User talk:Fram/Archive 13

You are very brave
Well done. Now, I suggest hiding under a rock for a long time. :) Friday (talk) 20:45, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * -) Thanks. I'll be back in a few weeks... Fram (talk) 20:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Goede reis! --Allemandtando (talk) 20:51, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I suppose I should courteously invite you to reconsider, first, and point to this snip from Notability:

...The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice". Notability is distinct from "fame", "importance", or "popularity", although these may positively correlate with it. A topic is presumed to be sufficiently notable to merit an article if it meets the general notability guidelines below, or if it meets an accepted subject-specific standard listed in the table at the right. If an article currently does not cite reliable secondary sources, that does not necessarily mean that its topic is not notable....


 * htom (talk) 21:05, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Fram may be willing to discuss this, certainly, but if he's gone. I don't particularly encourage a review of this AfD closure at this time, because I think we can address the problematic editor behavior more directly (both in the immediate case and in how we deal with future attempts to repeat it, perhaps because it was "successful" here.) As to the article, I'd suggest that, before taking it to DRV, if that is going to be done, that the article be taken, probably in McCullough's user space, though it could certainly be in mine or elsewhere, to readiness for prime time, best shot. *Then* to DRV or simply to replacement, depending. DRV is cleaner, probably. Being deleted will actually make it easier to improve the article. If it is in user space, the user can prevent edit warring over it. (That's one reason why it should maybe in the user space of a more experienced user, but we can cross that bridge when we come to it.) --Abd (talk) 21:38, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

The close was reasonable on the face. Thanks. I disagree, but my concern isn't over the article, which will be safer deleted for a while, but over the effect on process. However, I think we can deal with that. It looks to me like there may be DRV over this, from the comment above and if you really are gone, but I wouldn't worry about that. As I stated, your close was reasonable and proper and nobody could fault you for it, even if it is reversed, which I wouldn't care to predict at this time. Closing the page stopped the current Wikidrama; you aren't responsible if it pops up somewhere else. Enjoy your absence, if you really are leaving.

(You needn't "hide under a rock." You've done nothing wrong, and if there is a screaming crowd, it won't be after your head. The people on the Keep side of this, in fact, aren't a screaming crowd. They are a minority somewhat short of half of experienced Wikipedia users, biased toward earlier registration, who value orderly process and community consensus over disruption, these aren't the people who scream for editor's heads when they disagree with a result. That's the other side, a few of them; others simply don't put so much value on process, focusing more on content. So I'll repeat Friday's congratulations, apologize for my part in creating such a massive body of text for you to review, and thank you for looking at the Sources page and not just at the article.) --Abd (talk) 21:30, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I have no desire for either editor or admin heads. I'm sure that I don't want to do a DRV at the moment (or in the future, for that matter, although if needs must, begin politely.) As a systems programmer, I think that the topic is notable (and I know that that opinion is OR) and I hope that the article eventually becomes not only acceptable but a front-page item; the general topic is that important, at least in the computer science field. There's not much written about it because it's more wished about than studied. htom (talk) 22:08, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Right. That's what I'd expect. If you'd like to help fix the article, I've asked User:DGG to userfy it into my user space (because Fram is gone), and the Sources page was userfied to User talk:Rhmccullough/Sources. This was actually, I suspect, a better outcome than No Consensus, because now the article can be worked on free of constant interference by those demanding specific kinds of sources. Then, when we have a whole package with sufficient sources overall, we can bring it back and see if it flies. Wikipedia can be brutal with people who actually know a topic, which is quite a problem. Yes, articles need sources, but the standards are a matter for community consensus, each specific case. --Abd (talk) 22:21, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * the article and its talk page are now at User:Abd/MKR (programming language) and User talk:Abd/MKR (programming language). I'm staying out of this one.  DGG (talk) 23:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you. (Being careful to get that in before the consequences become too obvious and I begin to hate you all!) htom (talk) 04:08, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

For all clarity, my "I'll be back in a few weeks" was a light-hearted reply to the "hiding under a rock" comment. I may be a lot less active than in June, but I'll regularly be around to reply to questions and to do some active editing as well (I should really start article writing again). As for this article: everyone is of course free to start a DRV or a more principal RFC if they think it is necessary and/or useful. Discussing and improving the article in userspace is also perfectly allright, it is no attack page, BLP violation or copyright violation, so there are no really fundamental reasons to oppose this. But (and this is more a reply to htom/Ottersmith directly), I'll not reconsider it, since I know that part of the notability guideline, and I believe that in this case, a lot of editors, including the author of the subject, would have been sufficient to unearth better sources if a few of them were available. We're not talking about some ancient or third world subject, but a recent, technological, Western subject. However, the article is of course not salted and recreation when much clearer indications of notability are available is an option (just like a new AfD at that time is, obviously). Fram (talk) 04:36, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Understood, and no offense taken. I had thought the deletion -had- to be contested. htom (talk) 05:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * There were two issues in the AfD, and we had, prior to close, 5 admins considering one issue more important and 3 admins considering the other. The way I saw it, it was a crapshoot, because obviously there was no consensus among administrators about which issue was more important. Fram arrived and, as was most likely (estimated odds 5:3), sided with the notability issue over the process issue. But because AfDs do not actually establish precedent, at least individual ones don't, I don't see any reason to waste even more time with a DRV, and my guess is that the Keep voters feel the same way. It wouldn't have been that way, my guess, if the less likely conclusion of No Consensus had been made, there was an intensity to reach the "Right" decision on that side. And I don't know what DRV would have decided in that case. My guess is to endorse No Consensus as accurate, but it would be a horse race. Those who both knew the subject or who did a lot of investigation seem to have leaned toward Keep, but just about everyone recognized that this was difficult to formally justify. I disagree with Fram, there are -- barely -- sufficient sources to justify an article, but the easiest way to prove that is to put the article together. Part of the problem was that few want to put a lot of sweat into an article with an AfD tag on it. One might think the reverse, but that assumes that the editors are attached to the article. I wasn't. I came to the conclusion, once Fram had closed, that this was really the best outcome, for this is what would have happened with No Consensus: the intense deletionists would have kept their feet on the article, battling any marginal source, and, in this field, *most* sources are marginal, take a look at related articles. We can see that the newsletter source, clearly usable, was still attacked ("Griswold had retired." -- that's a new one!); and I predict that there would have been edit warring if we had attempted to use that source in the article. (Take a look at Allemandtando's brief history here. He didn't just edit war with Al_tally, he's done it all over the place.) And it's not worth it, not yet. Developing the article in user space will be far easier, and, when it is ready, it can come back, and, if AfD'd again, we'll be ready. It's a tactical decision whether or not to go to DRV to bring it back; if the article is reasonably up to snuff, just dropping it back in place would be less fuss. DRV, really, is for review and reversal of improper closes, and neither of the two AfD closes on this article were improper. Part of all the fuss was caused by agenda-driven editors who kept making up irrelevant arguments like "Sourcing wasn't considered in the first AfD" (It was. Not well, but sourcing arguments were presented). Or, "There isn't one usable source that isn't self-published." (There was, the newsletter source is clearly usable, and wasn't self-published, people continued to confuse the COI issue with RS issues, McCullough's COI was irrelevant to the usability of that source, he's just another author, and he didn't publish that article.) But I never argued that the subject wasn't, at best, marginal from what we had collected as to sources. I only argued (1) process; the AfD was properly speedy closed as an abusive nomination, and it is chilling to allow it to succeed (maybe), and (2) notability was debatable, marginal, and the best way to address it was to postpone the decision to what normal process would have followed. But I had not thought of the editing problem, that bringing the article up to speed was going to be very difficult with constant editorial pressure for sourcing perfection, so that every addition would be a battle. That's why I changed my mind, immediately, upon close. That close may not have been the best *process* decision, but we can deal with that; it was the best *notability* decision, for now. All of this is why I say, Fram, that though there may be some kind of RfC over this series of events, you won't be any kind of target, your decision was clearly within the reasonable range, and I see no rancor at all from the Keep side toward you. --Abd (talk) 13:21, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

As promised...
Please find attached the. Don't eat it all at once! -- tiny plastic Grey Knight &#x2296; 13:48, 1 July 2008 (UTC)



NB: This is just for managing to close, it's not an endorsement or comment on the particular conclusion.

List of German language playwrights
Why the title omits hyphen?  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 19:40, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, why have it in the first place? Of the 23 lists in the category Category:Lists of writers by language, all similarly named, only four had the hyphen, including the two German ones. For consistency, I moved all lists to the same system, favouring the clear majority. If there are good reasons to have the hyphen, I would of course not oppose a move of all these lists to one with a hyphen... (including the 35 pages in Category:Lists of poets by language, where I also only had to move 4 or 5. Fram (talk) 19:45, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

RS
Hi, can you tell if this blog or RS?  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 12:21, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Also I cannot understand if this can be considered RS.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 12:28, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict, this concerns your first question) Looking at the original pages, this is the project from a respectable newspaper to create a kind of controlled history-wiki. So the page you linked to is the text from a reader (a Wiki-editor), but it has been screened by the newspaper before being published. This is obviously not the same as a real newspaper article or a scientific journal article. It's not a blog either, or an opinion piece, although the latter is probably the best comparison. But the original text, on which this "article" is based, can be found here. It is a student paper(at first glance from a 17 year old or something similar), so not from a professional historian, but it did receive a prize and got into that database (which seems very official). Judging from Google, the author did go on to become a historian. In the end, I would not use either your original link or the pdf it is based on as a truly authoritative, reliable source, but I can imagine it being used as an additional source for a minor point. Fram (talk) 12:33, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * As for the second: it is a blog, but it reproduces an article from this magazine, which seems to be a POV source (well, each newspaper and magazine has some POV, but this one is rather outspoken. It can be used as a source about the opinions of anti-fascists, but not as a reliable neutral source (so not "Organisation X is Y", but "According to the German anti-fascist magazine Der Rechte Rand, organsition X is Y"). I hope this helps!

Lieutenant Governor is capitalized
It's too complicated for me to do, or I don't have the energy, but your name change re capitalization on List of Lieutenant Governors of British Columbia is incorrect; the double-redirect ficx should have been made in the oposite direction. {Lieutenant Governor]] and Lieutenant Governor (Canada) and the various L-G articles (note that the acronym also is capitalized) are all capitalized. This is s title, almost a proper name, and always capitalized when used with a proper name. In Bc's case the convention actually includes teh hyphen, e.g. on the L'G's own site and in official parlance/orthography; I'll check around to verify that but I'm pretty sure it's the case. So much so that without the hyphen, never mind the capiatlization, it looks downright odd; I'm 52 and have seen it capped and with-hyphen, at least in BC's case, my whole life. It appeaers it's also the standard in other Wikipedia articles; so I'll leave it to you to work out the name changes and which double-redirect was which; after verifying the hyphen's presence/officialness another name change to add it would be up next.Skookum1 (talk) 03:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * First, while it is "always capitalized when used with a proper name", this has no bearing on its use as a plural and without a proper name. E.g. the Law Times uses lieutenant governor (in an article about BC), the Washington Post discusses the "lieutenant governors of BC". This NY Times article is a good example where a singular Lieutenant Governor is used, but plural lieutenant governors. The Dictionary of Canadian Biography uses "the lieutenant-governors of British Columbia" (with hyphen but without capitals) Official websites don't seem to use the hyphen. It is similar to the use of prime minister: Prime Minister Blair is capitalized, but a list of prime ministers (and the article prime minister itself) aren't. Fram (talk) 07:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Literary prize article categories for Venezuelan prize article
Please explain the removal of categories in Adriano González León Biennial Novel Prize. Thank you. Hurmata (talk) 19:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You had four categories: Literary awards by country | Lists of awards | Literary awards | Venezuelan literary awards. The categorization system is so that if an article is in a subcategory, it shouldn't be in the parent category at the same time. The article is now in "Venezuelan literary awards", which in itself is part of both "Literary awards by country", which in its turn is part of the "literary awards" category. When you check Category:Literary awards by country, you'll notice that it only has subcategories, no individual articles, and that all those subcategories have the form of "Country X literary awards". Finally, the "lists of awards" category contains lists, like "list of film awards", "list of golf awards", or "United States law enforcement decorations": articles which contain a list of different awards, not the winners of one award. Fram (talk) 06:42, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/House of Acorn
Hello! I really just don't see any actual consensus there one way or the other and therefore respectfully request that you reconsider the close and instead close as "no consensus." -- Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 16:48, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for asking, but no. You may always take it to DRV however, or have it userfied if that would be of any use. Fram (talk) 19:38, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I think in this case, userfying would be the best route. If you look at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games and all the increasingly hostile abritrary section breaks with dropping of f-bombs, calls for mediation, etc. that have carried over already onto some of those editors' talk pages and even elsewhere (plus, you saw how even this AfD turned out), I fear that any DRV on a Sonic article right now would just make things worse.  So, yes, please userfy it.  Thanks.  -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 20:16, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * And please let me know where it ends up too! Hobit (talk) 20:22, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I have userfied it at User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles/House of Acorn. The AfD template needs to be removed and the categories commented out. Fram (talk) 20:24, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks and AfD and Rescue templates removed. -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 01:24, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Pi Delta Psi and User:pdp_mlb
Just thought you'd like to know, he created the article again and it's already been tagged as copyvio by a bot. Justinm1978 (talk) 02:52, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

A request for the arbcom to examine the Guideo den Broeder situation
G'day - I'm dropping this note in to you because earlier today I responded to a request to file a request for arbitration. My examination of events led me to believe that there may be some use in the arbcom examining this matter, and perchance resolving an issue or two, and you have been named as an 'Involved Party'. As such, your thoughts would be most welcome at the Request page.

Yours rather nervously to be wearing a clerk-ish hat for the first time,

PM - Privatemusings (talk) 23:38, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You said here: "I see in his actions before and since the block no reasons to lift the block" - are you forgetting that if he ends the legal action, or the legal action is resolved, then he can be unblocked? Kirill has confirmed that. Appealing to ArbCom is not wikilawyering, and I've said to David Ruben that I think he has been monitoring Guido and not giving him a fair chance. I think you are doing the same as well. You were quite right to bring up the legal threat at ANI, but to then bring in the RfC when posting at the RfArb is dredging up past material. The feeling I get is one of "if we can't make that RfC stick, we will make sure this sticks instead". Can you see how it can look that way, even though that almost certainly wasn't your intention. In other words it shouldn't be 'blocking for legal threats is OK if there are other concerns raised by an RfC'. The two matters should be independent of each other. Even if you feel he is a wikilawyer, you shouldn't, in my opinion, prejudice the RfArb discussion by bringing up past stuff. Now, I see I mentioned past stuff, but that was in the context of cross-wiki disputes, which I hope was relevant. Anyway, what I said to David is on his talk page: see here. Carcharoth (talk) 08:04, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I have seen in his actions before and since the block not one indication that he will end the legal action, so your objection is quite moot and my statement is correct. See this post by Guido only this morning... As for the RfC, it wsa an indication that he is continuing his previous behaviour in this episode as well. The ArbCom appeal is not wikilawyering, but the triple unblock request, the claims that there was no consensus for the block at AN/I, the claims that ginving a final warning before starting legal action is not a legal threat, ... are all exmaples of wikilawyering. This is not a problem free editor who has been indef blocked for one lapse, but an editor who has consistently mixed good contributions with all kinds of problems. The RfC was recent (it is still being discussed on his talk page, though not by me) and in part relevant. Everyone can see your, mine and his comments at the RfC, I have made it clear in my statement that I started it, and I have not claimed any outcome for the RfC. I see his behaviour as an essential part of all this, and if bringing up that RfC prejudices the RfArb, then perhaps it will be because other people feel it is relevant as well. If not, they will pointedly ignore my comment... Fram (talk) 08:30, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of James Gill (rugby player)
Hi I understand now why these should be deleted- please allow me time to ge the sources together for the rugby teams and leagues and these are very genuine and I have have neutral sources for these.

Jrgilly, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Officio Assassinorum
The nominator has just been determined by a checkuser to be a likely ban evading sock account. Could you please relist or close as no consensus? There was not a "clear consensus". And we absolutely should not humor ban evading, single purpose socks. Therefore, I strongly urge you to either close as no consensus and let an untainted discussion occur or at least relist striking the sock account's comments or linking to the checkuser. Whether you feel the articles should be deleted or I think they should be kept, we absolutely cannot be okay with questionable nominations made by block evading accounts that should not have been making the nomination in the first place. Besides, don't we usually speedy close such discussions if it's apparent that it was made by a sock account? -- Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 18:10, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It was deemed likely, but he hasn't been blocked as a ban evading sock puppet yet. If he is found to be such with certainty (and blocked accordingly), I'll revisit the AfD and probably relist it (closing as "no consensus" would be incorrect, closing as "void" could be a possibility). Fram (talk) 19:23, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Dear Fram, thank you for the reply. A second checkuser has agreed with the initially results and JzG has blocked the account.  -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 15:59, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I had estimated the probability from behavioral evidence at being about 90%. I thought it likely that CU would come back "possible." This is a sophisticated user (Fredrick day) who knows how to evade detection. When it came back "likely," it was more than I expected. The user is now blocked, by JzG, but as I last looked, the SSP report wasn't closed. Technically, you should wait, though I suppose you could look at the SSP report and close it. With the behavioral evidence, I now estimate that the probability of a false positive here is on the order of one in a million. The user was warned many times for disruptive behavior and incivility, though often informally. Incivility is particularly poisonous with an active deletionist, for deletion, all by itself, and even when proper, can be inflammatory. Incivility combined with it can be infuriating. He edit warred with two administrators, disruptively in both cases, over AfDs. (First time, Shereth reversed a Merge decision on my request, Killerofcruft (later -> Allemandtando) edit warred with him, but did stop. Second time, he edit warred with an admin who closed his rapid renom AfD -- two days? -- for MKR (programming language, and the admin took it to AN/I, which was diverted by the notability issue -- a red herring -- long enough that votes had accumulated, making it not proper to close. It was a highly contentious AfD, with half the !voters voting Keep on procedural grounds (rapid renom) and the other half saying, basically, hang procedure, the damn article isn't notable! and a few editors -- long time editors, actually, also with knowledge of the field -- saying, "this is notable, I know it personally, it's well-known in the field." It closed delete, and I, and apparently others, decided not to pursue DRV as disruptive, sourcing was marginal, and instead placed the article in my workspace, pending the appearance of better sourcing, less fuss, actually a good outcome. But the point here is the edit warring with an admin, who properly abstained from using his tools to stop it, and took it to AN/I, and was ignored, see User:Abd/MKR incident for diffs on the AN/I report. I'd say that any AfD filed by this editor should be suspect, but that this doesn't automatically warrant reconsideration. For general reconsideration, I'd argue that this editor rapidly attracted, within days of registration, a coterie of admirers who would, I'm pretty sure, pile in to AfDs with votes confirming his nominations, without doing the research themselves. So I'd look for signs of that, editors who co-voted with him over many AfDs, more than usual. If this had a material influence on the results, then voiding could be the most efficient, with relisting available immediately, and all voting editors previously being notified. It's a judgement call as to what is the least disruptive, most efficient response, and it would involve reviewing the AfDs to some degree. When an AfD attracted a wide variety of editors not otherwise voting according to a visible pattern, then I'd let it stand, probably. If in doubt, LGRdC or someone else can file a mass DRV, and I suggested on his Talk page how it might be done cooperatively and efficiently, trying to reserve individual DRVs for truly marginal cases. Sorry for the length of this, thanks for your time. --Abd (talk) 17:07, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I have closed this AfD as void, free to be relisted at any time by non-banned users. I'll keep the other one as userfied for now, this seems to me the most fruitful solution. Fram (talk) 20:48, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow, I called it, I said these were bad faith noms at AfD from the start but got chastised for not showing enough good faith. Thanks for your work on this one. Does this mean we can have back the dozen or so Warhammer related articles this jerk had deleted?  Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 00:21, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It means you might have a little more clout at DRV, if you can't convince a closing admin to reverse. Supposedly the decision was made by a rough consensus and by an admin on the merits of the arguments, but if a nom was an abusive sock puppet, and Allemandtando was, then it is reasonable to give each AfD a bit closer scrutiny. It's important to realize that what Fredrick day did before was to, through incivility, wikilawyering, accusations of bad faith, and pure persistence in disruption, unbalance editors, some of whom may have been unable to cope with the stress, becoming uncivil, storming off in a rage, giving up, etc. I suggested to LGRdC that he consider mass-DRVing all the articles nominated by Allemandtando, but readily withdraw articles where some responsible editor objects, then DRVing that individual one later, if it seems reasonable. The point would be to have a general review that might undo, with little fuss, some less controversial ones, and then focus in detail on the more controversial ones.
 * I don't have any specific opinion on these articles. Fredrick day/Allemandtando was a deletionist, Fd was apparently started, in my opinion, as a bad-hand account, master as yet unidentified, to handle the messy work of article deletion, it is visible in the early account history. Watching Fd's work over some time, some of what he did was arguably legitimate; but the big problem was the incivility, the setting of editors against editors, the destruction of consensus and cooperation, and the enhanced division of us into deletionist and inclusionist camps. By the way, IP harassment from known Fredrick day IP had almost completely stopped during the period of Allemandtando's activity. Today, it started up again, see Special:Contributions/88.105.58.91 where he's tracking my contributions and reverting regardless of content, an old Fd trick. I've noticed, today, that the chorus of frogs peeping in his defense has mostly become quiet. Smart frogs. (By the way, I like frogs.) --Abd (talk) 04:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Please explain deletion
Why did you delete Zero One from the matrix? Please reply on my talk page. Papercup47 (talk) 03:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protection Ome Henk
Hoi Fram! Ik zie dat je Ome Henk op semi-protected heb gezet vanwege een anon die steeds CorenSearchBot's copyvio tags toevoegd. Ik zie daar de noodzaak niet echt van in. Verschillende mensen, waaronder ik, houden dat artikel in de gaten. Mijn voorstel: blijven verwijderen en (vanaf nu) gewoon negeren. Zie ook Talk:Ome Henk. Cheers, Face 20:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Last time this happened, we put it on semi-protected for a while and it stopped then for half a year. The article was edited only once between the end of the previous protection and the start of the new one, so it's not as if many editors are inconvenienced. Fram (talk) 20:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, so it appeared to be a bit more serious, see here. Yep, now I do tend to agree with the semi-protection ;-). Cheers, Face 21:52, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Bande Dessinée
Hello ! Today I created a portal dedicated to the Bande Dessinée genre, ie franco-belgian comics. I saw that you are in the WikiProject Comics/European comics work group, so I insisted on inviting you to look at the portal and to help me manage it, because I am a newest contributor. I think we can link the portal to the european comics work group and move this project toward a "Band Dessinée work group". Do you think it is a good idea and could help me for that ? --18:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC)Pah777 (talk)

Incorrect renaming
You renamed List of baronetcies in the Baronetage of Ireland etc List of baronetcies in the Baronetage of Ireland etc. Baronetage is a proper noun. Please would you revert them. Many thanks. Kittybrewster  &#9742;  13:48, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The 1911 Britannica disagrees with you, as does the current (online) one. Scholarly books likethis one also write it in lowercase. I don't thin baronetage is a proper noun at all, and see no reason to revert these moves. Fram (talk) 14:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I think somewhere out there "baronetage" may be in fact a noun - but it does not mean the same as a baronetcy. A baronetage would be teh house/lands owned or resided in by a baronet, i.e. the seat of a baronetcy.  Same idea as hermit->hermitage or vicar->vicarage, parson->parsonage etc.  Sorry to drop by, just have a habit of keeping people's talkpage on my watchlist after other correspondences.Skookum1 (talk) 14:46, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * We can disagree on whether "baronet" or "baronetage" on their own should be capitalised. But in the case of these categories, Baronetage of Ireland is the name of something particular so is definitely a proper noun, and so capitalised. In the same way, a river is a river, but we say the "River Thames" or "Hudson River" and not "river Thames" and "Hudson river". The second "B" should detinitely be a cap.  J Rawle  (Talk) 20:21, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Have you looked at the Britannica links I gave above? It is obviously not so definitive that "baronetage of Ireland" (or of any other country) needs a cap. Do you have anything to support your opinion? Fram (talk) 05:00, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Chicagotribute article, plagarism
Hi Fram, I see you updated the figure for Dangerous to 30 million based on the Chicago tribute source. I have a suspicion that they have plagiarized the material from the new jack swing article. Don't be shocked by this, the The Times, a "reliable" newspaper in the UK plagiarized the Michael Jackson article a few days ago (I'm writing them a letter soon). If you agree with me that there is plagiarism then shall we move Dangerous back to 27 million? — Realist  2  16:47, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't really see the plagiarism. They of course have some of the same facts and names, but it is not clear to me at all that they took their article from ours. Fram (talk) 06:50, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure, ok, I will use it as a source I'n my other articles, cheers. :-) — Realist  2  16:08, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Image
Hi, I want to nominate Image:Nude protest.jpg for featured picture. But I am bit confused if it generally meets the criteria or not. I was previously advised to consult with an administrator before nominating any image for feature image.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 12:47, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * While I would like to help you, images are probably the section of Wikipedia I know least about. I suppose User:Durova would be a good candidate to comment on it. Fram (talk) 13:01, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, I have asked Darwinek ‎about the image.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 13:15, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

AfD of Clan Steverson article
Would it not be good etiquette to notify editors who have objected to the proposed deletion of an article of the AfD discussion?

Judging by the criteria used to justify the deletion of the article, especially the last comment at the AfD discussion page, then by that logic almost all of the other clan pages within Wikipedia (there are many) are candidates for deletion.

The article very clearly explained the history of the clan and significant members, however, I do agree it lacked enough relevant third party references. But to suggest that we don't exist at all is an insult to your intelligence.

So - there we have it - a future project for me if time permits - namely - to revive the article - complete with relevant references - and convince you and the other two that an article about my clan is just as notable as an article about any other clan. What, after all, makes one clan notable and another not notable? How fast they breed (sheer numbers - like MacDonald or Campbell)? Notoriety of one member (like the usurper Macbeth)? Or perhaps we should also consider what great contributions individual members have made to society (like George Stephenson, for example)? I know, I know ... you'll give the stock Wikipedia answer ... third party verifiable references ... so ... until then ... to be continued... Cheers! Garth of the Forest (talk) 06:15, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * We have a watchlist function, just so you can follow whatever happens to an article. Furthermore, I replied to you on the talk page of the article. If you don't follow talk page discussions you started, it is not my problem. You have added the "needs more references" yourself in February 2008. How long do you suggest we would wait before deleting an article without a shred of evidence for the existence (never mind the notability) of the subject of the article? Fram (talk) 06:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Notdoppler
Soz about creating all those Corrie articles copied from Corriepedia, i think i got too carried away, cheers. User:Notdoppler 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Anthony Straker - speedy restore
Hi, could you please restore the previously deleted Anthony Straker article, which was deleted as per this AfD. He now meets notability at WP:ATHLETE as he has played in a fully-professional league, confirmed by this link, this link and this link. Thanks, --Jimbo[online] 12:56, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Done! Fram (talk) 13:07, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Peter Schechter
Regarding User:Szadok: as you note, this user is the author of an article that was deleted as a copyvio of another page, but the user is in the process of releasing his original page into the public domain or a Wikipedia-compatible free license. Nyttend (talk) 13:34, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Good; but he should first release it and then repost it, not the other way around. If you are in contact with thim, please also notify him about WP:COI and WP:OWN: the other article he created is about his own winery, I presume, and the Peter Schechter article will need to be rewritten almost completely to make it neutral and encyclopedic (making the release of this text in the public domain a bit useless, of course). Fram (talk) 13:38, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've warned him about these things; in order to protect his privacy, we've emailed back and forth, in which emails I stated the danger of COI. You can see on his talk page that I've emphasized the importance of putting a PD note on the source page.  Nyttend (talk) 13:39, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Allright, thanks. It's just that people can get annoyed when you "force" them to put something in the public domain, only to have it "destroyed" afterwards anyway (speaking from their point of view). If he or she is aware of what may happen with the text, then it is fine by me. Thanks for your efforts! Fram (talk) 13:41, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

How do I release the text to the Public Domain? What shall I do? Upload it to a webpage and mark on the bottom "Released to the Public Domain by the author"? If you feel the the text is not Neutral, please change it to neutrality. Thanks a lot, Szadok (talk) 13:53, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * We'll just rewrite it enough, that will probably be easier. Fram (talk) 13:55, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. It really teaches me how to write correctly into wikipedia. S Szadok (talk) 14:04, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree: thanks for your help in cleaning up the page. Nyttend (talk) 03:29, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Huh?
I don't understand why you moved List of World Eight-ball Champions to List of World Eight-ball champions, which violates the article naming conventions. "World Eight-ball Champion" is a professional title, and thus a capitalized proper noun. "World Eight-ball" doesn't mean anything at all by itself, and certainly isn't a capitalized proper name. If "World Eight-ball Champion" were not such a title, but something Wikipedians made up as a descriptive term, the article would be List of world eight-ball champions. I'm having WP:RM put the article back where it was, since you or someone else edited the redirect left by the move, and this is blocking a non-administrative move back to the original title. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 16:48, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Winners of the World Eight-ball Championships are World Eight-ball champions. Spelled differently, some newspapers at least agree with me. As for the editing of the redirect, I haven't checked it in this case, but that is usually that annoying bot that adds "redirect from alternative capitalization" or something similar. Champion is not a proper noun but a description. I notice that you made this move a year before as well, and that it has been made now again. I'll post it at requested moves. Fram (talk) 04:45, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * ''I have moved this discussion to Talk:List of World Eight-ball Champions. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:34, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

The WP:RM debate closed w/o consensus to move, and rather than continue the now-moot debate over there, I'm moving my final comments over here in case you want to respond to any of them:

I've already addressed your issue with WP:CUESPELL. I'm sorry that you seem not to accept that this debate might actually be informing the evolution of that document (that should be a good thing, right?). I made that very clear here earlier, and in CUESPELL edit summaries I thought, so let's just drop it. CUESPELL did cover a lot of directly relevant material already, including respecting the official names of organizations, tournaments and other proper nouns (which is all already covered more generally at WP:NC anyway; CUESPELL just applies NC. This "making this section appear much stronger and important than it actually was" theory isn't actually plausible in a wiki with a dated edit history (my edits clearly post-date most of this debate, and the influence runs from debate to CUESPELL, not vice versa).

Your version of the article title would still make no sense and violate the naming conventions even if your theory that professional titles are not proper nouns were tenable, since (as I've already said several times) there is no such thing as "World Eight-ball".

You are right, it was someone else that de-capitalized the rules documents' titles.

Finally, I have to observe that you have contributed not one single character to this article, so I have to wonder whether you have any real reason for protracting this debate, over an article you clearly have no interest in. Surely there are more productive things to do. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 05:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments moved here by me, at this timestamp: —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 00:17, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Betacommand edits
I started someway down the list :) I have reverted the category sorting errors on the first page of Betacommand's contributions. By doing some spot checks, I haven't found errors on any of his earlier contributions - but there might be some that we have missed. It will now be necessary to check all his "cleanup & ref section" edits for this error... I have posted a notification of this to ANI here. Is he back? (talk) 08:36, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * As you can see on his talk page, this was not the only dubious partof his edits. Fram (talk) 08:37, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Fansites
Ok, I will avoid mention fansites in external ilnks and will removed those added. If I take information from them, I will cite them in the references section only. --Pah777 (talk) 09:10, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your understanding! Fram (talk) 09:11, 29 August 2008 (UTC)