User talk:Frankabr.

November 2017

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Billy the Kid has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
For help, take a look at the introduction.
The following is the log entry regarding this message: Billy the Kid was changed by Frankabr. (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.963817 on 2017-11-28T01:24:49+00:00 .

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 01:24, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. 5 albert square (talk) 05:29, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of item in world news, NY Times, BBC, Etc. Etc., and supported by forensic experts and academics

The verification of a tintype including Billy The KId and Pat Garrett together has been in world news. Forensic experts (recognition, provenance, and writing), as well as a retired professor have been quoted regarding the authenticity of the tintype.

The post was placed in wikipedia by a third party (not Frankabr.).

Another third party, 'Carlstak" continues to take it down. First he argued against the provenance. Since he is apparently neither a forensic expert, or someone quoted in the NY Times, BBC., etc., etc., his attack on the tintype is specious at best.

Further, the failure to include an article that is in world news, brings down the quality of Wikipedia, and in the eyes of those who look at, use or rely on this source, it lowers Wikipedia in the esteem of the public. Anyone who Googles the article will see close to a million hits.

Next, this same person, who apparently is neither a forensic expert or professor, and apparently does not work for the NY Times or The BBC., and who apparently can figure out that frankabr. was Not the first poster of this item, claims that there is a "possible conflict of interest" in frankabr. posting the article.

First of all, frankabr. did not post the original section. Secondly, Carlstak's attack for lack of provenance was both incorrect and misleading. Merely correcting that section is not a "conflict of interest." Next., the idea that poster will potentially profit from having a truthful posting, and that somehow this is wrong, is the most absurd argument that could ever be put forth. Everyone profits from the truth. But no-one profits from hiding it.

Please repost the section that Carlstak keeps taking down, and if at all possible prohibit this act from taking place in the future.§ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frankabr. (talk • contribs) 10:44, November 29, 2017 (UTC)

See the previous message about singing you talk page posts, and see the article's talk page for the consensus not to include this image. Meters (talk) 23:50, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please, Meters, there's enough drama around here without people singing their posts. For me, anyway, that would be the last straw. E Eng 01:24, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That was an epic response, EEng. Thanks for the hearty laugh! :-) -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 01:29, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Trust me, if you had ever heard me sing you would know that that that was a typo! Meters (talk) 07:01, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't find that reassuring. I've seen the way plenty of people edit, and they still edit. E Eng 09:17, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

December 2017

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Billy the Kid. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. You've already had this edit undone, as have other editors, and the talk page consensus is to leave it out. Meters (talk) 23:48, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Editors have already determined this issue

The Billy/Garrett tintype, which was from a group of five, including Ash Upson,has been reported in the New York Times and world news. Forensic experts have spoken. Pat Garrett signed the tintype. Photo forensics have come up positive. Writing forensics, positive.

Those who take it down make Wikipedia look both unprofessional and uninformed.

December 2017

Your recent editing history at Billy the Kid shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 00:08, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Billy/Garrett tintype has been in world news. Forensic Experts have spoken.

This is to request that the edit by "Meters" whoever he or she is, be reversed. This issue has already been resolved as forensic experts have spoken. It has been in world news, including the New York Times. The act by "Meters" makes Wikipedia look unprofessional, amateur and taints its reputation. Please reverse the act of Meters. Thank you.

That's not how Wikipedia works. In this case, members of the community have spoken and consensus is to keep it out. The provenance is questionable at best. There simply not enough verifiable evidence that the photo is authentic. The croquet photo has more of a possibility of being real than the purported wedding photo. At any rate, the consensus has spoken and the photo stays out. You're welcome to discuss on the article talk page. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 00:34, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus by forensic experts is that it is real. Further, any discussion otherwise is contrived.

Experts have spoken. The provenance is unquestionable, including in the group of five tintype (that came along with the Billy/Garrett tintype) is Ash Upson and Florence Muzzy. The idea that the experts are wrong is contrived, ridiculous and without any basis in fact or science. Pat Garrett signed the tintype. This was determined by a forensic expert. The mendacity to question provenance is absurd and brings down Wikipedia in the eyes of users. Please revert back to the original posting that includes the Billy/Garrett tintype.

First, please sign your posts using four tildes ('~'). Secondly, as often as you have mentioned Ash Upson and Florence Muzzy, I have to ask if you are either of those individuals or represent them. If so, you need to declare a conflict of interest per Wikipedia policy. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 01:42, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Editors, please read the above post "Conflict of Interest" ??? !!!

This should tell you something about the people who are attacking the posting of the Billy/Garrett tintype article. Ash Upson is one of the tintypes that was found in the group of five. He died in 1894, and was one of the tintypes found with the Billy/Garrett tintype. That, along with his niece, Florence Muzzy, who died in 1939. Quite frankly, the above post needs no response, but please re post the Billy/Garrett article as requested.

Please sign your posts with four tildes ('~').

Okay, you can't be either Upson or Muzzy. Are you someone who has a personal interest in the photo itself? If you are, you need to declare a WP:COI per Wikipedia policy. Thanks. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 02:20, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry

This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing for sock puppetry per evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Frankabr.. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. If you believe that this block was in error, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. Bbb23 (talk) 18:22, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Frankabr. (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #20148 was submitted on Dec 24, 2017 19:12:33. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 19:12, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It was a great day before Christmas till I found I was "blocked for sock puppetry?" "having multiple accounts" ? Please remove the block.

It was a great day before Christmas, until I was "blocked" for allegedly having "multiple accounts" which I do not have.

Why someone made this up, I can only guess, but I only have and use one account.

Please restore my privileges.

Thank you.

ps. I there a way to contact you?

Is there a telephone number?

Why did someone out of the blue claim that I had multiple accounts. Or "sock puppetry" ?

I do not have multiple accounts.

Thank you.

Please restore my Wikipedia privileges.

Frank, you really need to stop. This post from you here is nearly identical in style to the one you posted under the Chessfool account name at that talk page. Look, it's already been determined that you are the owner of all the accounts and probably the IP address. I'll repeat here what I said at your other account page:

The Sockpuppet investigation done on you included a checkuser which allows an administrator to look at various aspects of a user's online information including IP address(es). The CU showed that all three accounts were likely the same user. (see SPI report here [1]) Such investigations are done carefully and blocks stemming from them are not done lightly. The IP address you used was also blocked for the same reason(s). If you want your block reviewed by an administrator, you should do it through the proper channels. Start with this WP:UNBLOCK for more information. But, you should know this: because you have abused multiple accounts in Wikipedia, the likelihood of you being unblocked at this time is very unlikely.

Especially the more you post - your writing style is so similar it's like you're leaving a fingerprint. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 20:23, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And we have forensic experts for that. E Eng 08:27, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have no clue what you are referring to, but I have one account.

Dear administrator, I have one account.

I have not posted since yesterday.

Please restore my privileges.

Thank you.

Much apologies if I did something I did not know about? I do not have multiple accounts.

I do not have and have never used multiple accounts.

Whether "Winklevi" thinks so or otherwise.

Thank you.

December 2017

Your recent edits to User talk:Frankabr. could give Wikipedia contributors the impression that you may consider legal or other "off-wiki" action against them, or against Wikipedia itself. Please note that making such threats on Wikipedia is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia's policies on legal threats and civility. Users who make such threats may be blocked. If you have a dispute with the content of any page on Wikipedia, please follow the proper channels for dispute resolution. Please be sure to comment on content, not contributors, and where possible make specific suggestions for changes supported by reliable independent sources and focusing especially on verifiable errors of fact. Thank you. Pinging Bbb23. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 21:15, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My concern is that I am being accused of something that I did not do, by someone who disagreed with my edits. All I want is my editing privileges restored. Thanks.

Dear Wiki,

All day, I have not posted anything on Wikipedia. Somehow, I am being accused of having "multiple accounts."

This is NOT true. Further, this accusation is being made by someone who disagreed with my edits. It is contrived. Period.

In the spirit of Christmas, I am in a forgiving mood. But I will not be libeled or slandered or accused of something that I did not do.

Please restore my privileges.

Thank you.

Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Frankabr. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 04:26, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

December 2017 Part IV: AN report notification

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. You will find the report filed at this link -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 21:44, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed talk page access - more or less requesting the WP:outing of another editor and what sounds like a threat to take legal action ([2]) is unacceptable. If you want to appeal now, I think that WP:ARBCOM (at Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee) or WP:UTRS would be the only places. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:47, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]