I have this article on my watch list. I'll keep an eye on it. AnnieHall 18:46, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Calling a fellow editor a neo-Nazi is unacceptable behaviour. If you are a decent person, you will apologize. CWC 08:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On including Dimitrov and Mariategui on the Communism sector, Like Rosa luxemburg and trotsky and idiots so if those two idiots can be included. These two sure as hell deserve recognition. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Communism#If_Trotsky_and_Rosa_Luxenburg_are_included_then_so_should_Georgi_Dimitrov_and_Jose_Carlos_Mariategui

--CmrdMariategui 02:04, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm just here to let you know that you seem to have misinterpreted what talk pages are for. In this edit, you removed an anonomous comment, saying it was biased. The comment was not an obvious personal attack, and removing other people's comments, even "unfounded" ones (you can make comments without references on talk pages, it's why they're there) is poor etiquette. Also, I've seen the video myself, and, knowing something about the integrity of Canadian broadcasting organizations, and this video in particular, can even inform you that the anonomous poster whose comment you removed was actually -correct-. In future, try to be more careful. Talk pages are for discussion, removing other people's comments except in the case of grievous personal attacks tends to be a bad idea. I've replaced the comment, cheers. Raeft 12:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your analogy on my talk page was part of what's called "Reductio ad absurdium". Martinez isn't identified in the video, but he IS associated with groups identified. Also, the Toronto Sun article, which I'm in the process of making available, clears the matter up, so it's a non issue. Now, to finish: WP:TALK only allows one to remove true libel. Saying someone was arrested is not libel if, it turns out, it's true. In this case, as someone looking at the evidence in my hands, it's true he was arrested but not convicted. The person has the right to contribute, and the video IS on Google Videos. The comment's not yours, seriously, you shouldn't refactor it. Raeft 11:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since you moved Paul Fromm to Paul Fromm (politician) (via "neo-Nazi"), there are now many articles that point to the wrong article. Could you follow through and fix the links? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:24, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your frustration however the Articles for deletion procedure was followed properly and you must not remove AfD notices. If you oppose the deletion of an article, please comment on the AfD page. Dbromage [Talk] 01:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you're around, I could use your input on this, as it has been nominated for deletion. AnnieHall 05:03, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've know that you have an interest in the Canadian far right. Perhaps you would want to provide your input on whether these two articles should be kept as they are, modified, or deleted as per the nomination? AnnieHall 05:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Frank, "Cheap Laffs" is up to his usually tricks. I came across this today:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Shane_Ruttle_Martinez

Please sound off on it when you get a chance, and counter the crap being spewed. Thanks! UnionPride 20:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done and done. It's actually been on my watch list for a while but others are a lot quicker than I am when it comes to reverting the vandalism that has been occuring. Still, my good eye is watching. The bad one is looking at shirtless Brad Pitt photos though. AnnieHall 01:12, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I did say it was my bad eye. It's bad for a reason you knw. ;-) AnnieHall 05:23, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I restored my improvements to the layout and section titles in that article; this time with clear explanations for each individual change.Spylab 14:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning. I have indented your vote on Thebainer's voting page in the Arbitration Committee Election. In order to vote, editors must have 150 mainspace edits as of 1 November 2007. Accordingly, your vote is removed from the count - though, I note that it remains on record as a statement of your position. Please feel free to post any questions you may have at my talk page, or at the talk page for the election. Thank you for your interest in participating in this year's election. Best, ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 06:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not post copy and pasted articles onto Meir Weinstein. If you would like to add that information you need to rewrite it and not use potentially POV sources.

--Eternalsleeper (talk) 20:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please review the debate at Talk:Meir_Weinstein#my_opinion? Thanks. Black as pitch (talk) 18:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to User:Veritas-Canada. Your edits appeared to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. --Geniac (talk) 15:42, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Frank Pais, I have noticed several times that you have tried to reinsert material to the above article saying that the subject was a white supremacist. Please familiarize yourself with WP:BLP. I see no sources that indicated that he was a white supremacist, the Warman-Kulbashian ruling did not say he was a white supremacist. Unsourced statements of this sort in a Biography of Living persons are a very serious matter and can do serious harm to the project. Even if these sorts of statements have sources, extreme care must be exercised when adding this to a BLP article. Thanks in advance Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 01:25, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've provided a quality source which identifies him as a neo-Nazi. Please don't continue with your seemingly biased edits. Your degree of involvement in denying the obvious is cause for concern. Please respect edits which supply quality sources of information. After all, if it walks like a duck... Frank Pais (talk) 19:46, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See my note below; The source is dubious, as it cites the court case to label the pair as neo-nazis, while the case itself does not use the term. You have reverted three times, and I must note that further reverts on this article will result in your being blocked from editing under WP:3RR. Please stop and discuss the matter. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 17:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Frank Pais. I restored the criticism section. There is a storm of controversy surrounding this topic, as a Google search will reveal. The article contains only a handful of representative examples. Let's try to reach a consensus before proceeding. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Freedom Fan (talk • contribs) 05:55, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Restoring the criticism section in full is unacceptable. It was thoroughly laced with violations of the NPOV requirements. Please discuss the matter before restoring inappropriate content. Frank Pais (talk) 19:46, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We've been going back and forth for a month regarding the description of Richard Warman as a "human rights lawyer" (you) or a "lawyer with a background in human rights law" (me). Mr. Warman is a noted human rights activist who happens to be a lawyer. I am sure that his legal training is a valuable tool in his work in that area, however it is not accurate to describe him as a "human rights lawyer". This does not diminish his accomplishments, which are well listed in the article. It is simply a more accurate description of who is he / what he does. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 007blur007 (talk • contribs) 19:56, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I must also inform you that you've reverted three times in less than 24 hours, meaning that you're at risk of violating WP:3RR. 007blur007 has graciously attempted to discuss the matter with you, and I strongly encourage you to discuss it with him, either here or elsewhere, before editing this article again. Further such reversions may result in your being blocked from editing, as you are aware. Best, UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 17:07, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Frank - another user has suggested "lawyer active in human rights law". I'm fine with that version - are you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 007blur007 (talk • contribs) 18:16, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please respond here and remain WP:CIVIL. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 16:17, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some time ago, you participated in a deletion discussion concerning Allegations of Israeli apartheid. I thought you might like to know that the parent article, Allegations of apartheid, was recently nominated for deletion. Given that many of the issues that have been raised are essentially the same as those on the article on which you commented earlier, you may have a view on whether Allegations of apartheid should be kept or deleted. If you wish to contribute to the discussion, please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of apartheid (fifth nomination). -- ChrisO (talk) 18:07, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Frank, there's a query for you on the talk page, regarding your removal of this material. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 21:56, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop reverting eachother and sort this out on the talk page. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 05:50, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Frank. Please stop adding your opinion of Ezra Levant into the Warman article. The adjective "controversial" is subjective and does not add to the article in any way. Please discuss here or on the Warman discussion page before doing another revert. 007blur007 (talk) 18:44, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would you prefer for me to cite materials relating to the controversial nature of Ezra Levant's blogging? It has nothing to do with subjectivity, it has to do with maintaining a NPOV. Frank Pais (talk) 02:41, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Frank. That sort of analysis is appropriate for Levant's article, not Warman's. You are clearly not maintaining a NPOV - you are adding your opinion of Levant into things. Describing Levant as controversial in this article is no more appropriate than using a term such as "Free Speech Crusader" or something equally subjective. Your opinion about Levant should be left out of things. 007blur007 (talk) 13:30, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, "blur", it has nothing to do with opinion. It has to do with cited references to the nature of Levant's blogging (which is "controversial"). Frank Pais (talk) 14:29, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Frank - It is all about the relevance of the adjective, not whether it is accurate or not. The proper place for such descriptions is in the Levant article - not in the Warman piece. It has everything to do with your opinion and POV. I could cite complimentary descriptions of Levant, however those would be equally inappropriate for the article. Stop trying to spin things and stick to facts. 007blur007 (talk) 18:25, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Frank - Just to expand on my previous note, it is no more appropriate to call Levant controversial in this article as it would be to refer to the CHRC as controversial (as I'm sure that some people would like). Another user has provided a different edit of the Levant section. Is it acceptable to you? 007blur007 (talk) 19:05, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even with a source, they still delete the earthquake info. See, you have to part of the in crowd to get anywhere on this site. I refuse to be associated with these kind of libelists. Anybody that actually uses this encyclopedia as their only internet reference is sadly mistaken. Just because Wiki comes up in the top 10 of the search engines doesn't mean anything. This place is a joke. I'd close my account and leave these fools alone if I were you. 68.31.126.23 (talk) 17:07, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please note, you are close to violating the WP:3RR rule on Canadian Human Rights Commission. If you go over the limit, you may be blocked. --Rob (talk) 15:05, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Frank - You noted "Stop Wiki-stalking or you will be reported. Your edit history speaks volumes." in the CHRC article. Please go ahead and report me. I have done nothing but try to stop you and those on the other side of various CHRC related topics from politicizing the entries. When I have done so, I have typically tried to discuss the matter with you, either here or on the article talk page. Your typical response is to simply stamp your feet and say "no, it is this way because I say it is" (when you respond at all). This is not your personal soapbox, nor do you have a right to shape the content of articles simply to fit in with your POV. 007blur007 (talk) 18:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Pais, I have reported your most recent 3RR violation to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR. --Rob (talk) 23:40, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Canadian Human Rights Commission. For the Mediation Committee, Daniel (talk) 20:15, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you suspect that someone is using a sockpuppet account at Talk:Canadian Human Rights Commission to violate policy, you can bring it up on Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 04:02, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's a discussion I started at Talk:Fred Phelps#Adding of "homophobic"? about your edits. Sourced or not, it's still libel. Two users now have removed your addition, but if that's insufficient, we could take it higher up the chain if you'd like. Please respond on the Fred Phelps talk page. Thanks. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 21:09, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm the mediator at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-08-10 Canadian Human Rights Commission. Your input would be appreciated. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 09:38, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After a bit of contemplation, I agree with your position on the format of this article. My apologies for any trouble our conflict may have caused. Frank Pais (talk) 14:54, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for seeing my point of view - I know you had a strong opinion on this issue. I'm glad we can finally resolve this and move on.

I've notified the mediation page that we can resolve this issue without further conflict. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2008-08-10_Canadian_Human_Rights_Commission#New_Development

(Hyperionsteel (talk) 04:37, 20 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Why are you removing sourced material about Martinez' current and recent activities at UNB?

What does that material have to do with Martinez? Was he personally involved with the CPC-ML taking a pro-Cuba line?

I'm not sure if there's some other BLP issue at work here, but there's a number of sources indicating that Shane Martinez goes, has gone by, or at the very least has been labelled incorrectly, as Shane Ruttle Martinez. - BalthCat (talk) 12:38, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would also appreciate if you read my edit summaries. If I do something potentially controversial, like removed a sourced portion, I will explain either in edit summary or on the talk page.. As I explained in the edit summary, I did not remove sourced text, but rather the sources, as the sources do not demonstrate the items in the article. I left the text in case some one can find another source. - BalthCat (talk) 05:24, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some of your structural edits seem to be very helpful, but your removal of previously verified sources is unhelpful. Please refrain from removing sources and sourced material. Thanks! Frank Pais (talk) 14:12, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I absolutely must insist that you stop restoring false sources and removing my reasoned calls for verification for questionable ones. I do not appreciate your accusation that small edits - clearly made over time - are an attempt to obfuscate the issue. You have not attempted to communicate with me reasonably on this matter, despite my attempts to engage you on your talk page previously. I spent hours combing google and other resources like the Wayback Machine in order to confirm the existence of sources, and I do NOT appreciate your summary undoing of that work. That is unacceptable, and I will escalate this issue to the proper channels if you are unwilling to discuss this with me. Each and every edit explained itself. The only sources I removed are improper or unreliable sources. That means that I am not "deleting sources", I am cleaning up. If you wish to revert the edits, I insist that you explain why I am mistaken. A number of sources flat out do not confirm the clause immediately preceding the reftag. Other sources are dubious, and will be labelled so. - BalthCat (talk) 16:51, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically, if you look at the edit history, you will see that my edits take place over the span of four hours, and were clearly done one at a time as I addressed each citation individually. - BalthCat (talk) 16:55, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Atlantica_(trade_zone)#Opposition - BalthCat (talk) 03:10, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(for posterity!) Looks like we've worked things out, for now at least. Thanks! - BalthCat (talk) 10:10, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have noted your personal attack regarding my choice of a username. If you are trying to say that I am also, by your skewed definition, a fascist, then I will take stronger steps than this friendly warning. Make any comment you like about my edits, but leave your crystal ball scrying about what you think my political beliefs are at the door.--Die4Dixie (talk) 19:13, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was directly asked about the Klan. Keep up the attacks.

De hecho, estoy harto de tus pendejadas. Lástima que la gloriosa operación no fuera más exitosa. Si fuera el caso, no tedríamos tener esta plática tan asquerosa. Y lástima que la madre te parió no se desapareciera--Die4Dixie (talk) 23:50, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]