, and im not saying this as an insult, but the only reason of interest to be applied IS to make a PROFIT. Feel free to reply to this at any time or email me at randomrd@gmail.com, I will be copying this and reposting it daily to prevent editing. 71.55.122.30 (talk) 22:31, 20 February 2009 (UTC) Sam GelmanReply[reply]

As requested, content of the deleted article is as of follows :

A bliss point represents when a consumer's desires have been satiated. For two goods, beer and pizza, there exists a point where more of either good will make the consumer worse off. This idea assumes no arbitrage or saving. Let us assume you have an infinite amount of pizza, but you also desire beer. As you trade out your pizza for beer, you move towards your bliss point. The point where further consumption of either good would make you less happy is your bliss point.

No other substantive changes were made to it other than it was nominated for AfD. - Best regards, Mailer Diablo 03:52, 6 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

:-D Awesome, thanks! -FrankTobia (talk) 04:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

		The Business and Economics Barnstar
		For your tireless contribution to improving the quality of Economics articles in Wikipedia. LK (talk) 10:03, 20 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Economics articles are looking a lot better today than they did a year ago, and your efforts have made a major contribution to that. --LK (talk) 10:03, 20 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Not Really Scared album cover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Aspects (talk) 22:55, 13 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You are receiving this message either because you received a similar one before and didn't object, or you requested to receive a similar one in the future.

There is a planning discussion taking place here for DC Meetup #9. If you don't wish to receive this message again, please let me know. --NBahn (talk) 04:56, 20 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• You are receiving this message either because you received a similar one before and didn't object, or you requested to receive a similar one in the future. If you don't wish to receive this message again, then please let me know either on my talk page or here.
• Planning — for the most part, anyway — is now finished (see here) for DC Meetup #9.

--NBahn (talk) 02:38, 10 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. You are being notified as you have made a number of contributions to the article. I have found some concerns which you can see at Talk:Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:17, 23 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello there. Sorry to bother you, but you are (titularly at least) a member of WP:WikiProject Economics, as defined by this category. If you don't know me, I'm a Wikipedia administrator, but an unqualified economist. I enjoy writing about economics, but I'm not very good at it, which is why I would like to support in any way I can the strong body of economists here on Wikipedia. I'm only bothering you because you are probably one of them. Together, I'd like us to establish the future direction of WikiProject Economics, but first, we need to know who we've got to help.

Whatever your area of expertise or level of qualification, if you're interested in helping with the WikiProject (even if only as part of a larger commitment to this wonderful online encyclopedia of ours), would you mind adding your signature to this page? It only takes a second. Thank you.

Message delivered on behalf of User:Jarry1250 by LivingBot.

The article Mike Linksvayer is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike Linksvayer 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 good 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 template from the top of the article. NW (Talk) 20:33, 28 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You are invited to WikiXDC, a special meetup event and celebration on Saturday, January 22 hosted by the National Archives and Records Administration in downtown Washington, D.C.

• Date: January 22, 2011 (tentatively 9:30 AM - 5 PM)
• Location: National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), downtown building, Pennsylvania Avenue & 7th St NW.
• Description: There will be a behind-the-scenes tour of the National Archives and you will learn more about what NARA does. We will also have a mini-film screening featuring FedFlix videos along with a special message from Jimmy Wales. In the afternoon, there will be lightning talks by Wikimedians (signup to speak), wiki-trivia, and cupcakes to celebrate!
• Details & RSVP: Details about the event are on our Washington, DC tenwiki page.

Please RSVP soon as possible, as there likely will be a cap on number of attendees that NARA can accommodate.

Note: You can unsubscribe from DC meetup notices by removing your name at Wikipedia:Meetup/DC/Invite/List. BrownBot (talk) 02:03, 7 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Archives of American Art Backstage Pass! - You are invited!

The Smithsonian is hosting its first Backstage Pass at the Archives of American Art on Friday, July 29. 10 Wikimedians will experience the behind the scenes aspects of archiving the world's largest collection of documents and photographs related to American art. After a complimentary lunch, an edit-a-thon will take place and prizes will be awarded. Followed by an evening happy hour. We hope you'll participate! SarahStierch (talk) 14:15, 16 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:01, 23 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, FrankTobia. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm working on a study of political motivations and how they affect editing. I'd like to ask you to take a survey. The survey should take no more than 1-2 minutes. Your survey responses will be kept private. Our project is documented at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Wikipedia_%2B_Politics.

Survey Link: http://uchicago.co1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_9S3JByWf57fXEkR?Q_DL=56np5HpEZWkMlr7_9S3JByWf57fXEkR_MLRP_aabd6RA6GRNYcPb&Q_CHL=gl

I am asking you to participate in this study because you are a frequent editor of pages on Wikipedia that are of political interest. We would like to learn about your experiences in dealing with editors of different political orientations.

Sincere thanks for your help! Porteclefs (talk) 13:21, 7 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, FrankTobia. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi FrankTobia, I've created a proposal to begin a WikiProject Georgetown University. Since you're an alumnus of Georgetown, I thought you might be interested to know of this proposal. If you might like to participate in this proposed project or have thoughts on whether it's a good idea, I'd appreciate it if you weighed in. Ergo Sum 05:05, 23 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]