User talk:Froid

This user may have left Wikipedia. Froid has not edited Wikipedia since 25 November 2019. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

Talk page policy I prefer to keep conversations on one talk page. So, If I leave a message on your talk page, please respond there. If you leave a message on my talk page, I will respond here. Thank you.

Yoo hoo!!!! Welcome to my talk page. As the tan talk page policy box states above, if you have anything to discuss with me it's best done here. Please remain civil. I edit with good intentions, so please assume good faith. Uncivil messages will be removed. I'm not a vandal and I'm not new, so please don't slap me with a generic "Welcome to Wikipedia" warning template. If you have a concern about my edits, I would prefer that you leave me a message in your own words. Please sign and date your entries by typing four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your message. Kudos to STATicVerseaide, whose User Talk Editnotice I appropriated and adapted for my own page. Unless you specify otherwise, I will respond here. Many thanks! Froid (talk) 12:22, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Froid, and welcome to Wikipedia! Here are some recommended guidelines to help you get involved. Please feel free to contact me if you need help with anything. Best of luck and happy editing! Alphachimpbot 12:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] Getting started Wikipedia Tutorial How to edit a page The five pillars of Wikipedia Manual of Style Be bold in editing How to write a great article WikiProjects Getting your info out there Cite your sources Neutral Point of View Point of View Verifiability Uploading images Image use policy Getting more Wikipedia rules Policy Library Getting help New contributors' help page Where to ask a question Help Desk Frequently Asked Questions Getting along Wikipedians Wikiquette Civility Sign your posts Conflict resolution Getting technical Pages needing attention Peer review Utilities Village pump

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, one or more of the external links you added to the page Underground Railroad do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.

--

In general, blogs are not valid links for Wikipedia. The link you added to Underground Railroad has been removed. -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle) ^(Talk) 23:31, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, this message is in regard to one of your recent edits. I reverted this addition because the information contained, and linked to, an address. I do not believe such material is permitted per WP:DOB. Akerans (talk) 18:49, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the courtesy of letting me know, and also for correcting my misstep. Many Wikipedia articles about municipalities (e.g., Freeport, New York) list the names of notable residents. Moreover, the Giudice's home address has been bandied about widely in the news because of that family's bankruptcy proceedings and public notices of an auction to be held there. However, I wholeheartedly respect the Wikipedia policy you alerted me to, which protects the privacy of subjects' home addresses. Therefore, to honor that policy, while at the same time adhering to the aforementioned common pratice of publishing sections such as, "Notable Freeporters", I will post a modified entry supported by a different credible, supporting reference that does not specify the Giudice's actual home address. I hope that will be acceptable.

Hi Froid, You've wandered into a long-standing/winded ongoing debate about whether the article should be The Bronx or the Bronx. RFC on the talk page going on right now. You're other edits were great, but I think its best if you hold off changing The to the until the debate gets resolved. They may all need to be reverted, because IMHO, The will prevail. Bellagio99 (talk) 01:09, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Medical articles on Wikipedia are written based on the best available evidence in a consistent format. A list of resources to help you edit can be found here. The diberri tool will aid formatting the references for us in articles. All one needs to do is cut and paste the results. The welcome page is another good place to learn about editing the encyclopedia. If you have any questions feel free to drop me a note. Cheers Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:41, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Self harm. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. 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 edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Jdrewitt (talk) 15:12, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please listen to other people and stop readding the same section. Several usernames have reverted your edits, and one of them may block you for edit warring, even it's in good faith. Go to Talk:Self-harm and discuss with them why it's important to include pop culture references about self-harm. --John KB (talk) 15:14, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I've reverted your edits to Apple (disambiguation), per WP:MOSDAB. --Mepolypse (talk) 08:52, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You added sections of "in popular culture" references to these articles, yet both were unsourced and the entries didn't do much to improve an encyclopedic understanding of the articles' subjects, so I removed them. If you want to write about how a subject has been received by the media you should find some reliable sources that discuss the subject's reception and add a summary of this into the article, citing the source as a reference. Just listing everytime the subject has made an appearance in the media is original research and creates a cleanup headache down the line. ThemFromSpace 23:36, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I saw that you have been linking some common words. Please review WP:OVERLINK to see what links are of value. Erik (talk | contribs) 00:08, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you might be interested in checking out this article that I suggested and ErrantX started. Schenecker double murders.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:58, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

		The Modest Barnstar
		Thanks for your recent contributions! -129.49.72.78 (talk) 19:07, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just a heads up, but the touhou wiki has moved to http://touhouwiki.net . More info here: [1] -- Master Bigode (Talk) (Contribs) 20:00, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From a glance at your contributions, it appears you may be under the impression that disambiguation pages are supposed to be alphabetized as a rule. They're not. Theoldsparkle (talk) 14:53, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I came here to give you the same message: please do not alphabetize dab pages. The entries should usually be in order of importance, or in some other topical order (such as by birth year for people with the same name). It would be helpful if you would go through your contribution history and undo every edit where you have alphabetized dab pages.--Srleffler (talk) 03:28, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oftentimes the content on the disambiguation pages is RANDOMLY ordered, with no discernible logical or order of importance. In such cases, Wikipedia appears to be unprofessional and sloppy! Such content should be ordered in some discernible, logical fashion, with a schema that is neither tacit nor random. You'll note that the work I did improves rather than detracts from the "dab" pages I edited. Froid 10:41, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, disambiguation pages are often sloppy and random, but not always. Many have been organized by people in accordance with the MOS's suggested logical criteria, and you appear to make no distinction in those cases, disrupting the logical and sanctioned order of entries in order to apply an order that is, at best, only modestly more usable than randomization. I disagree that your work is an improvement, at least in many cases, and I will feel free to revert such edits (that detract from the page) as long as they contradict the MOS guidelines. Theoldsparkle (talk) 14:02, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An example of your alphabetizing a page to make it less logical. Did you really find it so logically incoherent that a) the Substances section was near the top of the page because users who search for "lime" are probably more likely to be looking for the common building material than Limé, a French community of 187 people that isn't even called Lime? and b) that in the Substances section, it makes more sense to list the generic term first, followed by the more specific terms, rather than listing two specific terms and then the generic term and then another specific term? Perhaps you wouldn't be so convinced that alphabetization is the absolute optimum ordering system if you ever bothered to look at what systems were already in use. Theoldsparkle (talk) 14:13, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your condesending tone is less than professional, uncollegial, and unwarranted. So take a chill pill. If you'll note, the top of the "dab" page includes a contents table/index, which allows users to easily find the contents of interest. You haven't convinced me that my work hasn't improved the pages I've edited. On the other hand, you've done nothing to dispel the impression that many have about the less than favorable temperament of many Wikipedians. Froid 14:35, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I would probably have used a friendlier tone if I'd been less cynical about the likelihood that you would re-consider your methods (or if you'd acknowledged my comment when I posted it a month ago). You're not a newbie; you've made thousands of edits in the last month alone, most of which seem to be doing the exact same thing. In my experience, people who edit like that tend to pay very little heed to suggestions that they change their patterns, no matter how courteously those suggestions are presented. Your lack of response to two concrete examples of how your editing style is irrational and damaging is strong enough affirmation of me that trying to discuss it with you is pointless. You like to alphabetize pages; you've rationalized in your head that this is a good thing; you're not going to discuss reasons that it may not be a good thing; if I come across a page that you've alphabetized or otherwise edited and I want to re-order it in order to improve it and bring it in line with guidelines, I'll feel free to do that. Theoldsparkle (talk) 14:57, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again with the 'tude! Methinks part of your issue is the need to feel validated. Froid 15:08, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Disorder in an encyclopedia, as I stated earlier, is unprofessional and sloppy. So if you choose to order things other than chronologically or alphabetically, it would be good to make explicit what the order is so users can easily find what they're seeking and so the order does NOT appear to be sloppy and random. Froid 15:10, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

The MOS, as I linked in my original comment, explicitly lays out the guidelines for ordering entries on a page. These guidelines are designed to make the most likely targets -- the topics that have dedicated articles and are most similar to the disambiguated term -- the most visible. Someone who searches for "Lime" is more likely to be searching for a town called Lime than a town called Limé; therefore, we put the town called Lime at the top. Someone who searches for "Lime" is more likely to be looking for a general discussion of the building material referred to as lime than for a specific variant such as hydraulic lime; therefore, we put the generic material at the top. If you disagree, then you should go to the MOS talk page and propose changing the guidelines to advise simply sorting everything alphabetically. (Also, you can continue making contrived remarks attempting to get my goat if you want, but I suggest you aim for something not quite so random. Yeah, my comment that I'm resigned to your ignoring me and continuing to make bad edits and I'll just fix them if I feel like it -- I sure am just begging you to validate me, aren't I? For your own sake I really hope you're not oblivious to the hypocrisy in making remarks like that one as you berate me for being rude and condescending.) Theoldsparkle (talk) 15:35, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I hope my comments haven't deterred you from participating in Wikipedia. That was not my intention. Theoldsparkle (talk) 00:51, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your recent note. Would you please read my post of August 7 on Srleffler's User Talk page (here)? Froid 15:15, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Froid, even if the ordering on a page is random, alphabetization is not appropriate. The guidelines specify how entries on dab pages should be ordered. Your edits do not comply with this specification. Either put pages into the correct order, or leave the ordering alone. Do not arbitrarily alphabetize dab pages.--Srleffler (talk) 17:40, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Entries on dab pages are allowed to have two links if the primary one is red. In this case you removed the link to the title of a film (which was a red link). The red link is there because an article may eventually be created on that film. If this seems unlikely, then the whole entry should be deleted. See MOS:DABRL for info on red links on dab pages, and note that MOS:DABENTRY says "Each entry should have exactly one navigable (blue) link" (emphasis mine). An entry can have two links, as long as one of them is nonworking (red). The red link has to be to a viable article title.

Sorry to be raising another issue with you while the previous one is still being discussed. I'm not trying to pick on you. It's just that editors who enjoy doing large numbers of technical clean-up edits (e.g. to dab pages) can do a lot of damage very quickly if they are not aware of all the guidelines.--Srleffler (talk) 05:55, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Are you also under the name Kaigon sometimes? (other applications)

regards, CK Karcih (talk) 18:56, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello CK. No, I'm not. Best wishes, Froid. Froid 21:15, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Just a reminder: if you're going to be adding information about people's ex-wives and divorces and such, you really should try to cite some sources. See WP:BLP. Thanks. Zagalejo^^^ 03:09, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I am a student at Clemson University, and for my English class we have an assignment to edit a wikipedia page. I am working on National Outdoor Leadership School's wikipedia page. From the changes that I have made so far, could you give me suggestions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hcxc1234 (talk • contribs) 01:47, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, BOHICA , has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Cnilep (talk) 01:11, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there,

I removed your link to Page Six in the "see also" section of Page 6. The "See also" section is normally used for listing related articles likely to be of relevance or interest to the article that precedes it.

The NY Post "Page Six" column/magazine is unrelated (i.e. it only required mentioning to clarify any potential confusion over the similar name), so a disambiguation "hatnote" is more appropriate. (There was already one in the article, so I left it in place).

Hope this helps, Ubcule (talk) 22:13, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted your edit adding Jon Roberts as a notable resident of Hollywood, Florida because the article about Jon Roberts has no mention of Hollywood, and the citation you placed on the entry was to an advertisement for his book. Please provide a reliable source for Jon Roberts' residency in Hollywood if you want to add him again. -- Donald Albury 20:19, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Followed Donald Albury's good advice!

Dear Author/Froid

My name is Nuša Farič and I am a Health Psychology MSc student at University College London (UCL). I am currently running a quantitative study entitled Who edits health-related Wikipedia pages and why? I am interested in the editorial experience of people who edit health-related Wikipedia pages. I am interested to learn more about the authors of health-related pages on Wikipedia and what motivations they have for doing so. I am currently contacting the authors of randomly selected articles and I noticed that someone at this address recently edited an article on Methamphetamine. I would like to ask you a few questions about you and your experience of editing the above mentioned article. If you would like more information about the project, please visit my user page (Hydra_Rain) and if interested, please visit my Talk page or e-mail me on [email protected]. Also, others interested in the study may contact me! If I do not hear back from you I will not contact this account again. Thank you very much in advance. Hydra Rain (talk) 22:05, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I see you've been involved in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Television. I have begun a discussion on spoilers in episode lists and would appreciate your input. -- ke4roh (talk) 02:24, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The message this replaces was an effort to contact you from a banned user, Excuseme99. Please remember that Wikipedia policy explicitly forbids taking editing directions from banned users, so I strongly urge you to ignore the contract request. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions.—Kww(talk) 05:43, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. While I appreciate the effort and research done on suicides, they are not appropriate for these articles. Copy-cat suicides can happen just to be included in such lists, and we really don't need that. From my point of view, no suicides are significant, except to their family and friends, and no names should be included. If people want to die this way, we can mention that fact, and maybe what's being done to make it harder to do, but going beyond that is not a good idea. My opinion only. - Denimadept (talk) 07:54, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Denimadept - While those names have been publicly documented (e.g., in the citations I provided), publishing them in Wikipedia is an issue I certainly won't press, as I don't want to contribute in any way to encouraging copycats or to glorifying suicides. I agree with you, however, that it's a good idea to mention suicide-prevention efforts. I also think it's important to provide information or links within suicide bridge articles about how painful it is to die by jumping/falling off a bridge, as many news reports (as in the case of Tyler Clementi) merely cite drowning, bruising and blunt injuries (a practice which euphemizes the gory details and does nothing to dissuade potential jumpers). To whit, here's an excerpt and associated citation from Suicide_of_Tyler_Clementi#Suicide: "The medical examiner's autopsy report cites drowning as the cause of death, and notes blunt impact injuries to his torso."^[1] In response, I added to the following article to the Tyler Clementi article's External links section: John Koopman, Chronicle Staff Writer (2 November 2005). "No easy death: Suicide by bridge (Part 4 of a 7-part series)". San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved 29 July 2012. {{cite news}}: More than one of |website= and |journal= specified (help) - Froid 10:35, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

There is more discussion in Talk:The Bridge (2006 film). I returned Gene-section googletranslated it from es-wiki, before noticing it has been there earlier; that i find out from redirect of Gene Sprague. I feel Gene-section is important part of the article. Have anyone heard of copycats making their leape same way asking someone to film it?--RicHard-59 (talk) 09:24, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Richard - Regarding your copycats inquiry: I am unaware of any such exact case. However, two somewhat-related instances have been publicized. One (I can't recall where I read about it) is the case of a professional Hollywood stunt man, who jumped from the bridge in connection with a feature film that scripted that action. The other instance, posted at Golden_Gate_Bridge#Suicides, was a really stupid stunt on the part of Windsor High School student Luhe "Otter" Vilagomez, who on March 10, 2011 sought to impress his schoolmates by jumping on a dare. Fortunately, he survived and fared better than most jumpers, including those who've survived.^[2][3] Also fortunately, police have recommended imposing criminal charges for that stunt.[2] TO DO LIST: find out what charges were actually imposed and include that info in the article. - Froid 10:37, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I understand the names are in the cited sources. I'm glad we agree on this. It's one thing for a newspaper to document a death for one day, just after it happened, but given that WP keeps such stuff up for an indefinite time, I'm glad we can agree to leave it out. If people want the details, they're welcome to check the cites. :-/ The more substantial "suicides" section at the GGB article seems appropriate. I'm not a big fan of such, but I don't have to be: it's part of reality and these people didn't ask me for permission. - Denimadept (talk) 17:07, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Can you check my typo in the article Whole Country is Red. Im sure the text i wrote has errors. -RicHard-59 (talk) 20:48, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Richard - The Wikipedia article you posted too closely replicates the wording of the "Top 13" article, and needs a rewrite to summarize the material in your own words. - Froid 07:29, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

My sincere compliments on your editing work on "People Associated With Anne Frank". Bravo! I did make one grammatical correction to "Hannelore Klein". Melos Antropon (talk) 05:56, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 03:51, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed 'em all! Froid 04:40, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi! Good news: you were approved for a free WP:HighBeam account. Bad news: Your access code could not be delivered because of your email settings. Please:

• Email me at [email protected] with your Wikipedia username so I can respond with your account code.

Thanks! --User:Ocaasi 15:15, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good news! You are approved for access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research.

• The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code you were emailed. If you did not receive a code, email [email protected] your Wikipedia username.
• To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1
• If you need assistance, email or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
• A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:HighBeam/Citations.
• HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
• Show off your HighBeam access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/highbeam_userbox}} on your userpage
• When the 1-year period is up, check applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi 15:28, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. With this edit, I had noticed that you had removed most of the page content. Was this an accident, or did you intend to remove the material? Thanks. 2602:304:59B8:1C79:9904:6C8D:6C7D:459F (talk) 02:55, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sheesh! Thanks for the heads-up. That was a huge error on my part; not even sure how that happened. I've restored the inadvertently deleted content.

Normally I revert uncited examples in everyman immediately, given that most additions are drive-bys. I haven't done that in this case but I feel I must insist that examples be cited. Mangoe (talk) 03:27, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done! I noticed the the Jim Halpert example was uncited as well, so I added a citation for that entry, too. Additionally, I performed some cleanup on the page (e.g., I properly formatted the bare url for the Stan Marsh entry).

Thanks. I get so tired of people who don't understand the concept adding any character who isn't a complete weirdo. Mangoe (talk) 01:27, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Froid. Thanks for contributing to United States Army Corps of Engineers. I feel that such a significant agency should be portrayed to higher standards through the proper use of citations of third-party sources than it is. Anything you can do to help would be welcome! Cheers, User:HopsonRoad 21:40, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed! Just posted citations for the Pentagon and Manhattan Project. Froid 22:15, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Froid,

Your section on the Noble Savage Today is entirely without references. I think I understand what you are trying to say, namely that the motion pictures you list arguably depict tribal or primitive people in an idealized or "unrealistic" way, but you need to back up your statements with citations from a reliable source, otherwise it comes off as a mere opinion of yours and is not encyclopedic in tone or content. Thanks. Mballen (talk) 22:26, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mballen - Click that article's "View history" tab, and you'll see that I edited the article's preexisting content but did not provide said content. My only contribution, besides copyediting, was to add a link under "See also/Cultural examples" that directs readers to Perspective that contributed to Hells Angels' use as security for some 1960s rock concerts. That section documents that fact that Ken Kesey referred to the Hell's Angels as "noble savages", explains his rationale, and provides a credible citation. - Froid 22:29, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

My sincere apologies and thanks for the clarification. I've forgotten how to add needs citation tag, actually, or would have done so! 173.77.77.172 (talk) 23:51, 16 November 2012 (UTC) Mballen (talk) 23:58, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Froid, I had a look at the citation from James Miller and found that, so far as I can see, it was he and not Ken Kesey who used the word "noble savages" to describe the Hells Angels and I therefore changed the article to reflect this. It is interesting that rock critic Miller happens also to be a professor of political science who wrote a book about Rousseau, accusing Rousseau of being a precursor to totalitarian democracy and even Stalinism. Therefore, I would conclude he was not a neutral observer but that in using the epithet "noble savage" had an ax to grind. Best. Mballen (talk) 22:52, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, thanks for the heads' up about how to insert citation needed. Very useful.

Hi, Froid. I don't think it is necessary to recap Allen's career in Broken City's "Production" section. I do understand the partial relevance of mentioning what similar stuff he has directed before. Maybe we could do a "Notes" section like American Beauty (film) has? Erik (talk | contribs) 00:44, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Froid, can you please explain how "character's" is correct and not simply "character". The sentence "Sarah Wayne Callies is still credited among the main cast, despite her character's being killed off" doesn't seem right. I've re-read it a bunch of times, and it seems wrong. For example, "Sarah Wayne Callies' character is killed of" is correct, but surely "Sarah Wayne Callies character's is killed of" is not. Why would "character" need an 's when it's referring to one character, not multiple. I'm genuinely confused, and I really want to know why that is correct. It'd be great if you could explain it. Thanks. Drovethrughosts (talk) 22:09, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Drovethrughosts - The rule is: use the possessive case before gerunds (words ending with -ing). See rules 12 and 13 at GrammarBook.com: Apostrophes Froid 22:27, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Okay, those examples make perfect sense. But do you not agree the sentence still doesn't sound right at all? Or is it just me? While repeating the sentence back to myself another hundred times, I figured it makes sense when in future tense, "her character's being killed off", as in "her character is being killed of" but her character was/has been killed off. Am I on to something or am I still in the wrong? Thanks. Drovethrughosts (talk) 22:58, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Drovethrughosts - The explanations for your thinking [note the use of the possessive pronoun "your", followed by the gerund "thinking"] the corrected sentence doesn't sound right are:

1. You're only newly acquainted with the grammar rule that sentence obeys, so you haven't yet developed a reliable ear for the proper usage, and
2. The rule is commonly broken, both orally and in writing, so you've become accustomed to such violations.

I'm glad you followed up on this issue, because we Wikipedia editors should take care to avoid making grammatical errors as well as correct those we find.

Best wishes, Froid 00:37, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Any chance the word "being" can be replaced with "been" in that sentence (and still be grammatically correct, it has to be). To me, that sounds perfectly correct and won't drive me nuts everytime I read that sentence, lol. I feel there's a tense problem (been -> being) with that sentence, and that's what fucking me up, no? Thanks again. Drovethrughosts (talk) 16:30, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the use of "being" is incorrect. The sentence should read "the character's having been killed off", so I've made that correction. Thanks for pointing it out. Froid 16:42, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Wait, can it just say "despite her character has been killed off"? That sounds perfectly right. Thanks for dealing with me over just a minor thing (and probably slightly annoyed), ha. Drovethrughosts (talk) 17:07, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Drovethrughosts - Your proposed replacement phrase, "Despite her character has been killed off", is sooooo incorrect; ouch! The sentence as currently written is grammatically correct; please don't change it.

You've already acknowledged that you're unfamiliar with the rule of grammar that applies in this instance and, consequently, applying that rule here doesn't sound right to you. May I respectfully suggest, then, that the appropriate next step is NOT to mangle the sentence to make yourself feel comfortable, but rather for you to either: (1) give yourself time to become comfortable with the grammatically correct sentence construction , or (2) let this issue go and move on. Best wishes, Froid 17:31, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

	The Copyeditor's Barnstar
	You definitely earned this one! Thank you for all your hard work. It's greatly appreciated! Recollected (talk) 22:09, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Froid! I didn't change "Shumpert" to "bowman", I did the exact opposite. Maybe an unregistered user changed it. I believe this is all a misunderstanding. Thanks for you work in the TWD pages though. Jal11497 (talk) 07:14, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, your signature does not contain a link to either your user or talk page, which makes it non-standard. To fix this, go into your preferences and uncheck the box that says "Treat the above as wiki markup ...". Graham87 11:26, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. I've made the change. The preview indicates it did the trick. Froid (talk) 14:56, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, that's it. It's fine now. Sorry about the duplicate message. Graham87 07:05, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see you have made recent additions to the article. The page numbers for the book you cite are missing. If you know the page numbers, please add them in. Thanks, Kierzek (talk) 12:01, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Kierzek: I linked an online article that isn't paginated; I did, however, provide the url. Cheers, Froid (talk) 12:10, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Kierzek (talk) 12:40, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings!

Seeing that you've edited the article on Gainesville on Wikipedia, I'm inviting to the North Central Florida 2013 Great American Wiknic that will be on Saturday June 22, 2013, commencing at 1:00 pm, ten blocks north of UF campus in Gainesville,.

If you're able and inclined to come, please RSVP at at this URL.

Type to you later, Vincent J. Lipsio (talk) 20:04, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RSVP'd June 1 Froid (talk) 17:26, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to have to revert your edit, but it has no citation and it seems to me, looking at the movie's article, to be a questionable analysis of the character. Fields's stock drunk character is its own type. But at any rate, this article has been plagued with people putting in uncited examples, so I've had to be very hard-nosed about removing them. If you can come up with a citations, you are obviously welcome to re-add this example. Mangoe (talk) 13:40, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Undid the revert and added a parenthetical comment and multiple citations with quotations noting Fields' "Everyman" characters in several talking pictures. Froid (talk) 14:31, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria (talk) 20:27, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:00, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for your excellent copy edit of the article! I will fix the citations you asked for, but I'm not sure what you are suggesting for the "out of date" tag. I wrote the article and I've searched the web for any information I could find and included it. What were you suggesting for updates? Gandydancer (talk) 18:54, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gandydancer:

Thanks for the kind feedback! The section of the article I labeled "outdated" indicated that two men were SCHEDULED to speak at the museum's 50th anniversary; since that date has past, the section needs updating to indicate whether or not they ACTUALLY spoke. Would you please edit that section to indicate whether they ACTUALLY did it or not?

FYI, my great uncle was a Pullman porter, so for me that article is especially interesting and important. Thank you for writing and maintaining it! Froid (talk) 03:42, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I was aware that it would have been good to follow up that information but I've never been able to find a follow up. In my experience this is not unusual, I run into the problem all the time. I reworded the information and hope that you do not replace the tag. I could have removed the men's names, but I have so much respect for these men who faced so much discrimination and yet somehow endured. I like the idea of having the "power" of adding their name to wikipedia--it is one of the few joys that an editor gets around this place. :) I did it in my Gandy dancer article as well. Where was your great uncle living when He was a porter? Was he black? Gandydancer (talk) 23:56, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, Gandydancer,

Love your wiki handle! Are you a current or former railroad worker?

I see what you mean about finding updated info about actual attendees and won't re-post the "outdated" tag. Instead, I posted references providing further info about the two former Pullman porters who were scheduled to speak at the anniversary event.

Yes, my great uncle was black. He's originally from Virginia, but I'm unsure where he was living at the time he became a Pullman porter (and therefore what city/state he'd have listed in the registry). I look forward to learning much more from my folks.

What a great find for the article! Again, you have been a great help in both your info hunting and your edits. I do the best I can, but I really am not at all gifted when it comes to writing.

No, I didn't work on the railroads. I am retired--I was an RN. But I actually did sleep in a berth when I was little, perhaps four years old. It was during the war years and my dad had been shipped out and "Mama" took us on the train to live in our family home in Northern Minnesota while he was gone.

A black uncle! Not too many white people can say that! Yes, do learn everything you can from your parents. Information that is not written down has a way of getting lost forever.

I'm going to use some of the new info you found in the article so please check back later and see if I've left more work for you. ;) Gandydancer (talk) 23:18, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gandydancer,

Wish I'd written down what Mom told me about my Pullman porter uncle, or requested more details sooner, as she now can't remember. Fortunately, we're having a family reunion this summer, so I'll ask around then.

RE: "A black uncle! Not too many white people can say that!" Why do you think I'm white?

RE: "I'm going to use some of the new info you found in the article so please check back later and see if I've left more work for you. ;)" - It's fun collaborating on an article in this way! - Cheers, Froid (talk) 23:49, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why do I think you're white? Well, I did wonder...but in my experience a lot of people here do not like to offer any personal information. It's something I don't understand as I'm not that way at all. Now I'm feeling a little embarrassed about it all... Gandydancer (talk) 02:10, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No need for embarrassment, friend. - Froid (talk) 01:28, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:54, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Froid, I'm sending you this message because you're one of about 300 users who have recently edited an article in the umbrella category of open educational resources (OER) (or open education). In evaluating several projects we've been working on (e.g. the WIKISOO course and WikiProject Open), my colleague Pete Forsyth and I have wondered who chooses to edit OER-related articles and why. Regardless of whether you've taken the WIKISOO course yourself - and/or never even heard the term OER before - we'd be extremely grateful for your participation in this brief, anonymous survey before 27 April. No personal data is being collected. If you have any ideas or questions, please get in touch. My talk page awaits. Thanks for your support! - Sara FB (talk) 20:40, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

...fix it. Drive-by tagging simply leaves the work for other people to do, it's much more collegial (and efficient) if you actually fix the problem instead. BMK (talk) 02:31, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's no prohibition against noting cn's and unreferenced articles, pages, and sections. Moreover, both noting the need for references and contributing said references contribute to improving Wikipedia. Sometimes I do fix the problem (which cleans up work the original contributor left undone); at other times while reading an article that I see needs citations or better references, I indicate that need, but I may be focused on another agenda or have limited time to chase down references, in which cases it would be INEFFICIENT for me to switch gears to go on a reference hunt. In still other instances, I might be reading Wikipedia on a device (such as my phone or ereader) that permits me to note the need for references but is ill-equipped to search for and/or type them in. Whatever the case - whether I hunt down and fix a reference or not - it would be irresponsible to notice the need for references yet not indicate that finding. Froid (talk) 03:01, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I see you have reverted my notes indicating the need for references. You appear to be unfamiliar with the rules for using references - one cannot merely state facts without providing supporting evidence. If you dislike providing such evidence, don't just remove the tags; let someone else provide such support. And please read one or more of the following guides for citing references, found at such links as these:

• Wikipedia:Citation_needed
• Template:Unreferenced_section
• https://www.google.com/search?q=wikipedia+cite+references&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&channel=fflb

I'm going to replace my good faith and well-founded edits. Let's not get into an edit war; if you dislike my notations, then please call in a mediator. Froid (talk) 03:10, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've requested input from a third party to help resolve this: see Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Bryant_Park. Froid (talk) 03:24, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, 9 years here and 145K+ edits means that I'm "unfamiliar" with referencing. Stop being so fucking lazy and fix a problem when you see it. And stop tagging "the sky is blue" facts. BMK (talk) 04:43, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've expanded my request for intervention (regarding your reactions to my tags pointing out unreferenced and underreferenced content) to now also include attention to your disruptive and uncivil (category 1a 1b, 1c, and 1d) behavior. As per Wikipedia guidelines, I'll tag your user talk page accordingly. Froid (talk) 08:00, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there Froid, would you please take a look at the first two paragraphs under the "Later events" section of the Emmett Till article where I just made a few changes? It's a GA and I'd like to get it right. It's mostly the placement of commas that concerns me, but any other needed tweaks would be appreciated. Thanks. Gandydancer (talk) 13:14, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Gandydancer. Done! Hope all's well. Best wishes, Froid (talk) 09:01, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Books & Bytes recipients: The Wikipedia Library has been expanding rapidly and we need some help! We currently have 10 signups for free account access open and several more in the works... In order to help with those signups, distribute access codes, and manage accounts we'll need 2-3 more Account Coordinators.

It takes about an hour to get up and running and then only takes a couple hours per week, flexible depending upon your schedule and routine. If you're interested in helping out, please drop a note in the next week at my talk page or shoot me an email at: jorlowitzgmail.com. Thanks and cheers, Jake Ocaasi via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:41, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thanks for your edit to How to Win Friends and Influence People. However, I've removed the commas you added to the article because I find them quite clunky; perhaps it's an English variant issue. Graham87 15:01, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User talk:Graham87, I appreciate your letting me know, but I've reverted your reversion. The commas are not an "English variant" (i.e., style) issue but rather a basic punctuation/ issue; without them, the article is grammatically incorrect. In case you feel strongly about this matter, I don't want either of us to provoke an edit war and have opened a discussion on the matter at Talk:How_to_Win_Friends_and_Influence_People#Commas_debate. Froid (talk) 00:45, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! You have received preliminary approval for access to Credo. Please fill out this short form so that your access can be processed. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:50, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sunday August 17: NYC Wiki-Salon and Skill Share

You are invited to join the the Wikimedia NYC community for our upcoming wiki-salon and knowledge-sharing workshop on the Upper West Side of Manhattan. Sunday August 17 NYC Wiki-Salon and Skill Share (RSVP). 2pm–5pm at Yeoryia Studios at Epic Security Building, 2067 Broadway (5th floor). Afterwards at 5pm, we'll walk to a social wiki-dinner together at a neighborhood restaurant (to be decided). We hope to see you there!--Pharos (talk) 15:58, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by removing your name from this list.)

Hello, WP:The Wikipedia Library has record of you being approved for access to JSTOR through the TWL partnership described at WP:JSTOR . You should have recieved a Wikipedia email User:The Interior or User:Ocaasi sent several weeks ago with instructions for access, including a link to a form collecting information relevant to that access. Please find that email, and follow those instructions. If you were not approved, did not recieve the email, or are having some other concern or question, please respond to this message at Wikipedia talk:JSTOR/Approved. Thanks much, Sadads (talk) 21:14, 5 August 2014 (UTC) Note: You are recieving this message from an semi-automatically generated list. If you think you were incorrectly contacted, make sure to note that at Wikipedia talk:JSTOR/Approved.[reply]