User talk:Fram/Archive 26

Be Warned - Rangers FC - an attempt to push through a controversial 'same club' approach
Hello. You have contributed to the Newco Rangers article so I thought yuou should be made aware that an attempt is being made to undermine this article by pushing through a 'same club' approach despite many of us believing this is heavily biased and very selective use of the sources. You may wish to follow what is proposed at the Talk:Rangers F.C/Sandbox. Spiritofstgeorge (talk) 12:49, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Timeline of MSL Curiosity mission
Since you were involved in the afd about the previous articles created on this topic, I thought you might have some feedback regarding the new attempt: Timeline of MSL Curiosity mission. I'm having trouble communicating with the editor, and he is now editing under an IP address: 77.255.105.194. Just a heads up.  O liver  T wisted (Talk) (Stuff) 06:49, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I've opened a sockpuppet case, as the same editor is obviously attempting to circumvent the 3RR by using multiple IPs. The case is here, just for reference: . Cheers.  O liver  T wisted (Talk) (Stuff)  12:13, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I know you are probably busy, but I do have a question, and I suspect you are the right person for the job. First, thanks for attempting to shed some light on my questions directed at the closing Admin of the SPI case when you opened the ANI case for User:Havebased123. It's been a while since I've had to do one of the SPIs, and apparently something has changed which I can't pinpoint. On the last SPI in which I was involved, a User compare report link was included which analyzed and combined all the User accounts and User IPs into one nice, handy list . Since then, (even on the example I've included here), the other IPs which were involved are no longer showing on the report. Obviously the compare report was not available for the Havebased case either. You mentioned in the ANI discussion for Havebased123 a point about the SPI, "...which was closed without any action, because no blockable offenses had happened at the time and because IP adresses and acounts are not linked through checkuser anyway)." I am assuming the Checkuser and Compare user functions are completely different. Is there a policy change, or technical change that I missed in the last few months which would cause the Compare User report to no longer include other involved IPs, or was that original report (which I am referencing above) unusual for some reason of which I am unaware? Also, if the Check User report isn't available for User accounts and IPs, how did they figure out that the IPs and User account resolve to Poland? I'm not meaning to be argumentative, I am just a bit confused. ;0)  O liver   T wisted (Talk) (Stuff)  06:59, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * One of the checkusers (or their clerks) may be a better person to answer this correctly and completely. I have no idea how the compare report really works, all I know is that the actual checkuser doesn't give out information linking IP addresses to account names (for privacy reasons). However, every individual IP address can be checked with tools like WHOIS to find out where it comes from (roughly). I have no idea how anyone would note the origins of an account though. Fram (talk) 07:07, 22 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Okay, it is academic anyway, as we are taking the slow and steady approach to preventing further disruptions by this interested party. Thanks for staying with it and not leaving us to bang our heads against the wall. The user's actions always just stopped short of what I would consider an offense meritorious of blocking, and then the IPs would begin where the user left off... all very annoying and difficult to halt. I thought I might make an SPI gamble to halt it at the source, but such are the plans of mice and men. It is a shame the user is not more willing to communicate, as I began to support the page in concept, just not in practice, and that user is primarily responsible for both the content, and unfortunately, the disruptions. Anyway, thanks again.  O liver   T wisted (Talk) (Stuff)  07:22, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Deleted Page: Deux Filles
Hi Fram, Thanks for looking at the Deux Filles page. There is no copyright violation as I am James Nice (james.nice@btinternet.com) and I wrote the text for the Deux Files pages at LTM (which is my record label) and the text for the Wiki entry too. The only reason I did not make that clear initially to Wiki is that it runs the risk of Wiki declaring the article to be not neutral. Whereas I have made it as factual and neutral as possible, and in any event I do not share the view that a (very small) commercial organisation is automatically disbarred from initiating a Wiki page about a subject. So, please reconsider, so that we can polish the page further and others can add to it if they chose. Many thanks! James — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.155.110.134 (talk) 10:39, 13 November 2012 (UTC)


 * You can best check FAQ/Copyright and its linked pages to check what kind of content (copyright-wise) is acceptable here, and how you can release such previously published content with an acceptable license. Fram (talk) 10:45, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

If I write something on/for my own website and then post a version of that on Wikipedia there is no copyright issue, Fram, and therefore no need for any release or licence. James — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.155.110.134 (talk) 08:29, 14 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Since we have no way of knowing that the person posting here is the person who wrote the original, there actually is a copyright issue. Fram (talk) 08:30, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Donating copyrighted materials has more info on how this can be solved. Fram (talk) 08:33, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Deleted Page: Clare Munn
Hi Fram,

I have noticed that you have deleted Clare Munn Wikipedia page because of an copyright infringement including citing Huffington Post. Is it possible for me to delete that citing and move forward with publishing the page? I do not have much experience with Wikipedia and appreciate your help and advice.

14:35, 9 August 2012 Fram (talk | contribs) deleted page Clare Munn (G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/clare-munn/)

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ParkerNatalie (talk • contribs) 15:35, 9 August 2012 (UTC)


 * You may always start the page again, writing it from scratch (i.e. not copying (even with minor changes) text from books, magazines, websites, ...). It may still be deleted if people feel that the person doesn't meet our guidelines (see WP:BIO for some information on this). Adding reliable, independent sources about the person is a good method to avoid this. Newspaper or magazine articles about her, that kind of thing. Good luck! Fram (talk) 06:50, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

AWB new version
There is a new snapshot available at http://toolserver.org/~awb/snapshots/. It fixes almost all general fixes bugs reported and improves autotagging. Can you please update to this one? -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:14, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Done, thanks! Fram (talk) 06:48, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Please update to the newest version that we just uploaded. It 'll save you valuable time. Older version was slow when page had images. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:01, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Massemba
Hi Fram, Back in 2007 you removed the PROD for this article. This article is under AfD. Do you know anything about this subject? I'm trying to develop it but the article is so basic with little information, I don't even know the name of the artist. Do you have any expertise in this? Thanks. Tamsier (talk) 06:14, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * EDIT - I just saw the name of the artist, will do some research, but any help would be appreciated. Thanks. Tamsier (talk) 06:17, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Ashton Kutcher on Twitter (2nd nomination)
Hi Fram, Given the numbers (10 to delete, 8 to merge, 15 to keep as I could it) and discussion content I really don't see a consenous here to merge. And I certainly don't see any consensous that WP:NOT applies here. In fact arguments were made that it doesn't and weren't really countered IMO. Your close seems to be claiming such a conensous was found (or your option that NOT applied, I can't tell which). I hate to resubmit this to DRV, but I really don't see how this close is in line with the discussion. Could you either provide more of an explaination about how you reached that outcome or change the outcome? Thanks, Hobit (talk) 19:06, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Did you count opinions like "Keep. If it takes this much effort to get such an obviously dumb and inappropriate article deleted, the article should be kept as a badge of shame. " as a "keep" or as a "delete" or as a "not valid, ignore"? Do you consider an opinion that starts with " WP:NOTPAPER suggests that the only policy based rationales are 'keep' or 'merge.' " as "policy-based" and thus "valid"? Apart from that, there is no reason not to also take into consideration the opinions expressed in the first AfD as well. All in all, in my judgment as closer, the "violates WP:NOT" argument, coupled with the sentiments in the general discussion about person X on Twitter articles, are stronger than the "meets GNG" arguments, since articles need to meet "both" the GNG and NOT to be kept. But, obviously, feel free to take this to DRV. Fram (talk) 16:17, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * What? Either you did not understand the beginning of my rationale or you misconstrued it.  Yes, it was policy based and valid.  Perhaps in your reading you did not perceive the implied and later made explicit "here"?Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:39, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I still don't see how there was consenous that WP:NOT applied here. I probably won't have time to do the DRV for a few days (Monday maybe?) but I'll get to it.  Thanks for the reply. Hobit (talk) 19:54, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * (merged from another section) Foo on Twitter articles have been debated endlessly at AFD recently. Closing these debates has no doubt been an ordeal. Nonetheless, I contest whether there is really sufficient consensus not to keep if 43% (I counted 16 keep, 10.5 merger and 10.5 delete) of the respondents said keep. Thus, I am following procedure and talking with the closing administrator of the most recent AFD.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:50, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * P.S. I don't expect you to change your decision. I am just really seeking acknowledgement/permission regarding an impending DRV.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:13, 19 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Feel free to take it to DRV, I'll comment there if needed. Note that consensus isn't an exercise in votecounting, otherwise "me too" votes would be encouraged instead of discouraged. Fram (talk) 10:19, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It seems that the history of User:TonyTheTiger/Ashton Kutcher on Twitter has been deleted. Can you please restore this page so that I can refer to it for the DRV.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:42, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * There is no history at that page, only a move log. All the history should be on the Ashton Kutcher on Twitter page. Fram (talk) 07:22, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I am trying to request a userfication so that the DRV discussion will be able to refer to a replica of the page.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 11:48, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The page has not been deleted, you can see it at its original location, all the history is there. You can add a link to any oldid you want in the DRV. Fram (talk) 11:54, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Deletion review for Ashton Kutcher on Twitter
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Ashton Kutcher on Twitter. 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. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:31, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Belle's eye color
Belle's Disney Wiki page. It says that Belle's eyes are hazel and has a screenshot of a close-up of her eyes revealing their color.--Wolfcho (talk) 05:22, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Striking text
Striking works just fine if you put the slash in the right place. I assume you missed my fix when you put it back.. Kanguole 11:58, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I replied at your talk page Fram (talk) 12:05, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

AfD - Curiosity rover timeline
Hello, I see you are engaged in an edit war with user:Havebased123 at Timeline of MSL Curiosity mission‎. He is quite a disrupting editor bent on anarchy (or WP:ownership?) A few of us (main editors of the rover mission) have tried several approaches ranging from welcome, to feed-back, to warnings; he deletes everything in his talk page. In addition there is a sock puppet investigation on him; mostly, he uses the sock puppets to stay below his 3R limit. It seems we can't Wikify the timeline article nor delete it. Any help or advice will be greately appreciated. Cheers BatteryIncluded (talk) 15:30, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Your comment is not germaine to the topic, may I suggest you move it to an appropriate space?
This message is in response to your recent edit at ANI. We all know that you have an involved history with Geo Swan, but the appropriate space for that discussion is most likely here. The topic has drifted away from Geo Swan's personal edits and we are discussing drafting guidelines for the fixing/removal of Guantanamo detainee articles. Please do not try to bias that discussion by pointing out other problematic articles by Geo Swan. Wikipedia has no deadline and WP:OTHERSTUFF can be addressed at another time. If we can get Geo Swan (and everyone else) to focus on fixing one issue at a time, we can improve the trajectory of his editing behaviors (and ours) and avoid accusations of WP:WIKIHOUNDING. Let's improve the quality of Wikipedia together! --Joshuaism (talk) 14:42, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The fix needed is not a new guideline to keep his articles included, but a topic ban for Geo Swan. So my comment is rather germane to the topic, and I'll not remove it. But feel free to accuse people of wikihounding as much as you like, it will only reflect badly on yourself. Fram (talk) 06:46, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Category:1981 establishments in Fiji
Category:1981 establishments in Fiji, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Nouniquenames (talk) 17:15, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Category:1979 establishments in Fiji
Category:1979 establishments in Fiji, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Nouniquenames (talk) 17:17, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

G4?
Hi Fram. About your deletion of London Buses route 66 as a G4 recreation, are you sure that was the right decision? The main reason given by the delete !voters in the original AfD was lack of notability because there weren't enough reliable sources covering the route in detail, but the new version contained two more news pieces about the route - that was why I recreated it, because (in my view at least) the reason for deletion no longer applied. I actually informed you about it and asked for your opinions two years ago, but you didn't reply... at the very least it seems to justify a new discussion since the additional sources help towards notability. Alzarian16 (talk) 20:17, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You argued in the AfD for keeping, you argued in the DRV for keeping, and the next day you recreated the article with two additional sources, but with largely the same content and degree of notability. You can always take it to DRV again, but I don't see how such blatant disregard for our consensus-based processes should yield a different result. Fram (talk) 20:35, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Your note two years ago came a few days into a holiday I had, I only started editing again three weeks later or thereabouts and must have missed your message for that reason. But you had no way of knowing that.Fram (talk) 20:37, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, in retrospect I shouldn't have recreated it without discussing it first, but I was seriously inexperienced back then - I didn't deliberately disregard the consensus, but (from what I remember) I thought I'd found a way to overcome the problems and naively assumed that everyone else would agree. But setting aside my stupidity for a minute, I still think there's a case to be made for a further discussion since the new sources do provide additional evidence of notability and G4 only applies to sufficiently identical or unimproved copies. Alzarian16 (talk) 20:58, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * ...which in my opinion it was basically. Fram (talk) 21:00, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Aileen Soares
Your deletion of the article was quite a hasty one. It was previously nominated for deletion (by me) and result was delete but later I did some more research and found a few reliable references of her work. So here's my explanation;

Notability: Have been serving in education sector as a teacher for more than 50 years. Also one of the few Christians in Pakistan to have achieved this.

References: Dawn (newspaper), The Express Tribune

This might seem like my POV but a minority who has served that long in an esteemed 150 year old institute probably is notable. Anyways, I won't contest if your decision is final. Cheers Samar  Talk 12:35, 28 August 2012 (UTC)


 * WP:BLP1E: she gets two very short mentions for one event, her 50 years, in newspaper articles for the 150 years of the school. This is far removed from what is required in WP:BIO. Coupled with the AfD, I see no reason why this article should be recreated. Fram (talk) 12:45, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

AnI question
I have asked you, as a pronounced critic of Geo Swan who is otherwise uninvolved, to select three articles of Geo Swan's at AnI that you think represent his contributions well. Please message me on the talk page if/when you decide to do this. Thanks! Tazerdadog (talk) 01:44, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 4
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Émile Bravo, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Spirou and El Mundo (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) 11:00, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)
Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page. In this issue: Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->
 * Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
 * Research: The most recent DR data
 * Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
 * Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
 * DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
 * Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
 * Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

--The Olive Branch 19:03, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Somerled the Viking Slayer
Fram: Moidart has what is basically the text of this article (perhaps an earlier version) on his user page. It shopuld probably be deleted as well. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:41, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Replaced with the "indefblockeduser" template, which has the same effect as deleting it. Fram (talk) 07:45, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

concerning your comments towards me at
I made a simple mistake. Some of the things the guy did create were nominated in the same batch as that one article, which simply has the name of him and another famed mathematician who also lived in the 1700's. Since sources have been found, and hordes of people showed up to say keep already, I didn't see the need to dig too deeply on this one AFD. I have corrected and clarified my comments there. And I didn't try to keep any of those articles originally, but was convinced after someone who understands them posted on the ARS page explaining they were valid.  D r e a m Focus  16:50, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Yep, just as I expected, you voted keep without even looking at the actual article, but after the ARS was used as a canvassing vehicle. Thanks for confirming this! Fram (talk) 06:48, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Its no different than other Wikiprojects, people post things related to the project, and others can read things there and decide how best to help with articles mentioned. And the articles that are valid, as these clearly were, are kept by arguments not vote count.  Thankfully we were around to notice and someone who understand the issue showed up to comment on it, or the Wikipedia might've lost some valid educational content.   D r e a m Focus  07:36, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed, AfDs are decided by arguments, not votecount. So why did you try to increase the keep votecount with obviously incorrect and uninformed "keep" votes? Practice what you preach, and I might start eventually believing what you say. Fram (talk) 07:41, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * As I stated I did not vote, until someone who understood the issue posted on the ARS page explaining it, and that convinced me they should be kept. I don't see anyone just visiting every single thing listed by the ARS as keep.   D r e a m Focus  07:43, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * No, at least no one is that blatantly obvious. Fram (talk) 07:50, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 11
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.


 * Arema FC (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to ISL


 * Nicola Philippaerts (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Belga

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:49, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect perception.
Per User_talk:Jilliance, my edit was not an attack on the editor. It was merely an edit to rectify a problem. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 09:10, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 18
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Prix Saint-Michel, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Svoboda (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) 09:47, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Timeline of MSL Curiosity mission
Please don't put words into everyone's mouth. The consensus at the AfD was that we don't want separate pages per day for the timeline, but there was no agreement over how to present information on Timeline of Mars Science Laboratory. Deryck C. 13:02, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * 
 * There was no agreement on how to present it, but there was broad agreement that the presentation as it was was not the right one. The version I reverted was the same one as that during the AfD, which was then reverted by numerous people, and was rewritten and steadily improved upon since. Saying that something is a consensus isn't "putting words into everyone's mouth", it's giving my reading of that AfD and what many people there said. I didn't claim "unanimous agreement" or anything resembling what you read into it. Fram (talk) 13:15, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note the lack of difference between the pre-AfD close version and the version of today that I reverted from: . Fram (talk) 13:17, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Confrontational
Some parts of your comments at User_talk:Jimbo_Wales, appear overly confrontational, IRWolfie- (talk) 13:59, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, apparently disagreeing with the God-King Jimbo Wales and readding perfectly normal, well-sourced information against His Word is enough to be accused of inserting falsehoods and to be warned not to do it again. If my comments are confrontational, it's only as a moderate response to his high-handed approach. If he wants a discussion, like he claims, then he has to be open for other opinions. Following the WP:BRD cycle would be a good start. Now it appears as if he is more worried about the feelings of a jet-set friend than of upholding some of the basic policies of Wikipedia. It may not be what he intends, but it's the impression he gives. Fram (talk) 14:03, 25 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't disagree with your position. I just disagree with some of the specific ways you are writing to express that. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:13, 25 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Allright, thanks. I'll try to take it into account in the future. Fram (talk) 14:16, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

AWB rev8414
You can find a new AWB version at http://toolserver.org/~awb/snapshots/ -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:04, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, installed. Fram (talk) 14:18, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Courtesy notice since you weren't notified by filer
Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring -Floquenbeam (talk) 14:25, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I had seen it, but I appreciate the gesture. Fram (talk) 14:26, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Article deletion
Concerning the new article Commemorative Decoration of the 50th Anniversary of the Creation of the Railroads that you suddenly and quite arbitrarily deleted.
 * You do NOT possess the authority to arbitrarily delete articles regardless of your title and/or function on Wikipedia. There is a process for that, one that had it been followed, would have seen the article remain as is.
 * The sources you qualify as unreliable are from a book of royal decrees compiled by 3 authors years after the fact (1888), hence, INDEPENDENT sources and quite reliable.
 * An article's TALK page serves a purpose, it is to avoid such situations, might I suggest you use it in the future before wiping out hours of work and research and frustrating the living "H" out of serious contributors to Wiki.
 * I have "undone" your deletion, if you wish to pursue your points, please do it on the article's Talk Page where they belong.

Fdutil (talk) 14:44, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * As you notice, the article was not deleted, and hours of work were not wiped out, but were brought back to the front in an instant. Everyone has the right to redirect an article, and I gave my reasons in my edit summary and at the project page where you announced the creation. The source you give is not a book about these orders, it is a reprint of all laws, edicts, judicial decisions, and so on. They don't convey any notability as being reprints of primary source material. Fram (talk) 14:51, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, they do "convey notability as being reprints of primary source material". Read carefully the individual references, each one contains not only the original Royal Decree with date, but also the date at which each was published by the "Moniteur Belge" which is the equivalent of the official "Gazette" used in countries such as the UK or Canada.  Your argument is an oxymoron, read yourself again carefully my friend.  These decrees, laws and edicts ARE the primary source material when a state award is concerned.  Fdutil (talk) 19:17, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Please check WP:N, WP:RS and WP:PRIMARY. Fram (talk) 06:44, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Fram, please understand my surprise and frustration. Over the past 3 years, I've created (or expanded) over 250 articles and highly detailed lists dealing with over 750 Orders, decorations and medals, and this is only on English Wiki, I've done almost as much on French, German and Russian Wikis combined.  All of these were made the same way with the same basic set up and data.  They are part of, and have been rated by between 2 and 5 WikiProjects each, often multiple times as they progressed, with most getting a "B" rating; and trust me, some of the raters on these WikiProjects can sometimes be quite demanding (politically correct term for something else -wink-).  Never before has this problem come up, the very nature of these articles, the very rarity of most items precludes anything but the references already found in the articles.  Cheers!  Fdutil (talk) 15:58, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * So, have any reliable independent sources talked about this order, not just reprinted the laws surroundings it? There are many notable orders, but why is this one supposedly notable? Fram (talk) 06:32, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Again, read what I wrote on the 27th just above. Do you want my 250 articles deleted?  Go for it!  I am honestly so incredibly tired and sick of this game, you have no idea.  And as long as you're at it, make it your life's mission to obliterate 90% of of the nearly 3000 articles on English Wikipedia dealing with Orders, decorations and medals.  Once you've done this on English Wiki, you might want to get yourself an e-translator and start obliterating the subject from other languages Wikis.  I'd seriously consider contacting the related WikiProjects first though...  Cheers! Fdutil (talk) 15:29, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I've just contacted other editors on this subject, they'll contact you or start a conversation somewhere, I'm not quite sure. It's obvious we aren't going to resolve this matter just between the 2 of us, the ramifications are simply too big. Fdutil (talk) 15:51, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Take a look at Articles for deletion/Colorado Achievement Ribbon. Your articles are a lot more detailed, so I'm not comparing them in that regard; but why are those orders not independently notable, while this one is? 06:35, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * This in not the same, this article is being merged into a ribbon chart where it should have stayed in the first place. Many other discussions are on right now about deleting lists of medal recipients to which I agree, because the individual recipient's articles are already linked to the award.  Fdutil (talk) 15:29, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Jimbo's talk page
Hey, just an FYI, you forgot to sign your comment. I thought it would be easier for you to go back and do it rather than me trying to figure out that unsigned template. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 15:35, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Never mind. I assume you might be offline now and it wouldn't make sense to go back and add it any later.  Jauerbackdude?/dude. 15:53, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, it's one of the errors I often make, either forgetting to sign or signing with the date only. No idea why I still try to do it manually instead of suing the handy button in the editing screen. It also happens when I make two or three comments in one go, and only sign the last one of those. Fram (talk) 06:43, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Curious. I noticed on Jimbo's talk page you said you know the world will end on 21 December. If this is the case I wonder why you are so concerned about Gibraltarpedia and not living your last months of life on earth to the full? Me personally if I thought my time up on earth would be 21 December I'd probably be maximizing my enjoyment, or do you find this kind of thing enjoyable? I'm intrigued to know your outlook for 21 December 2012 which of course has its origins in ancient Mexico and why you are so convinced. ♦ Dr. Blofeld  09:46, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, it is not in December, it is a lot sooner. I was giving an example, not sprouting my own beliefs. I could have made the same argument with "I know that the CIA blew up the Pentagon (but not the WTC)" or any other conspiracy or fringe theory. I thought that was rather obvious in the context... Fram (talk) 09:50, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, OK. William Roache is convinced in the 2012 world is going to change theory though! I guess at least it means he won't have to put up with Deidre's bad breath any longer.♦ Dr. Blofeld  10:32, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Having a clean out. Good for the mind. Can you do me a favour if its straightforward for you create a page with all of my user space pages for User:Dr. Blofeld/Himalayan Explorer and Tibetan Prayer, a lot of redirects and accumulated page which are lost. I'll db author most of them then.♦ Dr. Blofeld  13:50, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you mean this? Fram (talk) 13:55, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah!♦ Dr. Blofeld  14:20, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Interested in translating from Frenc/Dutch wiki for Template:Les Tuniques Bleues? You might be interested in expanding Louis Salvérius and Un chariot dans l'Ouest.. Plot needs proofing from French. Video here ♦ Dr. Blofeld  13:52, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Lost interest in Belgian comics?♦ Dr. Blofeld  10:18, 1 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Not really, no. But too much to do and not enough time. Fram (talk) 11:26, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Please use talk pages to collaborate with your fellow editors
Hi. I noticed you contributed to Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Flat Bastion Road. This content should appear on Talk:Flat Bastion Road or in your user space. The edit you made was not in the right place for article improvement. Such conversation should take place on the article's talk page. --LauraHale (talk) 08:01, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Please don't talk to me about article improvement. I have repeatedly pointed out to you and in general the problems with many of the sources in the article. I have posted about this on the talk page of the article. You have completely ignored this, apart from one fairly ridiculous reply. The information I put on the AfD talk page is directly relevant for the AfD, as it indicates the article people really should be judging, not the utter fabrication and puff piece they are looking at thanks to people like you. And as you may have noticed, I am not really interested in improving an article on an utterly non notable subject, I am arguing for its deletion, for which the talk page of the AfD is the appropriate place. Feel free to copy my improved page to the talk page of the article though (or if you have any integrity left, to the actual article). Fram (talk) 08:07, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Asterix Infoboxes
You recently did a mass-edit, replacing all instances of Infobox Asterix with Infobox Graphic Novels.

However, a recent TfD discussion recommended keeping Infobox Asterix, and transforming it to a wrapper round Infobox Graphic Novels.


 * Actually, it recommended making it a wrapper round infobox book, not graphic novel. What is the disadvantage of my edit? The advantage is that we have more uniformity, additional possible relevant fields, and that a Smurfs comic book is no longer listed as being part of the Asterix series. I see no obvious disadvantages from my edits, but I may have missed those.

Note how e.g. Asterix and the Goths did not use the Asterix infobox anyway. Fram (talk) 13:46, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Diplomats
Just so you know I have a huge list of British ambassadors by country to get through. I recall you redirected some of the Anguillan governors to a list but I'm assuming that British ambassadors to countries are likely easily expandable and should be started and are of greater notability.♦ Dr. Blofeld  18:17, 2 October 2012 (UTC)


 * If all you (initially) have is "X was the british ambassador to Y between YYYY and YYYY", then making a list first is much more efficient (with redirects from the individual's names if wanted). The redirects can always be turned into articles once you have more info of course. British ambassadors are more likely to be notable than e.g. Belgian ambassadors, but I wouldn't assume automatic notability for such an often discrete function. Fram (talk) 06:03, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I googled a few at random and there seems plenty of sources for them like Ronald Macleay. Most of them are Sir.. so are likely notable diplomats. The problem is that if I try to create them like Macleay I won't have the energy to create more than a handful. If we think long term on wikipedia I think its probably best having stub articles on them. You've created some shortish biographies on painters and artists and likely thought a similar thing. The thing is we have a list of British ambassadors by country which state the names and dates of terms. Ideally the stubs need a bit more and would all look like Ronald Macleay but I really won't have the energy to do the lot if so. P.S. replied on Rock Hotel DYK, hadn't seen your comment until now.♦ Dr. Blofeld  06:55, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The difference with the painters is that there aren't logical lists for it (or extremely broad ones), while you can easily have a list of "British ambassadors to Greece" or whatever. Yes, most of them are probably notable (if only by being nobility), but it isn't really clear for people like Andrew Charles Stewart whether they are truly notable, despite having been ambassador to Libya and to Iceland (not at the same time, presumably :-) ). On the other hand, there wouldn't be a problem in establishing the notability of Roderick Sarell. Ity really shoulmd be looked at on a case-by-case basis. Fram (talk) 07:07, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * True. But then again there's millions of missing notable articles we'll never have time to start so even if I do stub all of the diplomats its likely there are thousands more missing from other countries on that topic alone.. And all those missing side streets of places like, erm Gibraltar.... Its funny how some of the diplomats go to radically different countries one yesterday went from Angola to Afghanistan, that one for Libya to Iceland.♦ Dr. Blofeld  07:24, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Now you are just being excessively provocative. "Arab, Arafat, Ararat, Arbalest, ah, here it is, ArbCom!" No one expects the Gibraltar Inquisition ;-) (and true, being a diplomat must be a very unusual life) Fram (talk) 07:29, 3 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Who, me?. Wouldn't dream of it. ♦ Dr. Blofeld  12:06, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * :-D Fram (talk) 12:12, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Maryana
Belated, but thanks for the support in the discussion on my talkpage with Maryana. I am still annoyed by the tone of the discussion, and the lack of trying to understand what was going on. Again, thanks! --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:06, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem. I was quite amazed by the way she approached you as well. Fram (talk) 12:11, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

NeutralHomer
Asking for an unblock. With the circumstances as they are, I figured you might want to be the one, or at least aware. I'm inclined to think that he gets it and will get some mentoring. I've too much on my plate as it is, or I would myself as I think he is generally a good guy, he just did a really, really dumb thing here. Anyway, I wanted to make sure you were aware and had first bite at it. Dennis Brown - 2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 20:42, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Fram, I support this and will play the mentor part until a better person is found. Please come by Homer's talk page and tell us what you think. Drmies (talk) 00:16, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * No problems with your unblock, and good luck with the mentoring. If there are any problems you'ld like to discuss, feel free to drop me a note here. Fram (talk) 06:44, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I appreciate that, Fram. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 17:47, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the quick action. It still makes me mad. Frankly half of me wants to quite editing altogether and the other half wants to submit an RFA every month until it passes. This place just isn't fun anymore. Too much drama, red tape and politics just to volunteer to create an Encyclopedia. Anyway happy editing. Kumioko (talk) 14:18, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Mail
Thanks. Read it, and I basically agree. It's sometimes hard, but I mostly learned to live with it. Fram (talk) 06:55, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Dupuis
Can you source this? ♦ Dr. Blofeld  20:11, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. Well, more sources are always possible, but the main parts now have a good source. Fram (talk) 08:20, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Good job, thanks.♦ Dr. Blofeld  08:26, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Rad ...
... to see Achilles on Skyros this morning. davidiad.mobilis.: 11:50, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Fram (talk) 11:57, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Achilles on Skyros
Hello! Your submission of Achilles on Skyros at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it 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! Prioryman (talk) 21:14, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Marrakech
Some input needed on the talk page as to what spelling to use.♦ Dr. Blofeld  18:12, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Roman Catholic Diocese of Bruges
Howdy. Could you please move Roman Catholic Diocese of Brugge to Roman Catholic Diocese of Bruges? Bruges is the word in English, and it would match all the others. I would, except the target page has a history. Thanks,  Oreo Priest  talk 17:37, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Done! Fram (talk) 18:02, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks!  Oreo Priest  talk 15:35, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Achilles on Skyros
Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:02, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Pakistan
As you might know, Pakistan articles are amongst the worst on wikipedia. Town articles especially. I was wondering if you'd support me in a mass cleanup thing and greatly reduce the number of articles and leave only notable sourced settlements. Its far more problematic having many of the articles than not, they're shit magnets. I think we need to treat Pakistan as a special case, India too really given the large number of people with computer access and poor english. I think the articles need strict regulation and reduced to a manageable amount which go on people's watchlists and then built up gradually with a standard of quality. It's of no use to English readers having these articles and them being plagued with crap.Let me know, I'm considering organizing a mass AFD and then clean up of the main towns. The benefit of having Chak 68EB Dogaranwala for instance, more problematic than its worth.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  16:23, 24 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Redirecting many articles to larger entities, and somehow protecting the redirects (not technically perhaps, but in practice) would be a move in the right direction. These articles are often the result of much enthusiasm and a complet disregard for our rules like NPOV and V, combined with often poor English (even compared to mine). We'll have to think how best to handle this though. Fram (talk) 06:49, 25 October 2012 (UTC)


 * An interesting example indeed. Chak could logically be redirected to Trikhni, which [ouch] is itself a hopeless unsourced stub; or both could be redirected to Arifwala... Oops! --  Ohconfucius  ping / poke 07:04, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

User:Legoktm/Pakistan/Famous containing the word "famous". I was thinking of some sort of mass AFD proposal like you did with Afghanistan, I'd vote to incubate most and redirect/delete the small villages.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  12:03, 25 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I think that (rightly or wrongly) a mass AfD would be shot down as long as the villages and cities are verifiable, no matter how poor the quality of the articles. I would support a mass redirect to larger lists, or a mass cleanup effort. Frankly, it is a disgrace that effort is put (noyt by you or other individual editors, but by the WMF and chapters) into Glam projects for English speaking western regions like Monmouth, Gibraltar, ...; these are generally speaking already the best covered regions, with the most active and literate (in English) editors. If an extra effort should be made (not to raise money, but to improve Wikipedia), then Glam efforts centered on poorer, underrepresented countries should be the main focus. I just took a look at Muridke, which doesn't even have the number of inhabitants (more than 100K), but does contain "The first IT Company in Muridke was established on 15 August 2008 with the name of " plus external link... Fram (talk) 12:16, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Gerhard Kramm AfD
IB it's customary for admins to provide a brief narrative of their reasoning when deleting a controversial page. Gerhard Kramm certainly qualifies. Can you please add such to the AfD page? TIA, Pete Tillman (talk) 17:38, 24 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Ho ho, I knew you'd get grief for closing that one William M. Connolley (talk) 17:40, 24 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for posting your rationale -- which is well-reasoned. As you note, it's a marginal case. Best regards, Pete Tillman (talk) 05:56, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Galileo Galileo can you do the fandango
Hi, see you changed this 'article' to a redirct, which I agree was the thing to do (I'v refined it to target the section in the article & removed the wl to article in target]]. Questin is, wh is the etiquette on changing aticles like this to redirects? I know anybody can do it, since I have done it, but are there any gudelines?TheLongTone (talk) 10:31, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Everyone is free to do this, and everyone is free to undo it (in general). After that, discussion at the talk page of the article or at WP:RfD or a similar page is preferred. You also request a merge if you think that more than a simple redirect is needed. But in general, the things to remember are WP:BOLD and its sequel WP:BRD. Fram (talk) 11:00, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that's really what thought. I'm a bit wary of merges: tried to do one once, & could not quite understand how to do the stuff to maintain page history.TheLongTone (talk) 12:00, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Please refrain from posting on my talk page
I would like you to refrain from posting on my talk page. If you have any concerns about of my edits please advise a neutral, uninvolved editor or administrator. Thank you. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 07:24, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Alan Liefting you have to find a way to coexist with other editors though. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:08, 27 October 2012 (UTC)


 * That applies to any editor of course. I have been made aware that my manner appears to be arrogant but is in fact brusqueness (I only have a limited anount of wikitime so I try not to waste it). Another problem - and I think it may be creating wiki-wide problems - is the fact that online communication cannot convey the subtleties of face-to-face communication. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 08:25, 27 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Fram, you'd better do what he says. Having said that, even if you don't you may still find yourself being dragged through AN and wasting a whole bunch of time.  The Rambling Man (talk) 08:57, 27 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Hey man. Sorry. My Man. Can I call you Rambling? Thanks. Anyway, you got me at a good time. Or maybe a bad time. Have just consumes the best part of an NZ merlot. The best part is the most part. I was goin 2 sign off but then I saw yr commment. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 09:02, 27 October 2012 (UTC)


 * So that's my thanks for giving you a simple warning about your topic ban violations instead of going in search of a block immediately? Blame the messenger? Be my guest, but don't complain that further infractions will not result in warnings before blocks of course... Fram (talk) 08:21, 31 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Ah, I note that you have since been blocked again for more infractions like and . No idea why you can't just leave it alone, the only result is that you get blocked for longer and longer periods. It seems silly to be heading for a lengthy block over something which should be fairly easy to avoid. It's not a cae of an editor accidentally forgetting his topic ban after a few months for a single edit or so, this seems to be rather deliberate, but why? Fram (talk) 08:40, 31 October 2012 (UTC)


 * (Am not drunk this time) I don't want you to comment on my talk page because the comments were not conducive to furthering the project. I alluded to it here. I have now noticed that you have a predilection for having editors blocked. Rich Farmborough should not be penalised for doing stuff that helps the project and the suggestion that LauraHale should have a DYN topic ban seems petty. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 05:48, 7 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The link to WP:CTDAPE in the LauraHale WP:AN discussion is applicable here. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 05:52, 7 November 2012 (UTC)