User talk:Fram/Archive 21

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

You recently deleted the page that I moved to mainpage from my userspace draft stating it was 'almost identical' to the deleted page 'without adding new references or sources', however, I added THREE new notability references and made several other changes connecting two of the notability references corresponding to sections of the article, besides several changes to the article itself. One in particular, it seems to have been nominated for the 2007 Web Cartoonists' choice awards after having won in 2005 in another category, and been reviewed by several independent webcomics review sources. If you believe there are specific problems with these references, I would be happy to go over them or change out different references, but this should be sufficient to establish notability as per the notability guidelines. ('discussion by printed sources independent of the source'). If nothing else, it could be re-usered and I could address any concerns you might have in this regard. Sim (talk) 15:55, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

The original deletion was based on "This hinges on the Web Cartoonist's Choice awards, and the consensus (as demostrated here) amoung the more established editors is that it does not count as a a notable independent award." The additional sources are blogs like [1], some reader reviews and a site that was already included. Nothing that resembles a reliable source. Feel free to take it to WP:DRV of course. Fram (talk) 18:42, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your prompt response. So the question is dependent on what is considered a 'reliable source'? Note in the Web_Cartoonists_Choice_Awards's page that the comic's 2005 nomination was carried by none other than the New York Times itself! So one could say she was a New York Times Bestseller(tm). And the New York Times is CERTAINLY a reliable source.

I would venture that any source that is itself a notable source, per the Wikipedia guidelines, is notable enough, and relied on enough, to establish that source as a reliable source for establishing notability in others, when that reliable source discusses those others. For example, the Web Cartoonists' Choice Awards's inclusion in the NYT is partially what established the Web Cartoonists Choice Awards as a notable source. Why would it not grant the same benefit to DMFA?

Finally, the original nomination for deletion discussion was literally unanimously for inclusion. Evey single vote was 'keep', excepting the original nominator. And while Wikipedia is not a democracy, I do not see how this could possibly fail the WCCA as a 'consensus' that 'does not count as a notable independent award' without creating a consensus of one versus everybody.

In light of the fact this comic's award nomination event was carried by the New York times, is should therefore merit inclusion in Wikipedia. Sim (talk) 00:31, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Notability is not inherited. That an event is somewhat notable ,doesn't mean that every participant in it is notable. Notability is something that has to be shown individually. Fram (talk) 06:44, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Dan and Mab's furry adventures. 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sim (talk • contribs)

You didn't give a reason for reverting my July 22 edits on July 26 along with dozens of other edits (for which you gave reverting reasons). Is there one or did you "accidentally" revert them together with the others? --Roentgenium111 (talk) 15:08, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

PS: If you were referring to my edits by "figures changed without new sources": that's right, but a look in the given sources shows that they had been misquoted before.--Roentgenium111 (talk) 15:11, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Let's see: you changed the HP 400 million to more than 400 million, including the companion books. The sources however are clear that the 400 million is for the 7 main books alone. For Mao Zedong, you added a note "according to varying sources", but didn't present any. I'll remove the Sturgeon entry though, since it is about books and sermons together, while the list is only about books. Fram (talk) 06:50, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

See [2] for my changes: I hardly changed the HP entry at all, two of the three companion books were already claimed to be included in that number. (Since the second source given (the only one claiming "more than" 400 million) mentions none of these explicitly, the figure obviously included either all or none of the companion books. I assumed the first, since the wording "HP books" includes the companion books IMO. But I can live with your interpretation as well.) And the so-called "dead link" is not dead for me. For Mao, I was referring to the two sources already given, both of which only mention published volumes, not sold volumes as is required in this list. Feel free to remove the "according to various sources" part if you consider it confusing, but please don't give printing figures as sales figures. (The same problem of "printed" vs. "sold" exists for the Hitler's Mein Kampf source I tagged.) I'm glad you agree that the Sturgeon entry was dubious. The Goosebumps sales number of "more than 300 million" instead of "300 million" is clearly reflected in the source already given. That's all of my edits. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 12:46, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I have changed the Harry Potter sources to two that undeniably and reliably claim more than 400 milion for the seven book alone. The other things (distributed vs. sold) can best be discussed at the article talk page, to see what is the best solution. Fram (talk) 13:09, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm happy with the Harry Potter entry now. But I don't see why the "other things" should be discussed on the article talk page unless you dispute them. The article is explicitly about best-selling books, after all, so I was just correcting/tagging mistakes. And a similar edit on Mao's Red Book (2nd/3rd position of single-volume books) has stood undisputed for months.--Roentgenium111 (talk) 18:05, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Fram. Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Pagemove_consensus_formed_on_Wikiproject_page. I'm a bit frustrated that User:IZAK's posts are far from concise and largely not on-topic. I think the thread is increasingly unlikely to get admin attention and be resolved because reading through the disucssion is much harder work than it needs to be.

Given that some users have posted useful things (although these useful things are now pretty effectively buried in the discussion), do you think it would be a terrible breach of ettiquette for me to collapse the discussion and attempt to start again? --FormerIP (talk) 12:08, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I would just, if needed, start a new subsection, but as an involved editor, I think it is better if you don't collapse the previous ones. It may come across as one side stifling debate, even if it wasn't done with that intention at all. Fram (talk) 14:22, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

11:52, 21 April 2010 Fram (talk | contribs) deleted "Cruise & Maritime Voyages" ‎ (A7: No explanation of the subject's significance (real person, animal, organization, or web content))

You are definitely wrong! Cruise & Maritime Voyages was (and hopefuly is) an organization - no more or less, but cruise company, chartering ships, for ex: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MS_Marco_Polo. The link from that page to "Cruise & Maritime Voyages" is now broken! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.21.215.169 (talk) 14:40, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I just saw your note, I am glad it was a simple misunderstanding. I phrased it ambiguously - it is a mouthful! - and am sorry I was not clearer. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:42, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

No problem, the discussion is difficult enough without such misunderstandings :-) 14:43, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

When you changed the capitalization of the OOK, it became grammatically incorrect and now conflicts with an article title in the main namespace.

Please see the discussion thread and request concerning this at Portal talk:Contents/Outline of knowledge#Objection to changing "Outline of Knowledge" to "Outline of knowledge".

Thank you.

The Transhumanist 20:27, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I saw in your comment at the village pump that you are interested in bernard cornwall would either of these projects interest you: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Napoleonic era task force/Napoleonic fiction and Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Military fiction task force? If I had a few more people working with me, we could begin collaborations. Sadads (talk) 13:25, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

You are receiving this message because of your participation in this discussion, now continued at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Microformats. –xeno^talk 13:44, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

...but it completely slipped my mind. Back in April I restored London Buses route 66, which you had previously deleted following its AfD. I'd found three more reliable sources giving it fairly significant coverage, so I felt it was OK to restore it. But now I'm not so sure. What do you think? Alzarian16 (talk) 12:34, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

We've come up with a solution for the naming problem concerning "Outline of Knowledge" and some of the other subpages of Portal:Contents. But the pages are move-protected, so we need your help.

Please see the discussion at Portal talk:Contents#Proposal: Use the same naming convention for all of this portal's subpages.

The original discussion was at: Portal talk:Contents/Outline of knowledge#Objection to changing "Outline of Knowledge" to "Outline of knowledge"

Thank you.

The Transhumanist 00:49, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm writing to inquire about reinstating my article Eidetic imagery. The reason you cited for deletion was G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement: http://eidetictrainingcentertx.com/WhatIsEideticIsImagePsychology.html) I have received permission from the webpage owner to cite this material (there is a permission listed on the webpage in question) What do I do now to get the page reinstated? I have used Creative Commons Attribution and the owner of the web page has posted the appropriate verbage. Wendy Yellen WendyYellen (talk) 22:33, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you would pluralize that word - St. Luke Guilds? Anyway, I just wanted to say that I thought this was a GREAT idea, to make those categories you have been adding. Using the birth cities is one way of tracking down contemporaries of painters, but using the guild membership is even better! I like the way you think. Jane (talk) 15:18, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Not sure about the plural either :-) but thanks for the compliment, it's always very nice to know that other people believe some edits are useful. Thanks for your nice words! I'll continue populating the cats today, I ran out of time yesterday... Fram (talk) 06:48, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Nice work! There's no rush - these people have all been dead between 300 and 400 years - that's one of the things I find so appealing about them! Jane (talk) 15:09, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Could you move Cemetery of Schaerbeek to Schaerbeek Cemetery? It's better English and otherwise uncontroversial. Thanks, Oreo Priest ^talk 15:49, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

No problem, done! Fram (talk) 06:43, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Oreo Priest ^talk 12:28, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I noticed that you accepted this edit as a pending revisions. The edit should not have been accepted. It was not a very good way of presenting that information and should not have been accepted. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 11:19, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

That a change is accepted doesn't mean that it should stay in the article, just that it isn't vandalism (from WP:PC: "The process of reviewing is intended as a quick check to ensure edits don't contain vandalism, violations of the policy on living people, or other obviously inappropriate content." It wasn't obviously inappropriate, it presented relevant info. Normal editing practices continue after a change is accepted, i.e. you or anyone else is free to undo the edit. Fram (talk) 11:22, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I removed the deletion proposal tag because I assume that both your proposal and rationale are far from being serious. The party has entries in Catalan and Occitan Wikipedias, which prove that it's notable per se. Besides, I take that '7,000 inhabitants!' argument merely with a sense of humour. Ciao! Behemoth (talk) 13:34, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

The Val d'Aran has some 7,000 inhabitants. This nomination was quite serious, and I'll re-research it and probably nominate it for deletion through AfD. Fram (talk) 13:40, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I guess you have some sort of subjectivity against the Occitan Republican Left. Since you are aware that Val d'Aran has 7000 inhabitants, I guess you know of the political party structures as well. Aranese parties, acting practically (or on "pacts") with Catalonian parties are considered at least nominally as separate structures, which has been the case for UA for about 30 years. I can't understand what makes the case of ERO distinguishable in this sense. Furthermore, the politics of Aran had been dominated by two parties and ERO was founded as the sole political force with the claim for a breakthrough in many years. This is yet another rationale for notability. Behemoth (talk) 13:47, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I had never heard of the party (or the Val d'Aran) before I came across the article on new pages patrol. Your rational for why this should be notable is unconvincing and not in line with our notability guideline. The party is just very clearly largely unknown, and solely for that reason shouldn't have an article on the English Wikipedia (yet, this may change in the future of course). I have nominated the article for deletion, it will probably make more sense to continue this discussion over there, where other people may chime in and a decision can be reached. Fram (talk) 13:51, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Can you provide arguments for contesting its notability compared to the Unity of Aran and Aranese Democratic Convergence? Do you base your assumption on the sole fact that ERO has not yet participated in General Council elections? Behemoth (talk) 14:00, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I haven't checked whether the other two are notable or not. However, they have a longer history and have won seats in elections, making the chance that they are notable at least a lot bigger. But the most important reason to decide whether some subject is notable or not is whether there are reliable, independent sources, as explained in WP:N and WP:ORG. Such sources are not available for this party, and considering the scope and history of it, shouldn't be expected either. Fram (talk) 14:04, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Do we now agree that the claim for being not notable should not rise from the limited population of the locale it operates in? Because, in case you get to check it further, Val d'Aran has a distinctive position in Catalonia (it's not "any" comarca) and I consider its separate political structures to be notable, at least as a principle. Behemoth (talk) 14:32, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Limited population is a point in deciding notability, but far from the main one. It is just a serious indicator, together with the age of the party, that there may be a lack of notability, which what confirmed by looking for sources. That the region is distinctive doesn't make any party in it automatically notable. Please read or reread WP:N and apply it to this article. Fram (talk) 14:37, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I posted the proposal on the wrong page. I've moved it to Portal talk:Contents.

Thank you for your comments. If you could be more specific on the qualities that the outlines lack, and provide examples, it would help us in the improvement process. The Transhumanist 10:33, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

The "vandalism" you reverted wasn't vandalism. Google "pompon competition", and you'll see what I mean.

Maybe you should apologize to the editor whose edit you accused of being vandalism.

And undo your edit?

Just some ideas.

The Transhumanist 23:43, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Undo my edit? Yeah, right, that would be useful... Fram (talk) 20:08, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it would be useful, especially to those interested in exploring all existing sports, as it would provide them with a search string they could use on Google. The Transhumanist 21:54, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Ye, after they have exhausted reading about other true sports like Banzai skydive, also listed on that outline... I'm not really interested in reinstating a badly formatted, badly placed link, but there is nothin stopping you from doing this, obviously. Fram (talk) 10:44, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

This ISO thing is really a non-issue, it's only JC3 and his previous incarnation that are vocal about it. The microformat standard is not, as I understand it a recognised standard, it's a group of technical folk doing their thing. We are not obliged to use either standard. Rich Farmbrough, 03:08, 15 September 2010 (UTC).

No, I couldn't imagine us being obliged to do such things, but the people mostvocally defending microformats shouldn't write pages claiming such nonsense, they are not helping their case one iota with this. Fram (talk) 06:44, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

A user, Peter Damian, received a final indefinite block from you some months ago. An anonymous IP user popped up on my talk page and the talk page of another user, to push for the reinsertion of an external link that Peter Damian had apparently created for the Sum of Logic article. This IP claimed that the external article was theirs, so I assume it's the same user.

I'm not sure what's to be done (if anything) about such users, I was under the impression that their interaction with Wikipedia was supposed to be shut off after any such ban, so I thought I'd let an admin somewhere know. WikiuserNI (talk) 22:08, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll look into it and see if anything needs to be done now. Fram (talk) 06:53, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Fram. Need your help with this article Nica Airlines. I don't know if I picked the wrong tag, but a well known sock puppet User:Kirbyn Joel Berrios who vandalizes multiple articles created that article using TACA Airlines as a template, and the airline doesn't seem to exist. Asked for Speedy Deletion (Pure Vandalism), but User_talk:Protector of Wiki removed it. What should I do next? Thanks in advance for any advice you can give me.

It seems TACA bought several Central American airlines a few years ago and all of them are known as TACA... Hopefully Kyrbin4's next sock puppet will add more information.John KB (talk) 06:36, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

It looks as if there really is a NICA airlines, but I cant find much info and can't confirm the figures and names given in the article infobox. Perhaps some further research and if needed a deletion discussion (WP:PROD or WP:AFD) may be better. As for the sockpuppetry, someone with previous knowledge of Berrios and his methods may be more useful. Otherwise [[WP:SPI] may be of help. Fram (talk) 06:51, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that's the one TACA bought in Nicaragua according to TACA Airlines, it seems. Definitely someone else from Nicaragua will be more helpful than Kyrbin4. Thanks, Fram. --John KB (talk) 07:07, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, this is the article Nicaragüense_de_Aviación, also known as [NICA]. Kerbyn4 basically used TACA Airlines, made a duplicate and renamed it Nica Airlines, fabricated infobox information and even an official web site. --John KB (talk) 07:35, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For being an agile thinker, a conscientious admin and a great Wikipedian! John KB (talk) 12:37, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the prod you placed on Chris Maragos as the article creator has explicitly objected to deletion on the talk page. Compliance with policy/procedure is the only reason I did this; I have no prejudice to opening an AfD. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:38, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

This message is coming to you from the author "Smiling Forest". I posted a biography of Howard Milstein two weeks ago, as the timing was soon after the passing of his father, Paul (there is an existing bio of Paul Milstein). The leadership of this legendary family in New York Real Estate is being passed to Howard Milstein and there was no individual bio. Please advise the rationale for the deletion and the steps required to re-post and enable it to stay.

Many Thanks,

Smiling Forest

SmilingForest (talk) 03:20, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Fram. Sock puppet Special:Contributions/Taztouzi1 has been trying everything in his hands to vandalize articles Mister_World_2010, Manhunt International 2010 and many others with false information about Mohammed Al Maiman. Apparently he's a well known sockpuppet (User:Taztouzi, User:Taztouz1) who is obsessed with Arabs, France and pageants. What can be done to block him as soon as possibe and stop his new account Special:Contributions/Taztouzi1 from editing wikipedia?

The new account has been blocked as well (not by me, done before I had the chance :-) ). Fram (talk) 06:48, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Fram! --John KB (talk) 07:32, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

This is likely to be controversial, so please send it to WP:AfD. I removed your prod tag. Bearian (talk) 18:12, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

FeydHuxtable has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can Spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Thanks for being so nice when it was me who made the error. FeydHuxtable (talk) 12:41, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on List of Railway Stations and Platforms in Moscow city limits, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect to an article talk page, file description page, file talk page, MediaWiki page, MediaWiki talk page, category talk page, portal talk page, template talk page, help talk, user page, user talk or special page from the main/article space.

If you can fix the redirect to point to a mainspace page, please do so and remove the speedy deletion tag. However, please do not remove the speedy deletion tag unless you are fixing the redirect. If you think the redirect should be retained as is for some reason, you can request that administrators wait a while before deleting it. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the page and state your reasoning on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. DASHBot (talk) 00:00, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Is there a reason why didn't inform me that you had initiated Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/review/Abdul Haq (Northern Alliance translator)? I came across this {{xfd}} purely by accident, when I reviewed the recent contribution history of another contributor who commented there.

In principle our decisions are supposed to be reached through civil and collegial discussion. Our decisions are supposed to be reached through consensus.

When someone initiates a discussion, but they chose to disclude those likely to raise opposing opinions in that discussion, the result is not a consensus. Geo Swan (talk) 19:09, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I have not included or discluded anyone from the discussion, I have not invited anyone to it, so the result is a consensus of uninvolved editors. Apart from that, most editors have pages in their userspace on their watchlist. Anyway, I note that you want to keep the page, but haven't given any actual reason why, only reasons why you believe deletion isn't necessary. I think it would be more useful if you indicated what your reason is for wanting to keep the page, how you intend to bring it up to the standard needed for a separate Wikipedia article, or how it could be of use in the creation of another page. basically, why WP:BLP doesn't apply in this case. Fram (talk) 06:36, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

You had previously deleted this page, is there a way to rescue it? So as to improve (with tags) instead of deletion.

Also the alleged "copyright" is not owned by anyone because it is in the public domain. (government)Lihaas (talk) 07:20, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

There is no reason why text by the Indian government would be in the public domain, considering that they put "Copyright of Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India. All Rights Reserved." at the bottom of all their website pages. You have to provide evidence that these pages and texts are public domain despite their claims to the contrary. As long as that doesn't happen, I will not restore or userfy the page, as it is a copyright violation that shouldn't be kept anywhere, not even in userspace. You can always use [3] as a (copyrighted) basis for a new article, as long as you make sure that it is a notable topic of course. Fram (talk) 07:33, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Ill edit/reword/source the content. Its certainly notable with longstanding Indo-Arab ties.Lihaas (talk) 17:12, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello. I have opened the thread WP:AN#User:Gavin.collins. Stonewalling, intimidation, misrepresentation of policies. Since I cited the warning you made against Gavin yesterday, I thought it fair to advise you of this thread. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:18, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

(Moving this here because the AfD was closed.)

Yes, I should have said thousands or tens of thousands. I'm most interested in thinking about how we might change various software to help with the broader systemic problem. In particular, I use Twinkle, which makes it easy to Prod or AfD (as well as some other useful things). I am thinking that a tool like this (but not this exactly) could be made the default on the logged-out skin (and optional of course if you log in) to better allow inexperienced editors who see that something is wrong to template articles. My view is that there are many newbie editors who are intimidated by all the complexity of our templates. I am not a newbie editor, and *I* am intimidated by it.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:16, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to reply here. One thing I would support (but which hasn't got the support of the wider community yet) is that every new article should have at least one reliable independent source about the subject of the article, and that articles which don't can get deleted after seven days (or a month, actual timeframe doesn't matter). While this is the most important for BLPs, the problems we face with articles about companies and so on are not that much different.

As for the technical hurdles newbies (and others) have to face, I don't believe that those are such a problem. The editing screen makes using templates so much more easy now, with direct access to the "cite" templates without any need to know the "ref" languague. It's still not perfect of course (you e.g. still need to place the generic "reflist" template in the article), but it's less complex to decently cite something than it used to be. I have no experience with Twinkle though, I do most of my editing still by hand, apart from AWB which I sue for very repetitive tasks over thousands of articles. Fram (talk) 06:43, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Please be more careful with your tagging.The-Pope (talk) 12:06, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I changed it to a "primarysources" tag. I try to be careful, but in mass-tagging (even slow mass-tagging), errors will occur. Thanks for indicating this one to me! Fram (talk) 12:16, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi!

I'm in need of some admin magic sauce.

If you have a moment, please take a look at User talk:Joeshea. This guy claims to be Joseph Shea, owner and reporter for the online newspaper: American Reporter (and he almost certainly is). He is a tireless self-promoter - nearly every edit he makes is to sneak his name and/or that of his "newspaper" into some article or other. He's been warned several times about this (dating back to July 2008)- and always makes ridiculous excuses (he claims the article he wrote about himself was "grandfathered in" at some early point in Wikipedia history!).

To pick one of many, check the last sentence of this edit: [4].

Anyway - now he seems to have moved on to outright vandalism: [5] changing the name "Steve Krakauer" to "Steve Krakpot" - which he claims is a "constructive" edit, saying: "It is not "unconstructive" to add a dissenting viewpoint. It is constructive, and in an encyclopedia, it is essential. I am not sure how you view one-sided information, but you have seemed to support it in violation of Wikipedia's standards."

I think he needs to be taken down a notch with some not-so-kind words from an admin. Perhaps you'd care to oblige.

TIA SteveBaker (talk) 00:22, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I think that between yourself and User:HelloAnnyong (who is an admin), you have covered his edits pretty well. You are right that he is coming close to being blocked, but if he doen't edit for another year (like his previous stop), a block won't make much of a difference anyway. Feel free to drop a note if he resumes such editing or such ridiculous "defenses" of his edits on his talk page. Fram (talk) 07:55, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Argh! You're right - I hadn't noticed that HelloAnnyong is an admin. Sorry to have taken your time. SteveBaker (talk) 16:16, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Re your comments at talk:RV Belgica, that article has now been split into two, RV Belgica (1884) and RV Belgica (A962). Your comments relate to the first article. Maybe you'd like to cast an eye over it and improve it if you can. Mjroots (talk) 16:37, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

[6] I have no idea how that happened. I remember glancing at the closed discussion this morning but no recollection of editing the page. Weird. My apologies and thanks for the revert. –Moondyne 07:36, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

No problem. I was a bit amazed by your edit, and am glad to hear that it was a simple mistake! Fram (talk) 07:38, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Why did the page get deleted? You cited copyright issues, but all the info was correct. Please explain.

StephenHeisler1966 —Preceding unsigned comment added by StephenHeisler1966 (talk • contribs) 12:14, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Part of the text, from the earliest version until the current evrsion, was taken straight (literally) from the SPSL homepage. Such text is copyrighted and may not be useed on Wikipedia. Articles which have no versions that are free of copyright violations are deleted. This doesn't mean that a copyright-violation-free version may noet be created of course. The deletion is purely about the copyright problem, not about the league. Fram (talk) 12:16, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Fram, That is entirely my fault. I liked the way the wiki entry (which I contributed to) was worded more than my own, so the text was on wiki FIRST before getting to thespsl.com. I am the president of the SPSL, owner of thespsl.com, and partner in Regals FC.

Please tell me what I need to change on thespsl.com to get you to reverse the deletion. Stephen Heisler StephenHeisler1966 (talk) 12:29, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

The easiest way would be to note at the SPSL site that (part of the) text was taken from the Wikipedia article. I'll restore the article now in good faith. Fram (talk) 12:32, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

You deleted User:Geo Swan/Riyadh Abd Al-Aziz Almujahid earlier today, as G10.

I have a couple of requests.

I request you email me the last version of User:Geo Swan/Riyadh Abd Al-Aziz Almujahid, and I request you refrain, in general, from the use of inflammatory language when referring to other wikipedian's contributions. You referred to User:Geo Swan/Riyadh Abd Al-Aziz Almujahid as a "disgrace".

We all have a limited store of good faith. I'd prefer to be able to call upon my store of good faith when a situation crops up where the other contributor couldn't anticipate that their statement or action would prompt doubts that require calling upon my store of good faith.

The way I see it the use of inflammatory language, like "disgrace", is an avoidable trigger -- one that should be avoided, if possible, and reserved for genuine disgraces, by perpetrators who are clearly acting in bad faith. Geo Swan (talk) 16:50, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

An article by an experienced editor where the only text is (subject) "is alleged to be a senior member of al Qaeda" is a disgrace. If you don't want your work described like that, don't write articles like that, even in your user space. Fram (talk) 06:22, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I honestly only did it for practice in creating or greatly improving other articles, so that one is low level at best, delete it if you want. DarkXWeatherX (talk) 20:51, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi! I'm an administrator on Hungarian Wikipedia and otrs member as well. You deleted the Novohrad - Nograd Geopark article because it was copied from a website. We have the same problem with the Hungarian version as well, but now permission is arrived to the otrs system. Please, set back the article and you (or I) could take the following otrs id as well: {{otrs|id=2010101210003132}}. Thanks in advance. - RepliCarter (talk) 09:47, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. - RepliCarter (talk) 10:12, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

The deletion policies recommend wikipedia contributors leave a courtesy heads-up on the talk pages of contributors when they nominate for deletion an article the other contributor started.

In my opinion no administrator should think they are exempt from the obligation to honor our civility policies and conventions. To the contrary, I think the rest of us should look to our administrators to set an example and always do their best to honor both the letter and the spirit of all policies.

I specifically request you make an effort to honor our civility policies and conventions in your interaction with me. Geo Swan (talk) 12:21, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't notify any editor for any AfD I start, and have explained my reasoning a few times already. An Afd is a community discussion, where the opinion of the article creator has no more weight than that of anyone else. I do notify people when I prod an article, because in that case only the nominator and the closer are certain to see the prod, and no community involvement is otherwise certain.

And please refrain from going on about "good faith" (as in your previous post here) and "civility" when no violations of AGF of the civility guidelines have happened. Fram (talk) 12:26, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Fram, I think that is pretty outrageous, and the opposite of fair process. An Admin is supposed to be an exemplar of coutesty, not just meet the minimum requirements. An AfD is a community discussion among those interested in the article, and the original contributor can be assumed to be among them. DGG ( talk ) 03:11, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

An AfD is a community discussion, not a community discussion among those interested in the article. Furthermore, an original contributor can also be assumed to have pages he or she created on his watchlist. Informing the original creator of an article has nothing to do with fair process, and everything with ownership. An admin is supposed to counter such reactions, not to support them. Fram (talk) 06:48, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Relying on the watchlist to inform contributors does not work at the boundaries. Contributors at the boundary conditions of contribution, the most prolific and the least prolific are not well served by the current implementation of watchlists. It doesn't work for informing contributors who contribute infrequently enough that any notice is beyond the watchlist's event horizon. And it doesn't work for the project's most prolific contributors. In the current version of how watchlists work my watchlist is too long to thoroughly check, and still leave time to actually make contributions, and respond to questions and concerns. In addition the leaving of an {{xfd}} notice is obscured if another contributor makes attempts to improve the article during the xfd. Geo Swan (talk) 12:35, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

For the least prolific contributors, nothing helps, as they probably don't log in during the week of the AfD anyway. As for the most prolific contributors, I have had so far no problems with checking things through my watchlist. Fram (talk) 12:38, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

mine is too long to be usable,and I have heard other complaints of the same nature. There've been perennial requests for a way to create multiple watchlists in a more flexible manner. (I try to deal with it by removing the major noticeboards & such and just checking them each day automatically). But I cannot see why anyone who wanted a fair discussion would not make sure to notify obviously interested parties. It looks very much like hoping that they will not notice. DGG ( talk ) 22:12, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed replies. On a side note, I do understand your points. It just feels to me like the severity of that second claim warrants extreme care. There is no mention in any English news source about a rape and even though I can see the translation in google it still seems risky... especially as such a current event. Just wanted to let you knwo that I do appreciate the time that you took to reply.  7  08:26, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

No problem! I rather have editors wo are too cautious about BLPs, than editors who are unconcerned about what we write, but I just felt that this went a bit too far in the "cautious" direction. But a fair question about a real issue warrants a serious reply, not just a "No, you're wrong". Fram (talk) 08:29, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

In the interests of collegiality would you consider allowing me time to respond to the {{mfd}} of User:Geo Swan/review before making individual nominations? Geo Swan (talk) 12:19, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm just adding 7 pages to my last MfD nomination (all very similar ones), but will then wait before making new nominations. Fram (talk) 12:22, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

Sorry!!! :) (Msrasnw (talk) 10:13, 15 October 2010 (UTC))

No problem! Rather ironic that I wanted to delete the article at first, and now had to decline a speedy on it ;-) Fram (talk) 10:16, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks and sorry. It is ironic - after all the effort I put in trying to save it. I hope you think it is an OK and useful article now. Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 10:29, 15 October 2010 (UTC))

Oh yes, I have no problems with it anymore! Fram (talk) 11:17, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

You put a unreferenced banner on a less than 1 paragraph stub? I'm Sorry but I'm removing this banner since it is absolutely ridiculous.^[1] --Poohunter (talk) 08:05, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I noticed you restored the all inclusive categories to at least three templates. I know Rich wants to remove them for over a year already, as they serve no purpose and are just big and ugly, so to say. Please take it up with him before making any more such edits. Debresser (talk) 18:03, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:BRD: he removes, I restore, he has to discuss the removal of these longstanding categories. At least one other editor opposes this removal as well, see [[Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Maintaince categories "All articles with [...]" has been removed?]]. Note also that, for whatever reason, these are viewed quite a lot[7], so apparently they do serve a purpose. Fram (talk) 18:10, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

You break stuff you don't understand - which is fine. But you have reverted 15 edits and not even left me a note? Rich Farmbrough, 22:56, 19 October 2010 (UTC).

Indeed. I break stuff which wasn't explained in the edit or at the talk page, and I revert people in the BRD cycle. As I said, you don't leave notes when you remove cats other people created, so why are you so disturbed about not receiving a note when your "work" (removing stuff a lot of people find useful) is undone? Fram (talk) 06:23, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

And of course, you break stuff you do understand[8], repeatedly even[9]. Fram (talk) 06:25, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll take a look. Thanks for the message and support! Fram (talk) 14:15, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, well done for cutting off the food supply.  pablo 14:19, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Fram. Need your help. Could you give advice on what to do with this case in Mary Leona Gage.

An anonymous ip keeps changing ip addresses and reverting any work done in the article, using poor grammar and changing references. It's difficult to report him/her for edit-warring because they change ip address the next day. I'm not sure how to report an ip range, and see problems of article ownership in the tone and attitude of the ip, and also adding inaccurate information on other articles, such as Abbey Lee and her marital status.

Have said to the ip to get an account so they can see any objection to their edits, not just be angry about it because someone doesn't agree with any mistakes on their part.

Nevermind. Article has been semi-protected. Thanks Fram. --John KB (talk) 04:29, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Fram, I noticed your edit over mine in the Vite article. I wrote "16th & 17th century" because I was thinking of Van Mander, who spent nearly 20 years writing his Schilderboeck, so technically the writing was done in the 16th, not 17th century. On reflection, considering his publication date of 1604, I see why you made the change and I am OK with that. But the fact that you were so quick makes me hope that you may be able to help with another question I have about that paragraph: Who were the other early translators? Do you know? I'm not even sure that there was an early English translation, but I feel sure there must have been an early French translation, except I can't find it. Jane (talk) 12:39, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

No trace of an early French translation either, the earliest one seems to be Léopold Leclanché (1839-1842). English: Mrs. Jonathan Foster, 1846. But there is William Aglionby's 'Painting Illustrated In Three Diallogues, Containing some Choise Observations upon the Art. Together with The Lives Of the Most Eminent Painters, From Cimabue, to the time of Raphael and Michael Angelo. With an Explanation of the Difficult Terms' (1685) In France, André Félibien (died 1695) seems to have based his work on Vasari, but whether he actually translated any of it is unknown to me. Fram (talk) 12:51, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

OK Thanks! I'll see what I can find on André Félibien. Looks like Aglionby needs a page. When I was sorting through the van Mander sketches I noticed that there was some work to be done on Vasari's legacy. I wish I had a road map of all these artist biographers to link them across nations and time! Jane (talk) 15:29, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, mea culpa ... I believe I had deleted your material (and that of others) when seeking to delete a post of mine ... And didn't realize it right away. Sorry for the SNAFU, but I didn't want you to think it was on your end. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:27, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! It has happened to me before, and a quick look seemed to indicate that I had done it again, but you may well be right. No problem either way, everything was swiftly restored. Fram (talk) 08:31, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Hahaha. Now that I look at it, you may be correct! I had made a SNAFU and deleted other edits, but your edit seemed to come even later than that error ... so, who knows. As you say, either way ... Yeesh. It was a bit of a hassle, as editors had edited before I was notified of the problem by a friendly editor, so I could not restore and had to go piece by piece. Anyway, I'm glad all is good now. Best, Fram.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:36, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Is it just an unfortunate coincidence that one of your page move & sortkey examples is an article with a diacritic in the title? (There are other rules around the need to provide a DEFAULTSORT based on Latin letters only) Or are you in disagreement with that rule too? And some side points: (1) yes, of course, if rules change bots have to adapt. In this case if the rules change in a way I don't agree with I will be obliged not to work against community consensus, but I will not be obliged to continue to work towards it. (2) If there are specific problems with the AWB DEFAULTSORT generation logic I can address them, as I did with "person of place" names last week. Though for the problems you've talked about I think AWB meets the current rules. (3) I thought that the majority of pages already have a DEFAULTSORT, or are single letter/All Title Case pages that don't need one at all. I could do a database scan to get some actual numbers, since the two of us discussing guestimates or a handful of examples probably has not quantified the problem accurately (there is a problem, but I can make a long list of other problems with thousands of pages affected).

I do hope we can get positive resolution/action out of this. Rjwilmsi 12:01, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

The diacritic is entirely coincidental, and I haven't looked at or formed an opinion about the ruls concerning these. And you are correct that if the bot would be obliged to work in a way that you don't like, you don't have any obligation to continue running it, just like I don't have to delete pages I don't feel like deleting, or blocking editors I don't feel like blocking. As for your other points: I don't believe I have claimed that AWB does something contrary to the wp:sort rule, just that I don't believe that rule is actually helpful. And my believe that the majority of pages don't have a sortkey yet is only based on what I saw thus far on looking through some categoreis for examples wheer things go wrong (or not). No statistical analysis has been done. But taking an utterly random example: Category:Institutions of the European Union has six pages with mixed cases. Two of those, Institutions of the European Union and List of presidents of European Union institutions, have the rule-based defaultsort. The other four don't. Another example: Angel (season 4) has a defaultsort with capital S, the other 4 seasons don't. Fram (talk) 12:17, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I will draft a bot task summary for the page move DEFAULTSORTs and post it for you to take a look at. Rjwilmsi 12:34, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I may come across as a bit grmpy, but no matter how the discussion about the sort rule ends, the bot will be a useful improvement. Fram (talk) 12:42, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

It's clear that you care, and want to work on the issue, which is great. Funnily enough I've just noticed that the randomly chosen category you mention is also an example of why the rule is needed: currently "European Monetary Cooperation Fund" is incorrectly sorted before "European institutions in Strasbourg" since neither has a DEFAULTSORT, whereas they'd be the right way round if the latter had a DEFAULTSORT. Rjwilmsi 12:49, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, the EMCF doesn't need a defaultsort of course (note: which you also noticed by now, I see after an edit conflict ;-) ). The other one could do with one. Like I said, in those cases where it does create problems, a defaultsort should be added (although I'm also not convinced that the standard sorting of capitals before lowercase doesn't have advantages as well, listing all the proper nouns before the descriptive titles). I'm not arguing for the abolition of defaultsorts, they are very helpful for some articles (mainly biographies), and a pain for some others. Fram (talk) 12:55, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

1,314,397 articles had a defaultsort conforming to that which AWB would provide last time I looked. Clearly very many more do not need a defaultsort, either being a sigle word title or title cased. Rich Farmbrough, 15:20, 27 October 2010 (UTC).

Yes, and most of those are biographies, which almost all have a defautlsort, and are not the focus of this discussion. Of those that fall within the scope of this discussion, perhaps one in three has a defaultsort for the moment. Fram (talk) 18:55, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi - I noticed you added {{unsourced}} to a string of Vietnamese railway station stubs (Hanoi Railway Station, etc), most of which I've modified in the past while. Not looking to argue (I agree, they need sources); just wanted to let you know that expanding these and adding sources is something I've had on my to-do list for a while, I just haven't gotten around to doing it yet. Hopefully in the next month or so I'll have some time to add refs and improve them. Thanks for taking the time to tag them. --dragfyre_ʞןɐʇc 15:06, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

No problem, these tags are no real threat to the article (they won't be deleted because of them or so). But it would obviously be great if you would get around to sourcing and improving them. Thanks! Fram (talk) 17:09, 28 October 2010 (UTC)