User talk:Fram/Archive 24

Bernard Newman
Hello Fram, I am Bernard Newman's grandson (User Name NewmanJr) and I'm doing a research project on him. I have just got confident enough to edit his Wiki page, but not quite worked out the bells and whistles. At the last line, I have stated that his family are researching, there is a website http://bernardnewman.webs.com/ but I haven't worked out how to do an external link yet. Could you oblige?

....Hang on minute, maybe I just worked it out!

Scamtacular
I'm appalled you have taken the Scamtacular page down. It IS significant. Look at 419eater's Wikipedia page. Do they do something Scamtacular doesn't do? NO. Look at Thescambaiter's Wikipedia page. Do they do something Scamtacular doesn't do? NO. Scamtacular is bilingual, are they? NO. Scamtacular is notable for having created anti-scam modalities which are now plagiarised by other websites. Why doesn't it deserve to be on Wikipedia? Answers on my talk page please (alexzarach). I want it listed as it is a very significant website so can you at least TRY to be helpful and say HOW it can stay on Wikipedia? Alexzarach (talk) 13:18, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

nonce formation
see Talk:Nonce_formation Wesn (talk) 13:07, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

/* Multi-effects and tabletop units - Promotional Content */
Hi Fram, Forgive me but it is my first experience as an editor. I understand the concept of not including promotional content in Wikipedia, but I don't think that's what I am trying to do. In my opinion, merely describing a product (with no equals btw) from a technical point of view, remains in the spirit of wikipedia. Actually I don't see what is the difference from what I've added and what is written just a line below:

One such example is the Pod guitar amplifier modeler.

Could you please explain ?

Many thanks

Max — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vintage-Rev (talk • contribs) 13:51, 17 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The text you would wrote was nearly identical to the one on, the homepage of the product. This would make it a copyright violation (which isn't allowed), and a purely promotional text. The spirit of Wikipedia is describing products from an independent and neutral point of view, if and only if they are notable enough. Copying the company speech about the product is nearly the exact opposite of this. Fram (talk) 13:58, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes Fram, I agree the initial description was similar to the one on the website, my bad. But at the second attempt it was a purely technical, two line description, of the product. I also think it is hard to understand (and judge) when a product is notable enough for being mentioned tough. If a new product comes on the market and introduces a new, revolutionary, patented technology (as it is in our case), doesn't it deserve to be mentioned on Wikipedia ? (as long as it is mentioned from a purely technical point of view of course) I really think Wikipedia users would be interested in knowing what the new technology is all about. I would, wouldn't you ? Looking forward to your answer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vintage-Rev (talk • contribs) 10:47, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * No, it only deserves to be mentioned when other, independent sources have commented on the "new, revolutionary" technology. If no good sources find it revolutionary enough to devote some attention to it, then it doesn't belong here. We are an encyclopedia, not a review site, a promo site, or a news site. We summarize what other independent sources have to say about subjects. Fram (talk) 10:57, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Hamilton Hill, Schenectady, New York
I know it was quite a while ago, November of last year, but do you remember what exactly happened with Hamilton Hill, Schenectady, New York when you deleted it for copyright infringement? Was there some sort of discussion that I was never involved in? I remember working on that article back in August of that year with Camelbinky and i'm quite sure there wasn't any copyright issues, unless someone else added them in later. Then again, I may have been involved in a discussion about it and my memory is just faulty. I feel like i'm forgetting something in regards to the article. Silver seren C 09:16, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You indeed worked a bit on that page, but Camelbinky added another 7K to it afterwards. It contained mainly sentences or short paragraphs taken straight from multiple sources, not the typical "I'll copy one website stuff" but more a compilation of smaller copyright violations and some original stuff. Looking back at it, I also don't understand why the sole source for all the initial information is about "Hamilton Hill and Vale" while the article is about "Hamilton Hill", but that's a different story. Fram (talk) 20:52, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * But it was alright before he added that 7k of info? Would it be possible to get it restored to a state before that addition? The location, being one of the largest crime areas (seemingly) in Schenectady in the past, has had a significant amount of sources discuss it and appears rather notable. Silver  seren C 21:29, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

EL
Did check EL. It says not in body of article but okay in External Links. Pepso2 (talk) 13:33, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * If we can't link to it in the body of the article for copyright reasons, we shouldn't link to it in the EL either. Pleaee check WP:ELYES #3 an especially the footnote to it. I haev now also removed the other similar EL for the same problem (even worse in that case, actually). And please, whatever you do, try to enter correct info, your "1927" link had almost every year but 1927 in it... Fram (talk) 13:44, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * What can we do about the fact that examples posted are illegible? Pepso2 (talk) 13:56, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Add single drawings instead of whole pages? You are really pushing the boundaries of fair use already on many pages 'Prince Valiant, Pogo, ...) in your search of legibility. It is not necessary to have full pages to give an idea of the drawing style, that can be shown by one or two drawings. And page layout can be seen without reading the actual texts. We already have three images on Martin Branner, adding larger ones or more ones is not in line with our fair use policy. Fram (talk) 14:08, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarification. I need to gather support for the notion that the work of a comics creator who is a writer-artist needs to be seen in sequential drawings which display a beginning, middle and end. Where can I go to discuss this with others? A full Sunday strip in color provides encyclopedic information that communicates to someone unfamiliar with the format. Note for instance, the constant, huge flow of contributors to comic book info on Wikipedia as opposed to the few contributors of info about vintage comic strips (which, in some cases, is also much more difficult to research than comic books). Pepso2 (talk) 14:30, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Discussion can first be had at the Comics project pages, to get the input of other interested editors. Fram (talk) 14:42, 30 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi, Fram. I'm not finding anything at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics/Notice board or [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics. Is there someplace else I can look to to find this discussion? I do agree that a comic strip, which is designed to have a carefully balanced mini-story with a beginning, middle and end, with visuals and text equally important, is unlike any other printed art, and that a truncated Sunday page can misrepresent the subject arist / strip and actually lead to less understanding. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:30, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Most comic strips not only had sunday pages, but also daily strips. No reason to use a sunday page when a daily strip can also be used of course. Apart from that: movies, TV episodes, ... are represented by other no image at all, or one or two stills, not complete scenes either. Yes, the limitations we have on using copyrighted images often suck, but that doesn't mean that we don't have to live with it. Foreign language Wikis (e.g. German or French) can do without any copyrighted images, so we may consider ourselves lucky, but images of over 1 megapixel are no longer "low-res". As for the discussion: I meant that a discussion can be started at the Wikiproject talk page, not that any was currently happening. Fram (talk) 06:25, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

DigiD
Why did you delete this? —Ruud 14:09, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * A system used by the government? Every government has dozens of such internal systems, databases, ID numbers, and so on. The article was about web content and made no claim whatsoever of being important or notable (and had or has no sources at all to boot). Why shouldn't it have been deleted under CSD A7? Fram (talk) 14:13, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Because it is in fact a very notable system and being used by a government should at least be a sufficient claim of notability for it not to be speedy-able under A9, and there being an interwiki link to an extensive article on the Dutch-language Wikipedia? —Ruud 14:21, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I hadn't noticed the interwiki, my bad. Apart from that, being used by the government is not a claim to importance or notability at all, each government has countless systems which are completely unnotable (and a number of notable ones as well, of course). Fram (talk) 14:33, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of Langham Working Men's Club
Fram, you just deleted an article I posted. The article was written by Dr Ruth Cherrington who runs the Club Historians site. It was posted with her permission and no copyright has been infringed. As far as I understand it where there is permission, there is no infringement. Wouldn't you normally check an editor's history before summarily deleting? Would you like her to send you an email? Assuming you get what you need, can the article be salvaged? I'm not sure I can be bothered to rewrite. hjuk (talk) 10:02, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * "No copyright has been infringed", but the source, clearly has a copyright sign at the bottom. We need actual proof that the author (copyright owner) of the article has agreed to have it published on Wikipedia and understands and agrees with the license of it. You can find more info on Donating copyrighted materials.
 * As for checking an editor's hisotry: no, copyright violations are deleted on the spot, independent of the status of the editor. Fram (talk) 10:48, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, statement on web page (http://www.clubhistorians.co.uk/html/langham_wmc.html). Can I have my ball back please? hjuk (talk) 14:04, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I have restored the page. Note that people may still want it deleted for a lack of notability: providing reliable, independent sources about the club (e.g. newspaper articles) would help. Fram (talk) 14:08, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Main Page/sandbox
I agree that the page probably shouldn't exist, but the reason you gave for deleting Main Page/sandbox does not apply. CSD R2 specifically excludes redirects to the 'Category:, Template:, Wikipedia:, Help: and Portal: namespaces'. That page redirected to Main Page/sandbox, and thus wasn't covered by R2. The page should have been taken to WP:RFD instead. Modest Genius talk 11:09, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note that subpages in the mainspace are not allowed, so you may treat this as a WP:IAR or CSD:G6 deletion if you prefer. If you still believe that the page should exist, you may always take it to WP:DRV (but if you agree that the page shouldn't exist but simply disagree with the way this was done, a DRV seems like overkill to me). Fram (talk) 11:15, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * "I agree that the page probably shouldn't exist". I'm not contesting the deletion, and nor am I going to do anything about it. I just wanted to point out that CSD R2 did not apply, although G6 probably would. But that's not the reason you gave. Modest Genius talk 17:11, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
Regards, SunCreator (talk) 22:50, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Beschermd erfgoed
Hi Fram, I was afraid of objections to Beschermd erfgoed for french-speaking part of Belgium, but believe me, there is no way to split Belgium up in a way that makes sense. The term is legal, and the list-holders do use it for the whole country. I am starting on Wallonia, which intuitively would seem mostly french, but the list-holder uses Beschermd erfgoed (and they also keep lists for the German-speaking part of the country). Bescherm erfgoed abbreviates nicely to BE for Belgium, don't you think? Jane (talk) 14:01, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * There are no legal single-laguage terms in Belgium, they all exist in at least Dutch and French, and often in German as well. That a Dutch-language site (even an official one) will use the Dutch language term for Flemish and for Walloon sites is normal: a rench-language site would use the French-language term for both as well. However, we are neither Dutch or French language, but English language: we either use a common English language term like "protected heritage sites", or we use the term in the language of the area we are discussing (so French for Wallonia). Using on the English language Wikipedia the Dutch language term for French language regions is completely illogical. By the way, the "Bescherm erfgoed" article you have made linsk to the Flemish law regarding it, which is only applicabel in Flanders, not in the whole of Belgium. If you go to the website of the Institut du Patrimoine Wallon, you will find zero results for "erfgoed". Fram (talk) 14:09, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Well that's why I linked to the National Heritage Site (Belgium) article, which I also created. Jane (talk) 05:35, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I think I understand what you have done now, but Do want to use the term "protected heritage" to mean "national heritage"? These lists are not for the provincial and town prtection levels, only the national ones. They are also only the ones for cultural property. Jane (talk) 06:10, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Belgium is a tough one, as usual ;-) The protection isn't really done at a national level, but independently by the three governments (Flanders, Wallonia, Brussels) (although the earliest protections were done nationally of course, before the regionalisation in the 70s I think). But if there is agreement to change "protected heritage site" to "national heritage site", I won't oppose this. Fram (talk) 06:47, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Well it's a lot of work to change the names of all these articles, so I hope it's OK now. I just hope that 1) these are clear now that they are lists of heritage considered to be of national importance (whatever the Belgians define as national - I saw a Belgian cyclist on TV voicing his opinion that the "Ronde van Vlaanderen" should ONLY be in Vlaanderen and no other part of the country - sigh), and 2) this name is going to be "politically correct" for all three divisions, because I would like to go ahead and use it for Brussels and Flanders also. Jane (talk) 16:15, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * As far as I am concerned, it should be acceptable for Flanders and Brussels as well. Fram (talk) 20:52, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Meyer sales
I don't know why you undid my edits, but Meyer's sales passed the 116 million mark in October, so 100 million is not even an estimateThecoolguy4ever 14:48, 8 September 2011 (UTC)Thecoolguy4ever
 * We base such things on reliable, independent sources. A press release is not an independent source. We usually, where possible, inclde a lower and a higher figure, to give people an idea of the range of figures given for a certain author. Seriously outdated figures are updated, but something from one year ago is not that outdated yet (see e.g. the 350 to 450 million we have for JK Rowling). Fram (talk) 14:50, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Diego Duarte
Just wanted to let you know that I saw that you created the new article Diego Duarte--The information is presented clearly and is easy to understand.Amy Z (talk) 19:37, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks! It's always nice to hear that an effort is appreciated. Any constructive criticism you might have is welcome as well of course :-) Fram (talk) 06:22, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

12 Peers Theater
You deleted the Wikipedia page "12 Peers Theater" on the grounds that it was recreated after being deleted as a result of a deletion discussion. The result of the discussion was not that the article was actually deleted; it was instead userfied until more coverage for the topic appeared. As more secondary sources covering this topic have appeared and been added to the article, I moved it into article space. I don't know if there is a way to "un-delete" the page, but if there is a way for you to undo the deletion, I would appreciate it. Thank you!--Frankgorshin (talk) 20:42, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The additional sources were festival calendars where the theater was named as one of the many performing groups. No sources about the theater were added, making the article (and its problems) essentially the same as at the time of deletion. And the result was in fact that the article was deleted: userfication is a form of deletion, i.e. removal from the main namespace. Fram (talk) 07:01, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Is there any way to put it back into userspace then? I put it back into article space with the intention of finding out whether the article with its current revisions was acceptable. I would've preferred feedback rather than an immediate deletion; my impression was that once an article is userfied, it can be brought back into article space after it's been revised and the discussion about whether it should be deleted is open for debate again. Thank you!--Frankgorshin (talk) 13:58, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I've userfied it again. When an AfD has closed as "delete", userfication is not a wildcard to recreate the article and expect a new AfD. In general, it is best to either ask the deleting admin whether he feels the article is sufficiently different (and improved) to get a second chance; another option is to ask for a deletion review. Just moving it back to the userspace is not forbidden, but a quick deletion if it is not sufficiently improved should then not be unexpected. Fram (talk) 14:04, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Fram!--Frankgorshin (talk) 14:11, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Alan Miller
G'day Fram. Appreciate a detailed explanation of your reason for deleting the page Alan John Miller. This seems arbitrary. Also the Talk page was removed GerixAu (talk) 22:25, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The article had no claims to importance or notability ("hundreds of people having attended his seminars" is not really such a claim), and was an unsourced WP:BLP to boot. The actual result, with the page redirected to the page about the movement, is a good solution, since Miller is not notable outside the movement, and treating everything there is the easiest and best way. As for the deletion of the talk page: that is standard practice when deleting an article.Fram (talk) 07:01, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

It's against Wikipedia policy to remove posts to Wikipedia discussion pages
Please discontinue removing my posts to Wikipedia discussion pages. It is against Wikipedia policy to do so. Northamerica1000 (talk) 08:27, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I have done it once, on a page where it wasn't against policy: Talk page guidelines states "Do not use the talk page as a forum or soapbox for discussing the topic. The talk page is for discussing how to improve the article." Your post on Talk:Deletionism and inclusionism in Wikipedia was not a discussion on how to improve the article, but on how to improve Wikipedia, and was thus, according to that commonly accepted guideline, unacceptable behaviour. My removal was perfectly in line with this guideline. Fram (talk) 08:35, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Turkish villages
Hi, just so you know I haven't abandoned the avoiding dabbed name in the titles but its easier this way and Ser Amantio will be going through them afterwards using AWB to removed them from the title and infobox.♦ Dr. Blofeld  12:33, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note. As long as there is a clear cleanup plan like this, I have no objections. Fram (talk) 13:08, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

TT's block
...I'm willing to capitulate, as it does appear that his first block was supposed to be a week in duration, due to the original unblock agreement (see his current unblock) ... care to do the honours, or suggest another means of attack? ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 16:28, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I got confused about how long this message had been sitting, and went ahead and reduced to a week, per Fram's agreement to block modifications in the review request. If I had realized it was less than half an hour, I might have waited a bit.-- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:00, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I figured letting Fram do it might have removed TT's need to be a little bit nasty ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 18:05, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note and the action. I wasn't around until now, so no problems. I'll try to catch up with what happened since I last commented if I find the time now, otherwise it'll be tomorrow. Fram (talk) 20:50, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Re: Linkspam
The idea was to inform people interested in the edited articles that there was a Tintin Wiki out there, to try and boost the number of contributors and therefore quality and size of its articles. I object to the term 'spam' as well as no harm was intended by adding the links. Kiwichris (talk) 05:26, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You were, as you indicate, using the links to get more people to the Wikia articles to make Wikia better. That is spamming, and is not the intention of external links on Wikipedia. External links should be added when they are clearly a source of more indepth, reliable info on the subject of the article, i.e. when they give the reader of the Wikipedia article something extra. The links should be beneficial to the reader, not to the target of the link. Fram (talk) 06:48, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The encouraging of more contributors would in time create more indepth, reliable information there. Having said that I guess there's always somebody out there who stands in the way of progress. What a pitty... Kiwichris (talk) 03:31, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Why would we encourage editors to add indepth, reliable information on that for profit website, when we have a non-profit website for that kind of information right here? I understand that Wikia would gain from these links, but I hardly see how Wikipedia or its readers benefit from them. Fram (talk) 06:28, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

User talk:Δ
Our paths don't seem to have crossed previously, but I was pleasantly surprised by your post at User talk:Δ. Thanks for taking the time to pronounce more eloquently and delicately what I (and others) try to make clear in a probably more blunt and less effective way. Let's hope that your friendly advice / plea strikes a chord with Δ. Fram (talk) 09:20, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a pleasure to meet you! Thanks so much. Δ is a productive editor who is obviously trying to improve Wikipedia. But I happened to just hit some of his edits from the most recent "batch", saw his talk page and the fact there was yet another AN/I thread; lo and behold, he is at it again, and I almost lost the will to live. I hope he does listen to me, since he is definitely drawing patience too thin and wasting a lot of valuable time for all concerned (including him). Sooner or later -- and utterly unjustly to himself -- he's going to make everyone so sick of his editing that one day he will be indefinitely blocked, either by an editor or ArbCom, and nobody will reverse it. I can only hope, with the utmost sincerity, that blocking administrator will never be me. --Tristessa (talk) 09:46, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Quezada
Al Zulfi Province. A hoax?♦ Dr. Blofeld  14:37, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Can't find evidence for the province, seems to be a city an district. Fram (talk) 14:47, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Now Yakhtul is impressive!! If only we could find information like that on every African and Asian village!♦ Dr. Blofeld  10:23, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I redirect Al Zulfi Province to Al Zulfi and expanded it with sources. It appears to be one of the 19 governorates of Riyadh Province, so yes its a district too. But one article about the city and governorate is fine for now.♦ Dr. Blofeld  11:23, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Shores of Hazeron
Fram, I am in the process of creating this article about the game Shores of Hazeron. Your copyright infringement claim is of the game that I am attempting to document. I request immediate clarification and would like to resume editing this article. 10:13, 30 September 2011 (UTC)1121Eskimo

Update: You deleted my article again. Again by referencing the game I am trying to document. You are incorrectly applying condition B12 for deletion in this way: "Only if the history is unsalvageably corrupted should it be deleted in its entirety". I contest this because I have been working on the article and writing original content for the last few hours. I request your immediate response since you have had the chance to delete my article a second time. 1121Eskimo (talk) 11:11, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Your double post has erased my comments on my talk page so I will repeat them here. You are deleting original work in the header and footer of the article. I have taken source material and stored it in iterative steps in order to come into compliance with other pages that I have been using as a template. You are welcome to assist me in this endeavor but there is suffient original content in this article to encourage editing and not deletion. If you wish to help me further, I ask you to grant my request for confirmed access so that I can properly update the page with images 1121Eskimo (talk) 11:26, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Romsey Town Rollerbillies
Hi - I see that you deleted the article on the Romsey Town Rollerbillies under A7, "No explanation of the subject's significance". Its deletion might be justified, but given that there are reliable references, and there are numerous similar articles making similar claims, I'd really like to see it tested at AfD. Do you have any objections to restoring the content and seeing how it fares at AfD? Warofdreams talk 12:44, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The reliable reference was one article from the organisation that has most of the members of the team, asking for more people to join it. There were no independent reliable sources for it, contrary to some of the other roller teams (though some of them are of dubious notability as well). The article had no claim to importance at all. Fram (talk) 12:47, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking it to AfD. The reference is from Stars and Stripes (newspaper), which I've now linked to stress that it is entirely independent of the league.  But, yes, I agree that its notability is questionable, so it will be good to have a discussion at AfD. Warofdreams talk 13:38, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem. While it was an A7 candidate, it wasn't an extreme example and an AfD for it a reasonable request, so... Fram (talk) 13:41, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Infobox Belgium Municipality
What informations and functionalities were lost in my edit?--Nero the second (talk) 09:34, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The age distribution (pyramid), percentage of foreigners, perhaps others as well (only noticed these in my short test). Fram (talk) 09:37, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * No, there must be some kind of mistake then. The only thing I purposefully left out is the % of males and females because I think it's utterly pointless to add it in. In which article did those infos fail to show up?--Nero the second (talk) 09:40, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Look at e.g. the current info on Ghent. It has the males and females (which indeed were dropped as well in your version), and the age distribution, and percentage of foreigners. Fram (talk) 09:45, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I think I've found out what the issue was, and it should be fixed now. Can you you check my sandbox and let me know if anything's amiss?--Nero the second (talk) 09:49, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks more complete (still misses the male_female distribution, perhaps other things I haven't noticed yet). No idea what the advantage is of converting this to the general template though, I know that some editors want to have few templates with many parameters (or numbered free parameters), others prefer more and more specific, leaner templates. It looks to me as if the Belgian template is easier to use than the general one. Fram (talk) 09:58, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * In this particular case I think that the improvement is in the ease of editing: you can add/change parameters much more easily compared to the difficulty of changing the arcane wikicode of the older template. Otherwise the two templates have a very similar appearance.--Nero the second (talk) 10:02, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * That's only when you want to change the template: but much more people want to use the infobox than there are people who want to or need to change the infobox. Aren't we changing things here for the benefit of a few, while making it worse for many others? By the way, the wikicode of infobox settlement isn't any easier than that of the Belgian one, so now if you want to add male-female, or remove "foreigners" visually from beneath "age distribution" and put it on the same indentation as age distribution, you need to change (or understand) the infobox settlement. Not really an improvement IMO. Fram (talk) 10:07, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Making it worse for many? How is it any harder to use the template now? There's no difference whatsoever. It still uses the same fields in the same way. And it's no easier to edit? Compared to the disordered and confusing wikicode that is the norm for most of these infoboxes?--Nero the second (talk) 10:13, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The infobox settlement has code like {{#ifeq:{{#expr:{{#if:{{{image_flag|}}}|1|0}}+{{#if:{{{image_seal|}}}|1|0}}+{{#if:{{{image_shield|}}}|1|0}}+{{#if:{{{image_blank_emblem| }}}|1|0}}}}|2|, I don't see how that is easier than the current one.
 * By the way, just reimplementing your preferred infobox over the old one, during a discussion, is rather rude and goes against WP:BRD. I have reverted your changes again. Looking at e.g. Antwerp, the result of the common infobox is that we lose the male-female distribution, the "foreigners" get a strange location (as part of "age distribution"?), and dates are no longer shown in a consequent manner (original had DD month YYYY, your version mixed 2010-01-01 with 1 July 2007 and so on). So your change is not an improvement and should not be implemented just for the sake of it. Fram (talk) 12:14, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I have copied this discussion to Template talk:Infobox Belgium Municipality, it may be better to continue the discussion there. Fram (talk) 12:17, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * BRD is not a guideline nor a policy, it's just an essay written by someone and holds no authority. And from my point of view, your continuous reverting, despite my best efforts to fix whatever faults you pointed out, is even ruder. But never mind that. Just tell me: what kind of changes should I implement to meet your expectations for an improved template? Because so far your argument has mostly been that the template is good enough already and that it needn't be changed, which is out of tune with WP:WIP (another essay, I know) and what I feel to be the general spirit of the project. So I'm not trying to force my version of the template on you or anybody else, but I'm asking you to direct your criticism towards the improvement of the template, rather than just keeping with the status quo. I will change the date formats to be consistent and move se 'foreigners' parameter to a separate section. Is there any reason why you want me to reinstate the gender ratio, other than because it was there before? Is the variation between one municipality and another stark enough to be worth reporting? Cheers, Nero the second (talk) 08:48, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * BRD is one of the most widely followed and accepted essays though. Apart from that; you make changes which are not improvements, so you get reverted. Why would I let things stand which make a few hundred articles worse just to spare your feelings? My argument is not that the template is good enough and needn't be changed, my argument is that you need to male an improvement, not just changing for the sake of it. So far, your changes made the articles worse, so no reason to keep them around. Can you pleae tell me what it is that will be "better" for the reader after your changes?
 * And please, please, continue this discussion at the template page, not here. Fram (talk) 09:00, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * My changes "made articles worse". That's not an argument, that's just your opinion and what I'm asking you here is to motivate it. You reverted me, you have to give your reasons for it, not the other way around. If it's just the issues you have mentioned above, I will try to fix them, is there anything else? PS: the tone of the bit about "sparing my feelings" was really inopportune bordering on contemptuous. I hope that wasn't intentional, because I'm not trying to harass you but I feel that some explaining is in order on your part. That's all.--Nero the second (talk) 09:32, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * And please, please, continue this discussion at the template page, not here. Fram (talk) 09:35, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

This isn't really just about the template any longer. Besides, I'm still waiting for a reply to my question on this page or any other.--Nero the second (talk) 09:37, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I had written a polite reply, but got edit conflicted with your addition of "I'm still waiting for a reply to my question on this page or any other". Well, I'm very sorry if my many swift replies, pointing out everything that was wrong with your edits which you should have checked instead of relying on others, were not a reply to your unspecified question apparently. Please now get off my talk page. Discuss the template at the template talk page, and leave me alone otherwise. I have more interesting things to do than continuing this discussion. Fram (talk) 09:46, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm willing to do as much, if you'll only stop reverting me. Otherwise you will just have to leave me a chance for redress, you can't be against something and be unwilling to "waste time" discussing it at the same time. PS: you can easily recover a page lost in an edit conflict by going back one page.--Nero the second (talk) 09:55, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Get of my talk page and stop sprouting nonsense. I have said over and over again that I am more than willing to discuss these changes, I haven't done anytning but. I have made one simple request, over and over again, which for some reason fails to get your attention apparently. I'll try it one more time: And please, please, continue this discussion at the template page, not here. Fram (talk) 09:59, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikiquette_assistance--Nero the second (talk) 10:48, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I just reread what I've written you yesterday, and I can only say that I acted like a giant douche. I know it's no excuse, but I just had the crappiest week in years. Sorry about everything.--Nero the second (talk) 11:40, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks! As you noticed, you were indeed getting on my nerves, but everyone can have a bad day or couple of days. No hard feelings, let's forget what we said and did and just focus on the template discussion. Fram (talk) 11:45, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of Andrew Blain Baird page
Hi Fram

I'm writing to ask whether its possible to restore this deleted page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Blain_Baird, whether to its original page or back to my user area(to amend it if required).

I understand your reasons for deleting it... If you take a look at the request I made for feedback on the page here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_feedback/2011_August_6#User:Macavalon.2FAndrew_Blain_Baird

you will understand that the www page you say it is a copy and paste of.. is fully acknowledged.

I understand it has to be pretty strong circumstances too allow this. I think this is, as the author of the wwwsite http://www.bairdofbute.com/ Christopher Markwell asked for the content to be published on wikipedia; and just wanted a wider audience to have knowledge of this important historical Scottish aviator.

If you wish to contact by email, to further discuss the evidence of the publication request please do so at macavalon@googlemail.com

best regards Peter

Macavalon (talk) 20:08, 3 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your post. I am not allowed to restore the page, or put it in your userspace, as long as it isn't clear whether it is a copyright violation or not. We have rather strcit rules about this, and are not allowed to accept claims of allowing reproduction here at face value (no matter how rude that may seem to well-meaning and honest editors, but sadly not all editors are like that). One of the problems is also that many people who allow reproduction of their work on Wikipedia, basically allow reproduction of that work anywhere else as well, since everyone is free to copy from Wikipedia for all purposes, even commercial ones, as long as they attribute it correctly.


 * To fond info on some of the possibilities to get this material into Wikipedia anyway, you can read Requesting copyright permission and Donating copyrighted materials. Alternatively, you can write a new page on Baird, based on the Markwell site, but in your own words. You can add the Markwell site as a reference in that case as well, it is not our intention to ignore the good work people do which we then base Wikipedia upon. Fram (talk) 06:58, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for explaining Fram, I will investigate your suggestions and discuss with Mr Markwell. Best regards Macavalon (talk) 22:19, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello Fram, just to let you know I have sent an email, Subject "Andrew Blain Baird permission" to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. This contains the granting of permission by Mr Markwell, to publish material from the wwwsite www.bairdofbute.com. best regards Macavalon (talk) 21:35, 6 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Email correspondence confirming a release of text and photos from "www.bairdofbute.com" under the ''' "Creative Commons

Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0" (unported) and GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts)  has been received and is archived in OTRS ticket # 2011100610020114 Morgan Kevin''' J (talk) 13:50, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Richard D'Oyly Carte
Hi. I thought you might like to weigh in either way on the current discussion about infoboxes at this page. All the best! -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:01, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Jacques Borlée
Hello! Your submission of Jacques Borlée at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 06:31, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Editing
Thank you for your kind concern. Rich Farmbrough, 13:30, 7 October 2011 (UTC).

noloop's talkpage
Hi, well done for indefinitely restricting this user - he is spamming on his talkpage, he did that on the mindbyunny talkpage. Can we protect both talkpage and add the infef templates ..I think there is support for community ban in a thread at ANI. Off2riorob (talk) 19:56, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * There will need to be a lock on this IP's contibs...that's him. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—►  05:05, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Afghan National Security Forces


The article Afghan National Security Forces has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * No indication that this is anything more than an arbitrary collection of links to other articles. Each of these (except Army and Army Air Corps, which are related) appears to be a separate, independent arm of the government. Needs a reference to establish that "National Security Forces" is an actual, recognized grouping of these separate forces.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. R'n'B (call me Russ) 14:27, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Capital Exchange
Fram:

May I ask why you deleted the page about Capital Exchange? Your comment was "Non-notable person, group, company, or web content" Over 16,000 people use Capital Exchange to trade about $500,000 US a year in virtual stocks. It had facts and figures, companies listed, and was updated regularly. if you can tell me what went wrong, I'd appreciate it. Thanks.

NYRounder (talk) 07:14, 15 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The information you give above was not in the article. It claimed that the volume was US$128,500 Last 6 months, which is about $250,000 in a year, not $500,000. But that's not essential, a company with a volume of $500,000 is not really big either. The page had no claims of importance or notability, and had no independent sources. I couldn't find much coverage of it from reliable independent sources either when looking for it online. Fram (talk) 07:32, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Template:Lists_of_heads_of_UK_diplomatic_missions
Hi Fram,

I was doing some redlink clean up and I came across Template:Lists_of_heads_of_UK_diplomatic_missions. The link to Ambassadors of Luxembourg is a red link because as it turns out you changed the title of the page about 2 years ago. You lowercased ambassador. So now I am wondering what to do: I can easily fix the template however all the other articles have ambassadors with a capital A. So should we rename the article back to its original name or fix the template? best, Diederik Drdee (talk) 23:39, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem is not the "Ambassadors" vs. "ambassadors": the page I moved was called "List of Ambassadors from the United Kingdom to Luxembourg", not "List of Ambassadors of the United Kingdom to Luxembourg". The redlink was in the template before I moved the page. I'll create a redirect from the template title to the "correct" one. In my opinion all of them should have "ambassador" instead of "Ambassador", I don't get the fixation in many circles to capitalize job titles (diplomacy, religion, military, companies, they all have the same tendency to capitalize things as if they are more important then), but I'll not waste my time trying to get them moved. Fram (talk) 06:43, 18 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Note that e.g. List of ambassadors of the United Kingdom to France and List of ambassadors of the United Kingdom to Spain also have the lowercase "a", so not all others have "A". Of course, when looking back, I moved these as well, but no one really had a problem with this capitalization in three years, so it looks as if most people don't care about "Ambassadors" or "ambassadors" either way... Fram (talk) 06:48, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Fram! (You did change it from Ambassodors to ambassodors,btw: 13:01, 27 June 2008‎ Fram (talk | contribs)‎ m (2,382 bytes) (moved List of Ambassadors from the United Kingdom to Luxembourg to List of ambassadors from the United Kingdom to Luxembourg: Capitalization). Drdee (talk) 12:34, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of Kairi, India
Fine with me. I am trying to improve the James Hartley (Indian officer) article and make links to relevant articles. I have the impression that many places and persons named in the article are with a different spelling than what is commonly used now. I have added the relevant historical information to the Raigad Fort page, so the mistakenly created Kairi, India could and should be deleted.

By the way, I think that James Hartley (Indian officer) should be changed to James Hartley (Indian Army officer), since he was not an Indian but a Briton serving in the Indian Army. I did not find the button to do this. Andreas Kaganov


 * Moved, you are right. You can find the "move" option at the top of the page, next to the "read" and "edit" options there is a downward pointing arrow. "Move" is in that menu. Fram (talk) 12:20, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Jacques Borlée
Thanks from me for this article and hook Victuallers (talk) 00:03, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Cite DNB and DNB
I reverted you edit to Cite DNB because it is not [should not] be used with PD text instead what should be used is DNB and it has categories already in it see Category:Wikipedia articles incorporating text from the Dictionary of National Biography your will find more information in the DNB template documentation. -- PBS (talk) 10:56, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Our posts crossed. Give me a minute to read what you have written.-- PBS (talk) 10:58, 19 October 2011 (UTC)


 * This template is also used for articles taken in part or completely from the DNB, e.g. George Beattie (poet), George Steward Beatson, John Bearblock, Richard Butcher (antiquary), John Dunstall, Gabriel Dugrès, William Augustus Barron, Dubthach Maccu Lugir... These pages are now not listed in a DNB category. Any suggestion how to solve this? Fram (talk) 10:56, 19 October 2011 (UTC)


 * (your post to my talk page crossed mine to yours). What would be the easiest way to convert all pages that have Cite DNB but should have another DNB template, to that other template? Fram (talk) 10:58, 19 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I looked at the first one and it is clearly mislabled. There is no easy automated fix because some uses of Cite DNB are going to be correct.


 * This particular selection seem to have been generated by User:Rich Farmbrough. I have "fixed" the article John Bearblock and edited it into standard format although more work need to be done on links and  breaks in lines within paragraphs. see what you think. If it looks OK to you I'll invite  Rich to a chat at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dictionary of National Biography. -- PBS (talk) 11:51, 19 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Looks a lot better, thanks. A discussion at the project talk page may be the best, to avoid a splintered discussion over two or three user talk pages. I'll add the project talk page to my watchlist. Fram (talk) 12:11, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Assyrianization
Got your message about my posts. Do you understand how Wikipedia have been abused in this specific topic? Do you know what the conflict is about and what Assyrianization is? SuryoyoGuardian (talk) 22:37, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't really care, actually. If there are problems, follow our normal established dispute resolution process. You don't solve Wiki-problems by rallying likeminded editors to join your cause. Fram (talk) 07:04, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Post by Fram
Why do you add your post to User_talk:Rich_Farmbrough which I wrote? I see no connection. Debresser (talk) 11:03, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The errors I note are all in the less than twenty edits RF made when dating these noplot templates. It is about the same group of edits, so putting it together seems more logical. Fram (talk) 11:15, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I see. But those edits did not involve the template itself, and my post was about that template only. Anyway, so be it. For the record, I also don't like such useless edits. Debresser (talk) 11:53, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Removing Speedy at Category:Belgian roller skaters
Hi Fram, you recently removed a deletion tag from Category:Belgian roller skaters. Because Wikipedia policy does not allow the creator of the page to remove speedy deletion tags, an automated program has replaced the tag. Although the deletion proposal may be incorrect, removing the tag is not the correct way for you to contest the deletion, even if you are more experienced than the nominator. Instead, please use the talk page to explain why the page should not be deleted. Remember to be patient, there is no harm in waiting for another experienced user to review the deletion and judge what the right course of action is. As you are involved, and therefore potentially biased, you should refrain from doing this yourself. Thank you, - SDPatrolBot (talk) 14:12, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

SWLs
Hi Fram, thanks for adding the hiddencat tag to the SWL categories. I've been meaning to do this, By the way, what do you think of the SWL idea? I'm not sure if you've seen it but there is a long and heated debate running at the village pump about them.. Benjamin Good (talk) 17:25, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Bot
Sorry, I didn't mention it, here is the link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/Petan-Bot_task9 the bot now operates as ArticlesForCreationBot, it's definitely approved task (it has bot flag too), but if you have any troubles with that, let me know. Petrb (talk) 22:32, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You are right that it's being moved wrong, it's probably because someone messed afc template which is crucial in this, I will check it and let you know, anyway this task is welcome and approved, just the bot malfuctioned here. It only moves userpace drafts when users add afc template, to afc space. Petrb (talk) 22:37, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I have analysed the edits, some of there seem to be wrong although I am not sure why the bot attempted to move them, anyway I added one extra check, based on community consensus all pages with afc template should be moved to afc space, that's exactly what the bot does, if there were more troubles, please shut it down and let me know. Thanks! Petrb (talk) 22:51, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * People from AFC project now watch what is going on, if there were more problems, they will shut it down, it's even possible that someone hacked it. Petrb (talk) 23:34, 24 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your replies, I have no problems with this bot task as approved, but the lack of link to the approval (due to the renaming probably) had me worried, and then those few strange edits I pointed out got me worried even more. No problem with letting it run again as long as some people keep an eye on it! Fram (talk) 06:44, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Local/regional sources and notability
Hi - I noticed that in your edit summary on Lehigh Valley Rollergirls, you stated "this comes from the Lehigh Valley newspaper: such local coverage doesn't count towards notability...". Could you please indicate why it might not? I've always considered that coverage in local newspapers can and does contribute towards notability, and the source appears to fully meet the criteria laid down in Notability. If policy has changed, I fear that there will be a lot of articles which no longer meet the notability criteria. Warofdreams talk 14:44, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Notability (organizations and companies) states that "On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, national, or international source is necessary." Fram (talk) 20:04, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, good to know where to find this. I was surprised, because it differs dramatically from the guidelines at WP:N, and I've not seen this sort of approach applied to sources previously.  Searching through the history and talk page archives clarifies its intended meaning: coverage by "tiny newspapers" with circulations of one or two thousand is unlikely to demonstrate notability; regional newspapers such as the Morning Call with circulations around 100,000 were never intended to be covered by this. Warofdreams talk 15:50, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I hadn't checked the newspaper any further, I didn't realize that it is actually a rather well circulated one. On the other hand, the article is in the section "local news". It is borderline, but the circulation of the newspaper certainly gives it more weight than I at first thought. Fram (talk) 07:34, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Rollerbillies
I noticed you nominated the Romsey Town Rollerbillies for deletion less than an hour after it was created. What are your current thoughts on biting versus allowing editors to work on new articles before becoming discouraged? Dualus (talk) 23:54, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * My thoughts are that it is useless to let an editor spend more time on an article on a non-notable subject. The more work an editor has put into an article, the bigger the disappointment when that work turns out to have been for nought. To judge the notability of the subject, I don't rely solely on what is already in place in the article though, I also do some checks online to see if more info and better sources seem to be available. Fram (talk) 06:33, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * About how much time do you spend looking for additional sources when you make such a judgement? Dualus (talk) 14:22, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Rivers
About to begin another run on rivers.Ser Amantio will remove the parts at a later date so you know.♦  Dr. Blofeld  12:56, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Koechlin family
Hi Fram. Would you revisit Template:Did you know nominations/Koechlin family? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:00, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry I was sarcastic on this one. I did not suspect anything was inaccurate, but am a bit obsessed with sourcing all statements. I was feeling grumpy after finding the biased Rally for Congolese Democracy and then the Luapula Province border dispute, which may well be entirely fictional. :~) Aymatth2 (talk) 16:25, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Stubs
You contributed to a recent discussion about an editor who was creating many stubs. The conclusion was that this was just a case of a prolific editor, with no violation of policy. There remains a question about whether very small stubs are useful, regardless of how they are created. You may want to contribute to the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Stub/Archive 15. Thanks, Aymatth2 (talk) 19:25, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I acknowledge this, but what I've been doing is copying the categories and linking them in my sandbox on here and then starting on here, so to change the article names makes creating them less efficient with the interwiki links and the subst PAGENAME. If article name is really problematic, they can always be moved later. I feel that for Turkey a bot should create them all using population figures avaliable and coordinates from geonames. Same with Senegal which has population figures for every village on the PEPAM site. But I need your support and others if we are to do this properly. Most of these were created out of sheer frustration at what we have been ignoring and a desperate attempt to try to do something towards it. If you really know me you'll know that I'm too good to be creating such lousy stubs but if I'm not getting support to organize what I have requested for so long... I've said all along that we need to organize a bot which runs every day generating articles with satisfactory content which would allow me to concentrate on quality. Remember the Geobot fracas back in 2008. Well if that had gone ahead we'd not be in this position. . ♦ Dr. Blofeld  11:21, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Koechlin family
The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know
I was unaware of that guideline. I assume it's ok to remove redlinks from clean up listings, right? Argento Surfer (talk) 13:40, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

User talk:Δ
I've closed the discussion again, despite you re-opening it. Nothing productive is now coming from it, and the senseless bickering over what is and is not a personal attack is doing nobody any favors. Enough. PLEASE. $\delta$ will read the thread in due time. If he wants to re-open it, he knows how and can re-invite you to the thread. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:43, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You don't get to decide when a section I posted to someone else's user talk page should be closed. If you feel it has run its course, stop replying to it, and let it slowly die a natural death. Don't try to impose your view on someone else's thread though. Fram (talk) 16:45, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I did stop posting to it before I closed it the first time. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:47, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You last posted at 16:02, and closed it at 16:06... Fram (talk) 19:06, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Re: my comment at Δ's talk
I owe you an apology regarding this comment I made towards you. Reconsidering this it was not correct and there was a lack of WP:AAGF on my part. Sorry. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 23:16, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, much appreciated! 07:41, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Generalized PAs and enabling administrators
In your position as an administrator you should be defending the mission of Wikipedia, not the "rights" or users to disrupt it endlessly for "my way or the highway" based on religious precepts. Reverting rebuttals of someone who wrote something like this is unbecoming conduct for an administrator. If Wikipedia is a Jerry Springer show, as that guys says, then who are you? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 10:09, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * If you had written a rebuttal of his opinion, a content-based remark, you wouldn't have been reverted by two different editors. You weren't doing that though. Apart from that, I don't agree that Wikipedia is a Jerry Springer show. Sometimes it is reminiscent of a Kafka novel though. 10:22, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Another civility question
As an administrator, do you feel that the comment Nonsense. If you have a warranty on your reading comprehension, send it back and ask for a new one. is WP:CIVIL? Thank you. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 12:44, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No, obviously not. But if you have anymore such questions, please provide the context, as judging these things without any context is often tricky. Fram (talk) 12:46, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Here is the context you requested: Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 12:51, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Suicide Note (book) by Mitchell Heisman
You deleted my article on the book entitled 'Suicide Note' by Mitchell Heisman based on article A7: No explanation of the subject's significance (real person, animal, organization, or web content. However upon further investigation it becomes clear that the article you cited clearly mentions that this article is not applicable to books: and I quote "This criterion applies only to articles about web content and to articles about people, organizations, and individual animals themselves, not to articles about their books . . ."

Based on this observation I request that the article be reinstated. Also the significance of the book is clearly stated to have been precipitated by a noteworthy suicide, it's own content, and has been heralded as a work of genius by respected academics whom I cited as resources. Please reconsider your decision. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fakeusername1905 (talk • contribs) 15:07, 4 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The article has been deleted previously as part of an article on the author, after Articles for deletion/Mitchell Heisman. A book by a non notable author, with sources which are blogs bound to the University: if you don't like the A7 deletion reason, you may call it a WP:IAR deletion, but in the end it is a repetition of an article that was already deleted under a different name (that of the author). Fram (talk) 15:33, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

User talk:Jimbo Wales
Apparently while you're sleeping nobody else watching over that page for PAs; Ludwigs2 and ROBERTMFROMLI are at each others' throats there right about now. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 00:09, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

On San Theodoros
Take a look on San Theodoros. Please reconsider its quality and importance to WikiProject Comics. Thank you for your response. --Arius1998 (talk) 09:35, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Importance is independent of the quality of the article, it will never be more than low importance for the comics project. The quality: it is an exhaustive description of the fictional country as it appears in the comiocs, with some WP:OR added (e.g. about the location). It doesn't have any reliable, independent sources about the country and its role in the Tintin narratives, or its archetypical function as a view of South American politics from a European perspective, or anything else from an out-of-universe perspective. It still is a Start-class article for those reasons. Fram (talk) 08:58, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Ludwigs2
As you seem to be an WP:UNINVOLVED administrator who keeps tabs on the behavior of others in this dispute, I request your intervention with respect to this comment, which I consider grossly uncivil. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 22:04, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Job Male and August Howard
Please userfy Job Male and August Howard and I will rewrite if you think they are too close to the original sources. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:33, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Please see User talk:MER-C. I feel that the problem is (much) larger than just these two very recent articles, and may need further investigation. Furthermore, I don't userfy copyright violations, since that would be creating copyright violations in user space. Fram (talk) 15:36, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Batman work group
Hello! Just wanted to take a moment to let you know about the newly created Batman work group, a part of WikiProject Comics designed to improve the classification and coverage of Batman-related articles on Wikipedia. You are invited to join the group, by adding your name to the list of participants. Feel free to pass this message along, to anyone else you know who would be interested. Thank you for your time and consideration, and we look forward to hearing from you! Fortdj33 (talk) 01:55, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Questions to the parties on the Betacommand 3 arbitration case
Drafting arbitrator User:Kirill Lokshin has posted some questions to the parties. As you are either an involved party or have presented evidence in this case, your input is sollicited. For the Arbitration Committee --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 13:50, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

TPG and user names in headers
I saw the claim of KW on his talk page. The unfortunate wording in TPG has proven rather impossible to clarify because some editors seem to want to say that any mention of a user's name in a heading is a violation, even at ANI, which is totally absurd. See WT:TPG and subsequent sections. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 00:50, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Reinstating "unreviewed" tags
Wilhelmina says she begin reviewing in March, and Δ says that the bot solution "would require a little elbow grease, but doable." There have been no further comments at the ANI thread. I think we should go ahead, but I would like to see more consensus that this is the thing to do. If you agree, would you say so at the ANI thread? If you and Carcharoth agree, do you think that would be enough, or should we seek some further permission? Δ may need to do that anyway, I haven't followed all the ins and outs of his editing restrictions. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 12:05, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

James Docharty
I have added some references to this article you created by a cut and paste from "Bryans." I assume it is ok to expand these articles with reliable sources. Please take a look and let me know if the way I added refs seems ok, in just dropping in the new text with an inline ref, while leaving the original text unreferenced save for the template. I guess the reader could assume that anything not followed by an inline ref is a direct quote from the public domain original source. Does the original text need to be referenced to the public domain "Bryans" in some way beyond the template? I would like to also add a direct link to the source Bryans online as you mention in the talk page of the template, for the reader's convenience. Regards. Edison (talk) 23:00, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * To start with the end: sources don't have to be online, so it doesn't need to be referenced beyond what is there already. Of course, adding a convenience link is not a bad thing: a link to the book (Google or archive) is possible (the links given on the template talk page would work, you just need to find a way to separate the first and the second part of the book), a link to the exact article is as far as I know impossible with archive.org, and a lot of extra work with Google Books.
 * Your additions are fine, both content and referencing, although they could be improved by adding some links in the refs; we e.g. have an article on Whitworth Wallis, The Magazine of Art and Cassell (publisher). Fram (talk) 08:38, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

ABF
Please dont assume such bad faith as you did all that I did was straighten out an issue where the interwiki links of Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia and Manuel Marulanda where mixed together. It was not an automated bot, but rather a manual usage of interwiki.py. ΔT The only constant 11:10, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I did not assume any faith, I linked to your bot edits. The documentation of it makes very clear that it is a bot. The fact that you had to revert your edit on all these Wiki versions indicates how throughly checked it was, e.g. . Fram (talk) 11:27, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * By the way, since no interwiki links were changed on the first page, and on the other one in the end the only changes were this (where the catalan interwiki is placed out of order), what exactly was the actual problem you were trying to fix? At least on the English, Spanish and Catalan Wikipedia, I see no evidence that the interwikis for these two pages were mixed together... Fram (talk) 13:41, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Without opining on the method or effect of Delta's edits, the cause was that ru:Мануэль Маруланда linked to a) ar:فارك - FARC (which is a redirect to ar:القوات المسلحة الثورية الكولومبية - Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia) and b) fa:فارک (identical problem as :ar:). John Vandenberg (chat) 03:38, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Fram (talk) 07:53, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

RAN
Your signature went wrong. Kittybrewster  &#9742;  12:24, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, corrected. For some reason I always have problems with them. Fram (talk) 12:27, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Your Arbitration evidence is too long
Hello, Fram. Thank you for your recent submission of evidence for the Betacommand 3 Arbitration case. As you may be aware, the Arbitration Committee asks that users submitting evidence in cases adhere to limits regarding the length of their submissions. These limits, of words and  diffs maximum, are in place to ensure that the Arbitration Committee receives only the most important information relevant to the case, and is able to determine an appropriate course of action in a reasonable amount of time. The evidence you have submitted currently exceeds at least one of these limits, and is presently at 1017 words and 12 diffs. Please try to reduce the length of your submission to fit within these limits; this guide may be able to provide some help in doing so. If the length of your evidence is not reduced soon, it may be refactored or removed by a human clerk within a few days. Thank you! If you have any questions or concerns regarding the case, please contact the drafting Arbitrator or case clerk (listed on the case pages); if you have any questions or concerns about this bot, please contact the operator. On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Hers fold ArbClerkBOT(talk) 14:01, 15 November 2011 (UTC)


 * You can use the talk pages for commentary and analysis, it does not have to be in the "evidence" section if it is not factual evidence. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 14:17, 15 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I moved my replies to the talk page. Fram (talk) 14:18, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of "Irina Teodorascu"
Dear Fram,

Thank you for reviewing my submission, I would like to ask you about the deletion of the page "Irina Teodorascu", can I please ask the reason. This person exists, is a musician and has concerts. Thank you.

Ben — Preceding unsigned comment added by Warmnessonthesoul29 (talk • contribs) 18:52, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

If videos on youtube and web sites would be available, could that make a difference?

Thank you.

Warmnessonthesoul29 Ben — Preceding unsigned comment added by Warmnessonthesoul29 (talk • contribs) 12:20, 17 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Probably not, anyone can post to youtube or create a website. Newspapers, well-known magazines, Tv-shows, major awards (not a scholarship or so), ... that's the kind that is expected. Fram (talk) 13:15, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Your request for arbitration
Your request for arbitration has been declined, as it was mathematically impossible to reach the net four votes required to accept a case. A full list of the voting arbitrators' views can be found here. For the Arbitration Committee --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 12:18, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

The "AN/I Bug"
You just got a taste of it. I've seen this bug on the AN/I board, but never where it outright replaced a comment - it usually erases another comment when another editor places one in the same thread within a minute or two. Just enter your comment below mine :> Doc   talk  10:07, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Removing false info
Hi. Re your comment at User Talk:Jimbo Wales, "if you believe that something is false, you still don't get to exclude it without solid sources to support your point of view." - Could you give the excerpt from policy that supports this comment? Thanks and regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:46, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I hope that from the context it was clear that I meant "if you believe that something supported by a reliable source is false" etcetera. Your belief, your conviction, your knowledge that something is false doesn't give you the right to remove such information, since you are not a reliable source. Basically, if someone has shown a statement to be verifiable (by providing a reliable source for it), the burden of evidence falls on the one wanting to remove it to find counterevidence (not necessarily a source that says that X is incorrect, but more, newer, and/or more authoritative sources that contradict X by stating that Y is true). If this is not required, anyone can remove any material, no matter how correctly sourced, because they "know" it is wrong, no matter of their "knowledge" is any more reliable than that of the reliable source. Fram (talk) 15:05, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I think I understand your position and in most cases I agree with you. My concern is that there may not be anything in policy that someone could quote that would prevent editors from using their original research (which may be wrong)  to remove reliably sourced material. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:33, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, we have WP:PRESERVE and next to it WP:CANTFIX. Removing material without the support of a policy to do so goes against these, in my opinion. A more explicit policy for this doesn't exist as far as I know. Fram (talk) 15:40, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I looked at those two sections and I couldn't find anything that would help in the situation that I mentioned in my last message. If I missed something in those two sections, could you quote it here? --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:02, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't really of any further things you could use to support this point, WP:BRD indicates of course that of aynone removes sourced material, and you replace it, that the next step should be discussion, not further removal. And then it is basically consensus that decides. Fram (talk) 09:43, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Then getting back to my first message and your response, and from your first message here's a quote that I agree with, "If this is not required, anyone can remove any material, no matter how correctly sourced, because they "know" it is wrong, no matter of their "knowledge" is any more reliable than that of the reliable source." From our discussion here, it appears that there is no part of policy that can be quoted to object to such removal. Do you think something should be added to policy to prevent such removal? --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:11, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, but I'm not going to draft anything. I'll support any decent proposal though. Fram (talk) 13:17, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It was nice discussing it with you. I may come back to discuss it some more with you at another time, if that's OK. --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:30, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Re: AWB Template redirects change
Hi Fram, re your edit today to AWB template redirects. I've no problem with this edit, your edit summary correctly describes the majority use, but I wanted to make sure that you understood that your edit to the rules page will not actually make any difference to the default template redirect changes made by AWB. The first letter case insensitive rule decided on about a year ago still applies. Thanks Rjwilmsi  21:25, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, the intention is that if you come from a different word, then it gets replaced by the lowercase version: changin uppercase to lowercase was not my intention, but no new uppercase versions should be made by AWB. Fram (talk) 09:44, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Repopulating unreviewed backlog
FYI: User talk:Δ. JohnCD (talk) 22:41, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Needing your help
Greetings- I noticed upon surfing more than one image that User:Themusicfreak User talk:Themusicfreak was blocked from editing on the en.Wikipedia. His talk page is still there.. however, I'm writing for help because he apparently uploaded several photos only to the Wikipedia, which, if are not copyright violations, need to be migrated to Commons. They include the following: There are a couple more if you follow his "contribs" trail, but not a lot more. I would do this but am unfamiliar with it, already have other promised obligations and am quite ill. If you take a look at his contributions there are a few photos that need evaluation and migration to Commons. I am hoping you could look into that? Or maybe you know someone who won't mind migrating the photos? Thanks. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 02:13, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Rohail Hyatt
 * Salman Ahmad
 * Junaid Jamshed
 * I'm not really involved with any image migrations, I only sometimes upload images directly to Commons but am not otherwise involved with this. 07:47, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Re: Allen C. Fuller
Thank you for your contribution... :D Dru of Id (talk) 12:27, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem, he deserves an article and I dislike unsourced stubs, certainly when created by established editors who should know better. Fram (talk) 12:36, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * And can miss no opportunity to stick the knife in. It is pretty pathetic. Rich Farmbrough, 14:27, 22 November 2011 (UTC).


 * It's hard to resist such easy targets for knives though... 14:48, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Duff (d.967)
You have wheel-warred by re-deleting this page.

I undeleted because the page has history, is not a recent page, is a reasonable redirect, the name Duff is an accepted variant: deleting stuff like this is against policy, mean spirited and incorrect. I am not that bothered about policy, except that you choose to use it a as a weapon against others on a regular basis. I am not sure why you can't stick to improving the encyclopaedia, where you have reasonable competence.

Please revert your deletion.

Rich Farmbrough, 14:26, 22 November 2011 (UTC).


 * WP:CSD: A10, recently created (less than two months old, and never been in the new pages list beacuse it was moved from the user space) article for which already an article exists (Dub, King of Scotland). Nothing is merged from your article towards the existing one, so there is no need to keep the history. Furthermore, Duff is an accepted variant (and it is listed at Duff), Duff (d.967) isn't. No one except you is going to look for that person using a disambiguation with a typo in it. Feel free to take it to DRV though, I am not going to undelete this or any other of your many badly titled redirects. Or do you also want to contest the deletion of Category redirect:Scottish advocates, Category:Eorldemen, Beatson, Robert (DNB00), and so on? Again, DRV is the right place for it. Fram (talk) 14:47, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * By the way, Dubh mac Mhoir Chaluim? Are you inventing new incorrect names just for fun? There are no known instances of anyone ever using that variation... Fram (talk) 14:52, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

SwissJust
Hello Fram. You took down the SwissJust article i wrote. I would like to know why, so i can fix it.

SwissJust should be in Wikipedia. The products they offer are very good, the directselling system is one of the largest in the whole continent, Fundation Forge deserves visibility, and SwissJust is a continental brand, it has presence from USA to Argentina. The article has the needed references, so i dont know why it has beem take down.

Also, this is the translation of the spanish article of SwissJust that i wrote and it was approved by one of the administrators.

Any advice is wellcome. I want to contribute to wikipedia. --Wipernet (talk) 14:55, 25 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The article was not a neutral, factual article, but a promotional one. Articles should be based on quality reliable sources, not job sites or sites related to the company. Half of the article is about a Foundation, but the link to SwissJust isn't even explained.
 * Looking again at the article, it shouldn't just have been deleted as a promotional piece, but as a copyright violation of . The fact that the majority of the text from your "translated" article is actually nearly literally taken from the company website speaks volumes. What the Spanish Wikipedia does with this article is their choice, but it definitely is not fit for the English one. If you want to write an article on the company, create a neutral one, based on independent, reliable sources, describing the business, not the promo-version from the company itself. Fram (talk) 15:07, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Wilhelmina's reviews
Δ has replied at User talk:Δ/20111101 that he has listed the pages involved - 3,594 of them - at User:Δ/Sandbox 4, but is "unable to currently tag them". I have not asked him why, or whether he expects to be able soon, and I am about to be away and out of touch for most of the rest of the year, so with apologies I am dumping the problem back in your lap and Carcharoth's - sending this to him too. JohnCD (talk) 15:32, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * He is unable to do so due to editing restrictions and the current arbcom case, in which I am involved as well. Fram (talk) 15:33, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I think this stalled. I've only just got round to looking at it again myself. Is the best thing here for me to ask another bot operator or ask at that bot request noticeboard? Carcharoth (talk) 06:31, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I was reminded of this by some comments I recently made at WT:New Page Triage, and am coming back to it again, as I'd really like to see something done about the list at User:Δ/Sandbox 4. I'm currently trying to re-locate the relevant discussions before probably dropping this off at a bot request page (request made here). I suspect, given the time elapsed, it might be necessary to get a renewed consensus somewhere for putting those articles back through the review process. Letting you know in case you have any better ideas (or something got done about this that I missed). Carcharoth (talk) 18:08, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

MarcusBritish
You may not be right that he will not accuse you of 'getting even' with him, He accused me of that and I don't recall ever having had any interaction with him before either.Slatersteven (talk) 13:17, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * He may well do that, considering what else he has written about me and my motives. I would consider it a fanciful, unrealistic statement though, as would most impartial readers. Fram (talk) 13:43, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Message
10:50, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Fixing redirects
Fram, follow our discussion some time ago on my talk page, I have proposed a change to the style guide here: Wikipedia_talk:Redirect. Your comments are invited. Ground Zero | t 20:29, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

RAN discussion
Your feedback would be welcomed here. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 01:35, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Deletion review for Duff (d.967)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Duff (d.967). Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Jenks24 (talk) 11:40, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

RAN reviewing
I'm doing some grouping of the articles in the RAN CCI. I hope it is viewed as helpful, or at least non-negative, because it helps me. I notice you identified Manuel Cuevas here as having a problem. I dropped it into the "not OK" bucket, but see that RAN is working on it. Is it your intention to review it at some time, and add a comment when you think it is OK, or am I over-analyzing? -- SPhilbrick  T  00:15, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Not OK just means that the article wasn't OK, not necessarily that it still needs work. RAN is already claiming that only 15 articles had copyvios, which is of course complete nonsense: tagging more articles as OK will only reinforce his believe in this. Fram (talk) 07:31, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm worried we aren't on the same page.

I'll start by noting that the icon convention is counter-intuitive to me; I prefer green check marks to signify that things are fine and a red x to mean things are not fine, but that isn't the convention, and I don't think now is the time to rethink that convention. I do understand that in the narrow universe of looking for copyvios, a green check means, yes, I did find a problem. A red x doesn't mean that the article is perfectly fine, it means, in the context of looking for copyvios, the article has been reviewed and it appears to be clear of copyvios. Obviously, if we see other glaring issues, such as lack of refs, we should add the appropriate maintenance templates (or clean it up), but that still qualifies as a "No, it doesn't have a copyvio".

If a copyvio is found, and it is relatively easy to fix, then the reviewer may clean the article, or otherwise repair the problem, report it with a green check mark, and note that the problem has been resolved. I categorize these as "OK". If a copyvio is found, but more work is needed, I tag it with a green check. If it is serious enough to report to CP, I categorize it as "Not OK". Recently, I have pointed out potential problems to RAN, and if he resolves them, and I agree, I mark it with a green check and put it in the OK bucket to indicate that yes, we did find a problem, but nothing more with respect to copyvios, needs to be done.

As for RAN's claim of "only 15 copyvios" I have two observations. There are more than 15 articles where problems have been identified. In some cases, these might not be technically copyvios, because it was a copy and paste of a PD source, and cleanup was needed to do proper attribution. So point one is that the number 15 is too low a measure of problems identified. the second point is that there are roughly 6000 with RAN edits. 15 or even 30 problems out of 6000 is a problem, but not a huge problem. However, only a couple hundred or so articles have been reviewed. 15 or 30 problems out of a couple hundred is serious. To be fair, much of the review so far is on the larger contribution. I did some checks at the end of the list, and found the article sin much better shape. All this is warm-up to say I didn't catch what you thought should happen. If an article truly is OK, I don't see any downside to saying so. I had considered distinguishing between those that were OK when I looked at them, and those that are now OK because the problems have been identified and addressed. I thought that would be more categories than needed, but if it would help identify the scope of the problem, I could have four categories instead of three: This would identify groups two and three as a metric for the problems identified.-- SPhilbrick  T  13:50, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Ok (when reviewed)
 * 2) Not OK when reviewed, but now resolved
 * 3) Not OK and still need work
 * 4) Not yet checked


 * Perhaps better if we take this up with Mer-C and Moonriddengirl, they know the most about CCI. We indeed need at least three different indications, "no problem", "problem", and "problem but corrected". Fram (talk) 13:55, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with you. (I'd prefer to save troubling them for a situation where we disagree.) I combined the "no problem" and "problem but corrected" simply because I was worried about too much visual clutter, but I had considered the three category option. I'll make the changes. I may have some time tomorrow, but plans are unclear, as I am out of town, and unsure about plans or internet access tomorrow.-- SPhilbrick  T  13:20, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Giotto
Thank you for the simple application of a little commonsense. Amandajm (talk) 01:27, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You're welcome :-) Fram (talk) 07:37, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

List of governors and chief magistrates of Anguilla
No message from you to tell me?♦ Dr. Blofeld  12:36, 13 December 2011 (UTC)


 * No, did you expect or need one? Fram (talk) 12:41, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

If you are directing articles I created so soon after creation, yes, you should have notified me. ♦ Dr. Blofeld  17:36, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Tom Bolton
Submission for Tom Bolton Clown.

I submitted a short article about myself Tom Bolton as a clown. As one of the best known, long working clowns in Germany, this submission is relevant. My website www.clowntombolton.com is usually the 3rd or 4th highest Google result for "clown" when searched from Germany. I am also well known in the juggling scene and have had many articles published in KASKADE the Europeaqn Juggling Magazine. So I am a relevant clwon and performer. The article was already deleted before I could list the formerly mentioned and another website www.world-traveler.eu that documents my world travels as a clown. Was the article too short to establish its relevance or what? I tried to keep it short and consise to avoid seeming like spam. TomBolton1960 (talk) 11:25, 14 December 2011 (UTC)


 * First, it is usually not a good idea to write an article about yourself. WP:AUTOBIO has more info on this. Further, I don't see any evidence that you are one of the best known clowns of Germany. Google News Archive gives a few results, mostly in local newspapers giving a list of performers at some festival. This seems to be among the more extensive ones, having two sentences about you. This is not sufficient to meet WP:BIO, our notability guideline for biographies. What you need are links to newspaper or magazine articles with indepth coverage of you and your work (not articles you have written or photo's you have taken, but articles about you from an independent source). Fram (talk) 11:36, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

RAN: Revisiting Topic Ban
Fram, please see this discussion. Your contribution is invited. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 08:30, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard
Hi Fram. You participated in Administrators' noticeboard/Archive228, in which a one-month topic ban on creating new articles and making page moves was imposed on. The closing admin has asked for community input at Administrators' noticeboard. Cunard (talk) 08:46, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

York University Sailing and Windsurfing Club
Fram,

I was a little dismayed that you have already deleted the above page. Do you possibly think that this is not a notable subject? This is an important subject to a number of people. For instance, there are currently over 230 members of the Facebook York University Sailing and Windsurfing Club and Alumni groups and with a club history dating back to 1963, there are undoubtedly a significant number of ex-members. It is the intention of this wikipedia article to gather some of the history of this club into one place, and once that history begins to be gathered the notability of the article will become apparent.

Although there are not many articles about university sailing teams, I note that there is one on "The University of Texas Sailing Team". This existing article does not have much more information than my initial creation. Also, there are a number of university clubs and societies represented. A quick google of "wikipedia University society" or "clubs" will show that this page is not without precedence.

I ask that you reactivate this article and allow people to contribute and grow it. Links and sources will be added in due course making the subject and the content more notable.

Kind Regards,

Dr. Mark Beal

Msbealo (talk) 13:41, 16 December 2011 (UTC)


 * The existence of other similar articles does not indicate that they are appropriate subjects for Wikipedia, it may also mean that no one has really noticed their existence yet (with over 3 million articles, this happens a lot). However, we have guidelines about what subjects may have an article, and which ones don't. Number of members or alumni is not an important factor in that regard, but the significant coverage the subject has received in reliable, independent sources (not University affiliated ones, not student papers, not most websites) is the deciding factor. WP:ORG is the guideline for arganisations.

If you believe that the club meets WP:ORG, please include some indication of why it meets the guideline in the initial version of the article. It helps us differentiate between the many local or less notable clubs that want to have an article on Wikipedia, and the more rare ones that deserve an article here. Fram (talk) 13:46, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Fram,

Ok, I understand your position. I have found an external source which give Significant coverage of the club. This is an article from a "Reliable" source, the Yachts and Yachting Magazine. Sailing clubs are not explicitly mentioned in the Notability (sports) guidelines, however in general I feel that I have now "provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline".


 * Articles on topics that do not meet this criterion are generally deleted, although there are alternatives. For articles of unclear notability, deletion should be a last resort.

I believe that in this case, there is an unclear position. Although the initial article lacked a reliable source, a "notability" tag would have allowed us time to find a reliable source as I have done above.

Alternatively,


 * If an article fails to cite sufficient sources to demonstrate the notability of its subject, look for sources yourself, [or] ask the article's creator or an expert on the subject for advice on where to look for sources.

I believe that immediate deletion was not called for in this case and I again ask that you reverse your decision.


 * If you believe that the club meets WP:ORG, please include some indication of why it meets the guideline in the initial version of the article.

I will add the above information, once I have access to the initial article (currently deleted).

Regards, Msbealo (talk) 14:37, 16 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I have restored the page, to give you a chance to enhance and complete it. Please note that this does not mean that the page may not be deleted eventually (but then normally after a deletion discussion) if it appears that the subject is not notable enough after all. But you deserve at least a chance to prove me wrong here :-) Fram (talk) 14:48, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

thoughts?
Hi Fram. My query was in regards to the discussion and the close as delete and the DRV opening and then the reclose by the admin as keep nom withdrawn. The discussion starts here till the bottom of the userpage - I am wondering what to do for the best. A DRV as an objection to the nom withdrawn close would revert to his delete close and another DRV would be opened about that - messy, very messy. Perhaps it's just better to ignore it for a few months, thoughts, I am going out for a rew hours so I will look back later today - regards. - Youreallycan (talk) 13:37, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Update - it's all put to bed now, nothing left to see. Thanks for your helpful comments at the policy page. Regards - Youreallycan (talk) 12:21, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I would be interested in a second opinion.
Fram, I think you and I are close to the same place in terms of how to handle quotes in footnotes (and that may reflect me moving closer to you than vice versa :). I recently concluded that a quote in an article was fine, despite an initial expectation that I would remove it or cut it back. I would be interested in a second opinion. Article here, my comments here -- SPhilbrick  (Talk)  20:22, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Nicolas Henri Joseph de Fassin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Empress of Russia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:22, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Red box above Arbitration/Requests
I've edited the red box above the arbitration request page to standardise the wording pertaining to the need for diffs in statements. Since the idea about editing it was initially conceived through a debate between us, I thought it'd be a good idea to tell you I've changed it. The relevant discussion is at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests should you wish to comment on my changes. Deryck C. 19:13, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello Fram
Thank you for reverting User:Renamed user 4's edits and protecting the encyclopedia from malicious exploiters! Have a great holiday! Edward Kohs (talk) 11:37, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Quote Parameter in citations
You contributed to a discussion either here or here. I'm attempting to summarize and move the discussion forward here. You may well have this page watchlisted, but as I am trying to carny on in a slightly different place, I'm letting everyone know who contributed.-- SPhilbrick  (Talk)  17:06, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Prix Saint-Michel, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jacques Martin (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:50, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited John Fayram, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chelsea (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:16, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Copyright issue
Fram, It looks like http://www.ieeeghn.org/wiki/index.php/Herwig_Kogelnik is a wiki and is newer (2009) than when RAN edited it (2006). So it appears that either Could you look into that and, assuming it's one of the first two unblank the article and apologize to RAN?
 * RAN was copied from
 * Copyright problems came from someone after RAN edited
 * I'm missing something (say an older document that both copied from?)

Also, the template was probably less than optimal in any case (Don't template the regulars and all that). We should also remind IEEE that attribution is required.

Thanks, Hobit (talk) 16:34, 19 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Replied on RAN's talk page. Basically, the RAN page was one of a batch of five copyright violations created by him in a row. Fram (talk) 08:40, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

AWB latest version
Hi. Since you are using AWB regularly I suggest hat you download the latest snapshot from http://toolserver.org/~awb/snapshots/ This will help us the developers to get more feedback for bugs, etc. rev 7016 contains performance improvements so it will benefit your work. Thanks, Magioladitis (talk) 17:07, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

My bad
I owe you an apology.

I was surprised to see you using a template, one written in a style directed at new editors, on RAN’s page.

I now understand that he had requested that you not use his talk page, and presented with the need to inform him about an issue (in compliance with his request) you opted for the standard template, rather than a custom message. Perfectly understandable, but I hope you can understand my surprise, as I was unaware of his request about you not posting on his talk page. (As an aside, that sort of request is one of my Pet Peeves, but I’ll save writing that up for another day)

I do think it is best to just add a short note to RAN—I know he hasn’t pulled his weight in this investigation, but I did see that he was responsive when I added a short note and the problematic article. I also plan to return to help. I ran into a roadblock when we differed on the use of quotes in references, and the discussion at the non free talk page stalled, without clear direction, so I need to restart that first.

Again, sorry I poked you, when you are understandably already frustrated in this investigation.--  SPhilbrick  (Talk)  12:50, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


 * No problem, thanks for coming here. DTTR is usually a sound principle, but sometimes a bit hard to follow. The current solution, with me posting short notes on everything under investigation, seems to work fine though for the moment. Fram (talk) 14:02, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

On the other hand Fram complains elsewhere that his template wasn't answered. Fram loves Catch 22, unfortunately we see through it.

Note that he uses the same excuse "I was not welcome on his talk page" to initiate a fresh part of his campaign to have me blocked. Rich Farmbrough, 16:09, 27 January 2012 (UTC).


 * Your "on the other hand" doesn't really follow from the above discussion. Not that I really expected it to do so, but it would be nice for once to get an attack on me that was somewhat to the point. Fram (talk) 16:13, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit summaries
It is not appropriate to pursue your campaign against me by edit summaries to articles. Or indeed by edit summaries at all, but especially those to articles. Rich Farmbrough, 16:09, 27 January 2012 (UTC).


 * I think most people are rather tired of your habit of blaming all your problems on others. If you can't even decently correct an obvious error after it has been pointed out to you, then what do you expect? Fram (talk) 16:14, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

WilliamH (talk) 18:52, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

DRV
A notification that the Templates for Discussion discussion (oy, repetition) has been taken to a deletion review discussion. The Article Rescue Squadron was notified, and as notifications to previous involved parties isn't normal practise, I and a few ARS members agreed that, in the interests of transparency and fairness, we should let everyone know...hence this talkpage message ;).

If anyone has an issue with me sending these out, do drop me a note on my talkpage. Regards, Ironholds (talk) 10:30, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Question of Notability Regarding State National Guard Awards
Fram, I have noticed that you have raised the question of notability regarding a number of articles I have created concerning State defense forces and United States National Guard decorations. While certainly these articles are far from perfect and certainly require expansion, I feel that they are in fact sufficiently notable by virtue of size of the organizations to which the decorations are awarded (the United States National Guard itself is presently 500,000 men strong). I would argue that in fact that these awards are available to an organization of that size constitutes inherent notability for this subject matter. I would further refer you to the other state decorations which exist on Wikipedia and while many of those individual articles themselves have issue, I have not seen any which have been challenged/tagged on the grounds of notability. I would hope therefore that you not take exception if I remove the notability tags you have added to these articles and instead replace them with citation needed tags. Would that be an acceptable compromise on the issue?LeonidasSpartan (talk) 00:26, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you provide reliable, independent sources establishing notability for these awards? A large organisation which gives e.g. an award for five years of service is nothing unusual, and it seems improbable that anyone will pay significant attention to that award. It's not comparable to a MoH or a Bronze Star or so on, which are notable as an institution (and in the case of the MoH, every individual one is notable). Fram (talk) 07:39, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Pedro García Ferrer, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Valencia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:17, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Music of Peru, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Spanish (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:45, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

DRV for Articles for deletion/Taiwan island group
As you were the admin who closed the AfD and don't seem to have been notified about it, I would like to let you know that a DRV has been started for Articles for deletion/Taiwan island group at Deletion review/Log/2012 February 8. Please consider weighing in there. Thank you. (Disclosure: I'm the person who nominated the article for deletion.) wctaiwan (talk) 16:51, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

MSU Interview
Dear Fram,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, were it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.

So a few things about the interviews:
 * Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
 * Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
 * All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
 * All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
 * The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.

Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 19:22, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Byran's
Hi!

I initially responded to Rich Farmborough's entry about Byran's in a completely generic way, without actually looking at the articles in detail. As far as I can tell, your 200+ contributions are completely consistent with any possible interpretation of copyright law, and your Template:Bryan template is more than enough to satisfy the most paranoid interpretation of the WP:Plagiarism guidelines. I think Rich is obesssing about nothing, here. To recapitulate:
 * 1) Byrans's 1886 is a derivative work, consisting of articles, with respect to copyright law.
 * 2) Each article is a collective work with respect to copyright law, and the most conservative interpretation is that each article is:
 * 3) a  collective work between the attributed author and the editors, or
 * 4) a collective work between an anonymous author and the ecitors.

Since the last living editor (Groves) died in 1922, any non-attributed article's copyright has expired in the UK (and everywhere else,) because any un-attributed author's copyright expires 70 years after publication.

For attributed articles, the article's collective copyright expires 70 years after the death of the last living author.

Conclusion: All articles in the 1886 edition of Byron's are PD in all jurisdictions, except for any article attributed to an author who died after 1941. In this one (probably non-existant) case, Rich has a (tenuous) concern.

I accidentally became interested in this through the DNB. I wished to add a WP article, and I found a (non-wikimedia) DNB article on that person. I went to Wikisource and found the DNB to be (almost) non-existant. I created a DNB project at Wikisource and added the DNB article there, and then added the article to Wikipedia. The WS DNB project has since expanded beyond all expectations due to the efforts of other contributors. We will almost certantly complete all 26,000+ articles at WS by the end of this year, and will eventually link the 26,000+ articles to WP, probably adding at least 10,000+ articles to WP.

You may wish to consider adding the 1886 edition of Byran's to WS. The advantage is this: At WS, the goal is to produce an exact copy, under U.S. copyright law. For each article, I found that it is much easier to first produce an exact copy (at WS) and then produce an updated, modified, modernized, annotated copy at WP.

-Arch dude (talk) 04:40, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

DRV notice
You participated in the discussion at Administrators' noticeboard, which occured following the closure of Templates for discussion/Log/2012 January 24. Be advised that I have opened Deletion review/Log/2012 February 27.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:34, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Matthew_hk  t  c  14:28, 29 February 2012 (UTC)