User talk:Fram/Archive 27

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.

Hey Fram. I saw this afd, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zouzous, and couldn't make head nor tail of it, but I thought you might have a better idea on it. Anyway, best regards, Hiding T 16:56, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I have addressed your concerns at Template:Did you know nominations/Women's sport in New South Wales and Template:Did you know nominations/Eric Bickerton. --LauraHale (talk) 11:17, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I have addressed your concerns at Template:Did you know nominations/Eric Bickerton. --LauraHale (talk) 11:49, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

You can find a new AWB version at http://toolserver.org/~awb/snapshots/ This version is much faster in large pages than the one you have. Moreover, it fixes a lot of important bugs. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:24, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Fram (talk) 14:41, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

8564 is up and is much faster in syntax fixing. A couple of important bugs has been fixed too. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:28, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

8686 is up. It fixes the wikify issue which was a serious bug. This version is faster too. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:42, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! That "wikify" one was annoying indeed ;-) Fram (talk) 08:36, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

8759 is up. There is a critical update if there was unloaded custom module code in the settings file (it could cause exceptions). -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:51, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of James Gough. 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.

Please re-review James Gough, as he will be notable soon, if not now. Soon, he will be playing minor-pro hockey, and possibly make the NHL. He should be on Wikipedia, and this would be a good time to put him on.

Jimmer93 (talk) 15:33, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh, can't believe it, but we must find a way to stop this, its very tragic --TheChampionMan1234 06:35, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Apparently Kumioko thinks that you're somehow connected to USRD, and has been making serious allegations in that arena at AN and at my talk. Thought you should be aware. --Rschen7754 21:38, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea what my supposed connection to that project would be (had to look up the acronym to even know what it stands for). No idea where that allegation comes from, but I tend to ignore Kumiokos allegations altogether as being rather fanciful or uninformed generally. Fram (talk) 07:53, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

That's a fair assessment. I guess tThere are lots of editors around here with a dozen FA's, 30 or so GA's who have 400, 000 edits and variety of other things who are uninformed. But since I am not an Admin and that seems to be the standard by which people, right or wrong, gauge an editors knowledge and respect measurements in WP, then its true enough. As much as it might appear, my problem isn't with everything that you do, its that you seem to be allowed to violate policy on numerous occasions and no one cares. In this case alone you broke at least 3. Forum shopping to get what you want, you didn't notify the user about the AN thread for half an hour, 3 minutes before they got blocked (which virtually assured that the user couldn't reply), Wikistalking and hounding, that it always seems to be you crying to some board somewhere about something Rich does when you are clearly involved (and this has been stated by more editors that just me). I'm not sure if its because you are an admin that allows you to violate these policies or if people just don't care about these anymore. But that is what made me mad about seeing you yet again, running to AN to run down Rich because he was...OMG I can barely say it with a straight face, editing. BTW, for what its worth, the reason I thought you were more affiliated with USRD is because Rschen is heavily and wherever I see one of you the other seems to be arms length away. When one is there at ANI the other is frequently there to support or to perform the block. You work in tandem far too much to assume a coincidence. In the end though it doesn't matter. I am the only one that seems to care about these policy violations and one of the Arbcom folks even commented that the block was justified. So I am going to return to my retired state and let you get on with systematically eliminating all the high volume editors. May I suggest Koavf next, he has over a million edits and must be doing something wrong somewhere. Kumioko (talk) 12:15, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

My commentary about your allegations has nothing to do with your article work, but with your accusations about other user's affiliations and motivations, which are usually baseless. I haven't forum shopped, and while I had forgotten to inform RF earlier about the AN thread, he was well aware of the accusation that his edits violated the editing restriction, but he hasn't responded to that before or after. It's not as if due to the small delay in the AN note, he is blocked or he has had a new block log entry, while otherwise he wouldn't have been blocked, so while I made a minor error in process, the outcome is hardly any different for it. As for me being involved: I am in general involved, obviously, that's why I don't take any admin action but post my concerns so that other, uninvolved people can look into it. There is no reason why they would follow me if my notices were baseless, and there are enough examples of cases where consensus didn't went with my proposals or opinion. Posting to AN, ANI or ArbCom in cases where you are involved is not violating any policies though.

I was hardly involved with his violation of the editing restriction though, it is not as if I am trying to win some content discussion. He choose to make those edits on his own, without any interference or baiting by me. He was editing, obviously, there are few complaints for people not editing; but he could edit in a myriad of ways, and choose to pick one of those that are forbidden to him via his editing restrictions.

As for me working in tandem with Rschen: ? I have never turned to him, never followed his actions or complaints; there may be intersections, just like I will have with most other active editors and admins; but I am not aware of us working in tandem at all, I hadn't noticed him or her around the same discussions all that much.

Finally, you have repeatedly, for months now, accused me of trying to eliminate all high volume editors. I have never had any intention of doing this, I haven't spent this much time on Wikipedia to now bring it to a halt. But being highly prolific or active is not an excuse to create lots of problems or to ignore policies, and when I notice editors e.g. creating many copyright violations, I'll take action to correct this, friendly at first, harsh if needed. I try to stop all problematic editing I come across, no matter if it is from a newbie or from an extremely experienced editor. And if I notice that problems are recurring or widespread, I will regularly check to see if it continues to happen, or (as in this case and some others) whether the restrictions imposed to prevent these problems are being followed.

Obviously these editors (and their Wikifriends) will often not like such scrutiny, but this is not "stalking" or "wikihounding". I am not opposing people in discussions only because they have caused problems elsewhere; I don't join the same projects, don't interfere with unrelated actions, ... but I am following up whether the same or similar problems reappear. I don't have a big plan with this, don't use other editors to support me; there are no conspiracies involved. That you see it differently is a pity, but hardly anything I feel responsible for.

I would appreciate that, if you continue to make accusations about tag teaming or big plans, you would provide some diffs to support this. Fram (talk) 13:29, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Really? You didn't forum shop? So you didn't go to Arbcom about Rich and when they told you it wasn't a violation of his Arb decision you then went to AN with it? That didn't happen right? That my friend is forumshopping. And my allegations are not baseless. When I get angry and start ranting about this or that, its almost always because someone like you has violated policy and by virtue of their position as an admin, because they are buddy buddy with them or whatever its overlooked. Just as was done in this case. If there is onen thing that angers me on this site its users who violate policy and then are supported by others. This has more often been common of Article ownership but also has happened as in the case above. 28 minutes is not and never has been a small delay. Its even more so not a small delay when the user in question is blocked three minutes later before they can even respond and when that user wasn't doing anything vandelous. Just making edits. The reason I have accused you is because it seems to nearly always be you doing it. Its always you going after Rich for petty shit like this. If it was a problem, which it is not, then someone else will handle it. Frankly, if you had followed policy in the AN or Arbcom submission and hadn't violated policy (More than one) and used dirty tactics to get your way I wouldnt have even commented.

Your right though, about your statement above b"eing highly prolific or active is not an excuse to create lots of problems or to ignore policies, and when I notice editors...." Me too and you are doing it now. But because I am not an admin and you are, I am the one out of line. If you were an editor and not an admin and would have pulled that I forgot to notify him/forum shopping crap you would probably have been blocked. I have seen that many times over the years.

As I mentioned earlier, I am not going to spend my time providing diffs when nothing will be done. I did that a lot in the past and stopped because it never made any difference. I got responses like "Well they are admins so we need to give them some latitude", "A few diffs doesn't mean there is a problem" or some other BS. The same BS BTW that you and other admins are using too get these editors blocked and why I gave up editing. What I find trully trully sad and is also a pity is that you are trusted with the tools and I can't even edit a protected page even as more and more content gets protected, am limited to 25000 pages for AWB, can't block an obvious vandal (also why I gave up Vandal fighting 3 or 4 years ago), I cannot protect a page being vandalized, etc. Because I am the one who cannot be trusted. So there is no reason to continue editing.Kumioko (talk) 16:57, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Kumioko: Now that Fram, Fredddie, and I have denied that Fram is a member of the USRD project, will you retract all accusations you have made regarding USRD tag-teaming? --Rschen7754 19:45, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Your right, after looking a little deeper (and spending more time on it than I should have) I cannot find any ties between Fram and US roads other than a huge intersection of edits between the 2 of you including some edits to US roads related articles. Upon further review of those and the intersection I noticed that most were simple AWB edit runs. So I apologize for that error. Truly, I was wrong in that. I should have researched the intersection more closely before making that statement. With that said though, I still think he needs to disengage from being Rich F's minor edit monitor as so many have asked from him, I still am disgusted by his abuse of the admin tools and the dirty tactics he used yet again to get Rich blocked (that you fell for), I still think he was stalking, hounding and more importantly he was forumshopping. I also think that his failure to notify Rich of the ANI for 38 minutes, leaving only 3 minutes for him to respond was intentional and not in error as he, an experienced admin would lead us to believe. Kumioko (talk) 21:26, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. As far as your allegations regarding abuse of tools on the part of Fram: could Fram have done exactly what he did without using his admin tools? --Rschen7754 21:37, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Also a good point on your part and I should clarify that as well. When someone gets the admin tools, Checkuser tools, etc. their association to those tools are reflected in their actions with or without the use of the actual tool. If an admin creates a sock they would still be socking. Even if they were the one that blocked it (unless of course it was done for a valid reason and under an approved guideline like to test a new tool or something). Fram is a longterm admin and I would wager that most experienced editors who perform work around things like ANI would recognize that. So when he violated several policies in order to get Rich blocked, even if he didn't use the tool itself, he used his status as an admin to infer a validy to the action which was innapropriate. Kumioko (talk) 21:57, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't have an opinion of the situation(s) under discussion (put another way: I haven't researched them).

But to clarify a point: admins are merely editors who have been entrusted with additional tools and responsibilities. If an editor who has been entrusted with admin tools (or any extra additional tools) takes an action that has nothing to do with whether they have such tools, then scrutiny and any appropriate sanctions is towards them as an editor. To claim "abuse of tools", one has to have actually used said tools in the abuse. (I'm not saying that anyone has claimed abuse in this case, I'm merely attempting to clarify a point.)

I also think that all 3 of you are experienced enough editors to presumably know this already, so please treat this note as merely a reminder : ) - jc37 22:04, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't think you can seriously claim abuse of the tools for blocking someone for something that it would have been legitimate to block them for doing a tenth of the numbers.

It is like complaining about admin abuse for an admin blocking someone for 30 reverts. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:48, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Worse, it is complaining about admin abuse for an admin not using any admin tools, but for presenting a case as a regular editor, for uninvolved admins to decide. It's not really worth responding to, as it is such a farfetched complaint that it is hard to see anyone taking it seriously. Fram (talk) 07:48, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Well lets see, when I looked at Rich's talk page, from only a couple months ago there was a discussion about you constantly following Rich and a number of editors besides me telling you to stop...and you adamantly refusing to accept there was a problem. There is another 3 (at least) at ANI, there is another half dozen comments at the Arbcom case about it and even a couple in your history (I didn't provide links because there easy to find with a simple search and I don't believe the links will change your habits anyway so there's no point spending the time). My point on admin abuse is this. If an editor is an Admin and has been entrusted with the tools and has a reputation as an Admin and then submits a user to Arbcom and then turns around and goes to ANI only a couple minutes later about the same issue (thats by definition forumshoppoing), then fails to notify the user for 38 minutes, that is abuse of the tools. Wether he performed the block himself doesn't matter. Its still intent. Also, ANI is an admin tool (though be it not a part of the Admin toolset and used by others as well), using his knowledge of the system and policy from being an admin to fail to notify the user of the AN discussion so the user cannot respond. These are my problems with this, not the block itself. But at this point it doesn't matter. The community doesn't seem particularly interested in an admin using dirty tricks to get their way like forum shopping and not noticfying users of discussions. Fram is not likely to stop hounding Rich and no one is going to stop him so really I am just wasting my time by thinking that people here are interested in doing the right thing. The whole situation to me is extremely disappointing. Kumioko (talk) 17:56, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

" If an editor is an Admin and has been entrusted with the tools and has a reputation as an Admin and then submits a user to Arbcom and then turns around and goes to ANI only a couple minutes later about the same issue (thats by definition forumshoppoing), then fails to notify the user for 38 minutes, that is abuse of the tools." - No it is not. There is nothing in this example that ANY editor couldn't have done. If you want to suggest sanctions to the editor in question as "an experienced editor", that's at your discretion. But nothing in this example suggests an abuse of admin tools. - jc37 18:10, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I actually thought about that. I even started drafting something up and do you know why I stopped? Because the culture in Wikipedia has degraded to a point where I truly believe that this sort of behavior is condoned by the community and accepted. Particularly of the person is an admin. Unfortunately I do not have faith in the system anymore that anything would come out of it other than a waste of my time. And no its not because I think my arguments are baseless. But because Fram is an admin and its next to impossible and extremely rare for an admin to lose thier tools for any reason other than inactivity regardless of how poorly they use them. Kumioko (talk) 18:45, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

"submits a user to Arbcom and then turns around and goes to ANI only a couple minutes later about the same issue (thats by definition forumshoppoing": two fatal errors there: first, I went to Arbcom enforcement here, 5 November 09:19; I went to AN here, 6 November 09:16: your "a couple of minutes" is actually 1437 minutes later. Second; I raised the issue of the editing restriction violation in my first post at the ArbCom enforcement page, and in reply to Rich Farmbrough directly asked him about this aspect as well. Other users pointed out that AE would not handle the possible community restriction enforcement anyway, and that needed to be taken to a different venue. The AE page only wanted to handle the ArbCom restriction, so the AN discussion was not "forum shopping" but the appropriate forum for the discussion of an aspect that hadn't been handled (or dismissed) elsewhere. I would ask you, if you want to pursue this, to take it to an appropriate general discussion board of your choice, since I don't believe that continuing this discussion here will achieve anything. Fram (talk) 21:02, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm sincerely impressed by your skills in detecting copyright violations on Wikipedia, and would be quite interested in learning about some of the procedures you utilize to do so. Articles for creation would truly benefit from improved procedures and guidelines regarding the detection of copyvios. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:13, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

• Also, per discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Northamerica1000, I'm requesting the temporary userfication of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Deux Filles to User:Northamerica1000/Userfy, for further analysis in relation to copyright violation. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:23, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

• • I've replied at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Northamerica1000. Fram (talk) 10:24, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Daniel Fohr, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tyrol (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) 11:57, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Just a heads up, there is a discussion at User talk:Rich Farmbrough where you are mentioned (in case you are wondering why your cyber-ears are burning...). -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:21, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Fram (talk) 07:35, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Resysoping of FCYTravis / Polarscribe and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:55, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Is there some reason you are deleting the defaultsort template from articles like http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Real_Burgos_CF&diff=prev&oldid=522616748 this] one? I also notice that in some instances you delete it and in others you don't. It doesn't make any sense to delete these. 108.28.162.125 (talk) 13:42, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I did the previous but didn't notice I had been logged out. I don't want to change it or leave it because someone will try and say I am socking. Kumioko (talk) 13:45, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

When the defaultsort is identical to the article name (or to the first characters in the article name), it serves absolutely no purpose. The article name is the standard defaultsort, the defautlsort template should only be used when the sorting is different from the article name. This is the case with e.g. biographies (sorted on last name), but also for those articles where the article name contains a special character, like a "é" or a "ñ", since these may cause problems with the sorting. So I manually removed the defaultsort from many articles were it served no prupose, and didn't remove it from those articles where it was useful or where I didn't notice it (the main focus of my edits were the year categories, the defaultsort was just an extra).

Similarly, when an article had a category that was identical to the article name, I made sure that the article would appear as the first one in that category. In any case, I made no edits where the change to the defaultsort was the only edit, as that would be a rather pointless edit. These changes always were an additional part to my main edits. Fram (talk) 13:56, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I thought that was probably it. The problem with that is that a lot of people add those thinking they are needed so it just begins an endless cycle of add subtract with no gain. Kumioko (talk) 15:29, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not going to edit war over them, they are a minor issue. Fram (talk) 15:33, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Looking back at some older articles where I did the same, they don't seem to have been readded, e.g. at Sobradinho Esporte Clube, Social Futebol Clube, Sete de Junho Esporte Clube, Serrano Centro-Sul Esporte Clube, Sobradinho Esporte Clube, ... There probably are counterexamples, but I haven't seen any so far, and they certainly look to be a tiny minority. Fram (talk) 15:38, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I really don't care either way personally. I just thought it was odd that you were doing this sort of things when you seem to be so bothered by other editors doing it. I was wondering if there was some new requirement or policy I wasn't aware of. Kumioko (talk) 16:18, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I am only bothered when people do it without any benefit. The benefit of removing defaultsorts is that when a page is moved, the sorting reflects the new pagename, instead of staying with the older pagename. And even so, I'm only doing it as part of a substantial edit, not on its own. It's like people removing the hidden comments from the persondata template: it's a useless edit when done alone, but I have no problem with it when done in conjunction with other edits. It's unlike people changing one accepted form of template, capitalization, or spacing though, since such edits give the impression of having any benefit or being supported by a MOS, when they in reality just impose one preference over another accepted method, without any benefit. Fram (talk) 07:35, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi Fram, You have deleted my new page for our athletics club due to unambiguous copyright infringement. I had referenced back to our club website where this information comes from. What have I missed here or have I referenced incorrectly. I would much appreciate it if you could provide your thoughts. Many thanks DBruceNZ — Preceding unsigned comment added by DBruceNZ (talk • contribs) 08:23, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles may not be taken from other websites (or books, newspapers, ...) unless these websites have clear indications that they don't copyright their content but release it under an acceptable license (or put it in the public domain). Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright and the linked pages have more info on this. If the webiste text is not released under such a license, then you need to write your own article, with your own text, your own words, using the website (and preferably reliable, independent sources) as the source of the information, but not as the source of the text. Fram (talk) 08:28, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:49, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi there - I see you've deleted my draft page on the basis of infringing copyright from the Preshil website. Preshil is in fact very keen for the page to be created and is completely happy for the content to be used. Is there a way we can reference the Preshil copyright and keep the page? Once it's up, we are sure others will add further content to it, particularly as it is Margaret's centennial year and she will be attracting a lot of attention over the coming months. Bedankt! --Fonnyforfor (talk) 01:09, 14 November 2012 (UTC)Fonnyforfor

Not really, to release a text to be used on Wikipedia; you have to change the copyright to license that allows reuse by everyone, not just by Wikipedia. Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright (and the pages linked to) has a lot of information on this. Another possibility is tho rewrite the page from scratch, using reliable, independent sources as basis for the facts, without reusing their text. Fram (talk) 07:11, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Cool, thanks - I am going to get a letter from the school granting us permission and will try (with my limited technical ability!) to get through the process in time for Margaret's 100th birthday in 5 days.... cheers FFF — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fonnyforfor (talk • contribs) 07:26, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

BTW, are you able to restore the page to me somehow, so I can work on it further and re-submit once the copyright issue is tidied up? ta Fonnyforfor (talk) 03:27, 17 November 2012 (UTC)Fonnyforfor

You moved Charles F. Wurther to User:TLee53/sandbox with an edit summary of "Not even at the correct title, not a proper AfC creation at all". For all I can tell, it's an article about Charles F. Wurster and thus indeed was at the wrong title, but other than that it looks mostly good to me. Could you please explain the problems you saw at the AfC help desk? Huon (talk) 06:43, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello. You have a new message at User talk:Northamerica1000#Advice on recently edited article: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Christopher J. Howell's talk page. Message added 10:05, 16 November 2012 (UTC).

Greetings Fram,

I'd like to address the remarks you have for the article Cléry Khedhir.

concern= Lacks reliable independent sources to meet WP:BIO

Cléry Khedhir meets the basic criteria as he has been the subject of multiple published^[1] secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.

As an entertainer he meets the additional criteria since he has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions.

In what way are the sources for the article insufficient?

concern= his film role hasn't received significant attention

He has the lead role in a film that received multiple awards.

BEST SHORT FILM - LUCAS International Children Film Festival

PRIX DU PUBLIC - Festival du film court d'Ouroux en Morvan

MENTION OF THE JURY - FECID - Festival de Cine de las Ideas

BEST CHILDREN FILM - Lola Kenya Screen

BEST SHORT FILM - Festival International de Cinema Jeunesse de Rimouski

BEST SHORT FILM - International Film Festival *NUEVA MIRADA*

He has a secondary role in "Françoise Dolto, le désir de vivre" which was nominated at La Rochelle TV Fiction Festival 2008.

concern= his Belgium's got Talent appearance only got attention at the website of the organiser (not independent) and one minor news website

While it is true that he got much attention at the website of the organiser (for obvious reasons), there are other news websites who've picked up on the story.

Since they all provided confirmation of the same information (qualification for the finals) I didn't include them.

Will adding these sources help address the attention problem?

"Belgium's Got Talent : Cléry and Speeders Family in final". lavenir.net. Retrieved November 16, 2012.

"Belgium's Got Talent 2012 : Cléry Khedhir and Speeders Family make it to the finals". belgeinfo.com. Retrieved November 16, 2012.

"TELE : Semi-final Belgium's Got Talent 29 octobre 2012 (RTL-TVi)". misteremma.com. Retrieved November 16, 2012.

"A true family story". Ciné Tele Revue. 16 November 2012. {{cite news}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)

concern= fails WP:NOTNEWS anyway

Which of the criteria for WP:NOTNEWS aren't being met?

1. Journalism. The page does not offer first-hand news reports on the event but uses secondary sources.
2. News reports. His qualifitcation Belgium's Got Talent's final may be considered news but isn't used as such in this context. It's merely used for the purpose of having a complete filmography.
3. Who's who. The coverage of Cléry Khedhir goes beyond a single event. He features in movies and in a television show.
4. A diary. His filmography lists his merits in movies and on TV while steering clear of the trivial.

Hoping to hear soon from you, Tim Dobbelear (talk) 13:41, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Where has his role in Le maillot de Cristiano been noted? Not in [1] or other articles (it is mentioned on sites like IMDB, but that's it). His role in Rondo has received even less attention, apparently. Basically, he is not notable as an actor at all (so far), he is only noted as a contestant on Belgium's Got Talent, which fails Who's Who. Even those articles (about BGT) don't mention his acting career. Fram (talk) 13:54, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

His role in Le maillot de Cristiano has been noted in [2], [3], [4], [5] (officiële filmsite; in menu kies 'shorts' en dan 'le maillot de Cristiano'), [6], [uid=19470], ... (granted they don't always spell his name correctly).

The articles about BGT might not mention his acting career but is it required for all sources to cross-reference one another?

Thanks for your patience with a newbie as myself. I try to adhere to the rules and guidelines of Wikipedia. However, when in doubt I look at existing articles to use as an example. I might be missing the obvious but I was wondering why Jey Crisfar (single event), Mademoiselle Fleury and Jean-Pierre Talbot (single event) are meeting the requirements.

Tim Dobbelear (talk) 15:17, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

When I ask for sources where his role has been noted, I meant sources that discuss his role, his acting, him personally, not sources that (like IMDB) list him as one of the actors without any further comment. I don't doubt that he played those roles, but I doubt that they give him any notability as defined on Wikipedia. Fram (talk) 10:51, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello. You have a new message at User talk:Northamerica1000#Advice on recently edited article: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Christopher J. Howell's talk page. Message added 14:55, 16 November 2012 (UTC).

Hi. Just to let you know that the Template:Wikify has been deprecated. If AWB suggests you to add it, please replace it with Template:Underlinked or Template:Dead end instead. AWB will eventually updated to take into account the deprecation of the Wikify tag, it's currently in the works. Thanks. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 18:46, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Since you are the one who instigated the community topic ban on him in the first place you may want to take a look at the comments on Alan Liefting's talk page on the bottom. 108.28.162.125 (talk) 11:58, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Kumioko, he has asked me to stay away from his talk page, and I don't think there is any need for me to go against that request so far. As for "bureaucreatic crap", he was asked to stop these edits, he claimed to have consensus: he started an RfC which soundly rejected his approach and opinion on this, and still he claimed to have consensus. He was repeatedly blocked for dsiruptuve category-related edits, and then a topic ban discussion was started, which was very clear in its outcome. Still he claimed to have consensus behind him. He asked to have the topic ban lifted in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive241#Request to lift a topic ban, where it was upheld. Still he claims that some silent majority disagrees with the topic ban ("do you think the wishes of a few editors is more important than what the community wants as a whole"), and fails to understand that a topic ban doesn't mean "you may not make any more errors in this area", but "you made too many errors in this area, you need to stay away from it completely". If being blocked when not abiding by the explicit consensus that has been expressed multiple times is "bureaucratic crap", then perhaps this consensus-based project indeed is no longer the best environment for you. Fram (talk) 13:25, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

First sorry about the IP, I have done that a few times accidentally lately as I try and escape the vaccuum of this place. To the point and I am going to try and say this in as polite a way as possible, it amazes and apalls me how you have remained an admin. You have banned and banished a lot of good editors and judging by the list of complaints and comments left on your talk page over the years as we have interacted I am far from the only one who has a problem with your style of administrative justice, if it can even be called that. Frankly I look at you as a prime case of proof that its near impossible to remove the tools from an admin unless they volunarily give them up. I know that you don't like me either and that's fine but I want you to know something that is likely to hurt your feelings, and I truly mean this, you should not be an admin. You are not good at it, you cause more problems thna you fix, you wield the tools like a hammer ready to bludgeon any editor you can justify using them on and you are one of the many reasons why I largely gave up editing. You are the sort of admin that gives the Wikipedia admin corps a bad reputation and makes the rest of us normal editors resent them. Not all are bad, some are very good but I do not consider you to be among them. When I see comments from a very good contributor like Alan that they are indicating Suicide or harming themselves because of the actions of an admin or another editor, it causes serious concerns for me over the competence of that individual. If I were in your shoes I would be ashamed of myself. Kumioko (talk) 20:07, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Obviously, I have never banned anyone on my own, banning is a community process. As for the proof that it is nearly impossible to remove the tools from an admin, isn't one of the main reasons for your opinion the fact that an admin you did like got stripped from his tools (and nearly banned?). It isn't that hard to strip them from the tools if there is sufficient reason to do so, you just have to present a solid case with enough evidence. Feel free to make such a case at ArbCom if you feel that it is warranted in my case, I obviously don't share your opinion though. Admins receiving complaints is hardly evidence of being a poor admin, and one has to take into account where many of the complaints come from. The number of objective, detached complaints is rather small (and is taken seriously). Fram (talk) 07:50, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

The whole thing with Rich is what made me notice your activities, that much is true but it doesn't have to do with likely anyone. It has to do with your overzealous and continuous harassment and hounding of multiple multiple editors and using your tools and influence as an admin to get them banned. Frankly any editor makes mistakes but normally we don't follow them around looking for any excuse to get them thrown out. But you seem to have a rare and unhealthy desire to do just that once you take a dislike for an editor like Rich and Alan. Its true Rich made some mistakes and Alan did too and so did the dozen or so other editors I have seen you go after. But Rich and most of the editors I have seen you attack were extremely productive and their leaving was and is a net loss to the pedia. Rich made about 1 million edits himself and his bots did several million more. The reason they appeared to make a lot of mistakes is by sheer volume but every bot and every editor makes mistakes. And its true you may not have personally banned anyone but you were the driving factor. There is no denying that and yes he got his tools removed but it required an Arbcom decision to do it and took years. There was nothing easy about that. I actually thought about bringing up a case but I don't have any faith in the process. As a non admin who's credibility has already been destroyed there are few who would take it seriously and even if that were the case I don't have faith in the process of Arbcom nor do I desire to take the hours of time it would require to pursue a case. I would also note that the statements you make at the end minimizing your involvement and responsibility is not surprising. That is a common attitude of admins. They are infallible and rarely make a wrong decision. Many of the comments on this page are objective, most are far from isolated and given that you do use your tools relatively rarely, represents a fairly high percentage of your edits. You have also proved repeatedly that you don't take the comments seriously. Just responding with something like thanks for the advice or noted or some other comment of acknowledgment and then continuing to do the same old thing isn't taking them seriously. Kumioko (talk) 11:43, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello Fram. After consideration, contributors to WikiProject Articles for creation should have fair warning about copyvio detection in AfC submissions relative to consideration for adminship, so I've posted a comment there regarding this matter. Please feel free to comment there if you're interested in participating in the discussion. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:26, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Like Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 13:25, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I have no interest or knowledge on the requirements for DYK (I have DYK watchlisted for other reasons, and only took a look as I have actually been to the other named falls nearby) so if its no longer eligible you may want to remove it again. Personally I dont have an issue with the 'fluff' - I feel an online digital encyclopedia should be useful 'in the field' given the current digital mobility of our age. So I am okay with touristy places having touristy info. As long as its sourced. Blatant source mis-use however does get my goat. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:30, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the tourist info I can see why some people want it (and others don't), it usually isn't included but it's a minor issue. The sourcing, well, that's hardly a minor thing, and it isn't the first time I have had similar issues with the same editors. One would think that if someone raises an issue with the sourcing, they would at least look again to check whether the complaint has any merit, instead of just reverting it. I had put it in my edit summary ("not only is Bonzle an unreliable source, but the measurements given are the heights of the peaks, not the distances to the waterfall..."), so it's not as if I didn't indicate what the problem with those was. It struck me as very strange that the distance to nearby peaks would be given with such an unusual precision... Fram (talk) 13:35, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I assumed as they were over 1000ft they were taking 'Peak' to mean 'Mountain'. Which made sense as to why they included those at Bonzle. As they were all linked however, a quick clickthrough and confirmed in the prose that it was referring to the height. It took me literally 30 seconds. Okay one editor making that mistake sure, but does the other have a history of supporting her stuff without reading it first? Because the reinsertion doesnt do him any favours. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:14, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

He used to be an administrator, and has an ArbCom sanction which restricted him from taking any administrative action wrt LauraHale. They are friends (which is of course acceptable), and that seems to cloud his judgment when dealing with her articles (which is not acceptable). Fram (talk) 14:30, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Ah. Great. That explains a lot. RE the falls article, Casliber has sorted the queue, as I understand the current requirements Gib Falls fails a couple of the criteria to be included. I am dubious of its notability really, but not enough to AFD over it. As it is, its currently factual and the sources used support the statements they are linked to. Beyond that, the 'hook' is really only of interest to Twitchers/birders. Is that usual for a DYK? Something that niche? Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:58, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Too often, yes, hooks are utterly uninteresting. Gibraltar High School was recently promoted with the hook "that two students from Gibraltar High School's Future Farmers of America drowned while taking part in an annual camping trip in 1941?", and Women's football in Africa was promoted with the barely correct hook "that by the 1960s female leaders of women's football in Africa began to emerge?", those "leaders" being local girls wanting to start local teams but either not succeeding or succeeding before fading back into obscurity. Fram (talk) 15:41, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I am guessing from the subject matter there is a link with the poor prose editing at Gib Falls. Ah well, not much can do about that. 'Prose editing skills' RFC isnt going to go anywhere. 'Write better English!' I am going to post comment at DYK regarding the reviewing methods. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:54, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

And more restorations. Despite my quite clear elaboration on the talk page. Ah well, I am not about to start an edit war over something so insignificant, but at this point I am starting to assume its article padding. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:11, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, everything to get it over the 1500 character DYK limit! Some people have strange priorities... Thanks for your input anyway, it was refreshing. Fram (talk) 11:10, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

you deleted this article by mistake!. Estakhr Constat Physics MG13 Accepted Talk detail — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.255.37.193 (talk) 15:15, 22 November 2012 (UTC) if link does not work test this one: Google webcache

How is this evidence of me making a mistake here? I don't see what this link is supposed to prove. Feel free to take this deletion to WP:DRV to get it overturned, but I doubt that it will work. Fram (talk) 15:37, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

"I don't see what this link is supposed to prove."

well, this was an international conference about Quantum Gravity. and article was accepted as oral abstract, (if you know physics you should to know) that means at least three European physicists confirmed Estakhr constant as a new constant (last year).

soon i realized the importance of the paper. so this article should be open again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.255.37.183 (talk) 16:52, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

hey guys, befor Fram closed the discussion. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Estakhr's Constant (physics) with this reason " no need to keep hoaxes around for seven days when they are this obvious."

but i believe the article was true i mention that "it is 'original research' with only one poor reliable source, i also think article is reliable (as a physicist)" Unfortunately, most people who have commented to delete, had little knowledge of physics.

While article is closed i can not help, i'll be able to develop that article if you undeleted article, section: electrostatic force through estakhr constant is very interesting to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.255.37.199 (talk) 18:46, 22 November 2012 (UTC) reference: [http://www.icra.it I C R A I(nternational Center for Relativistic Astrophysics)] Thirteenth Marcel Grossmann session,QG2 Quantum Gravity Phenomenology abstract peer-reviewed by : Giovanni Amelino-Camelia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neophysics (talk • contribs) 13:48, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, but the link [7] doesn't list any session related to the work by Estakhr... It is a link to a session by Amelino-Camelia, and Estakhr is one of the participants in that session (as an "independent researcher"). How does that lend any credibility or notability to this constant? Fram (talk) 14:03, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

did you check the Google webcache that i give you!: MG13 Accepted Talk detailGoogle webcache

Yes. Apparently that is not the subject of the session after all, he is not the leader of it, he is a participant only. This in no way gives any credibility to his theory, and neither does it make any more notable. But feel free to take it to WP:DRV, I see very little chance of you convincing me to overturn that deletion discussion but perhaps others have a different opinion. Fram (talk) 15:14, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

a notable physicist Giovanni Amelino-Camelia peer-reviewed and accepted this constant, that means this constant is notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.118.222.250 (talk) 15:41, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

here is another possible reference: riassunto2 - ICRA — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.118.222.250 (talk) 15:50, 23 November 2012 (UTC) the references qualify as notability, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neophysics (talk • contribs) 16:02, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

It looks like a proposed talk which was rejected. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:10, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

no, it was accepted but "After the conference website is sometimes 'inaccessible' and sometimes 'accessible.' maybe in future becomes accessible again. This article was the root of all other articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.116.164.70 (talk) 17:32, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia requires multiple reliable secondary sources. A few talks aren't sufficient enough to demonstrate notability, and it looks like it hasn't been published in a reputable academic journal yet. As a tertiary source, Wikipedia does not promote original research.--xanchester (t) 10:28, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

xanchester you are totally right about a few points, but you have to note that: first: The paper was deleted for another reason, Second: the paper is not original research (It has previously been presented at a conference)

• why The author was invited to the 2012 Fermi Symposium - with invitation from Department of Physics - Stanford University!?

Neophysics (talk) 15:53, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I will not undelete this article (none of the above is in the slightest convincing, being an attendee at a symposium means nothing). Please take it to WP:DRV if you want to pursue this any further. Fram (talk) 17:00, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

in this case we need time, time Will Change the way you think. Neophysics (talk) 23:35, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Fram, I very much appreciate your diligence in dealing with the issues associated with this individual. I'm not sure, though, if you were aware of 37.8.170.180 (talk · contribs) and the three edits they made before they were blocked for 12 hours by User:Barek for personal attacks. If you look at this edit to Jimbo's talk page (it was removed by another editor), putting aside the vitriol, it contains a legal threat and a threat of harm against me (the insults don't bother me). It's not clear why Barek blocked the IP for only 12 hours. And although I've never understood Jimbo's interest in this editor, I don't see how he can still be interested in "protecting" him. I'd appreciate your input on this. BTW, I posted the IP's message in its entirety at ANI because of a thread started by User:Francophonie&Androphilie, a good kid, but also, in my view misguided on this issue. Regards.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:49, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I'll have a look, but it may be monday before I can spend some time on this. Fram (talk) 17:00, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I'll watch the IP myself. There've been no more edits since those three, even though the block has expired.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:24, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

If it does start again (IP or named user), feel free to drop a note. The latest edits should really have gotten a lot more than a 12 hour block, and basically removed any chance of getting unblocked anytime soon as far as I am concerned. Considering the edits they wanted to make, I hardly see the point of letting a polite, non threatening, non socking version of the editor run loose here either, but that's a secondary issue for the moment. Fram (talk) 11:01, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Just a heads up. Unfortunately, I can't see the UTRS ticket, but I don't see this as going well.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:54, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I'll drop him a note that if he starts again with BLP violations, threats, or insults, he will swiftly be blocked again. Fram (talk) 07:33, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. GiantSnowman 13:29, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your response on my talk page, I really appreciate it, — Cirt (talk) 16:17, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi Fram, You deleted my new page on Jean-Paul Agon due to copyright infringement. Therefore, I have created new copy with new sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:NicoluxHC/Jean-Paul_Agon I would much appreciate it if you could provide your thoughts. Many thanks, Nico----NicoluxHC (talk) 17:40, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your note and your work. I couldn't find any copyright problems with this one, and while I usually am not a fan of giving CEOs their own article (the company should be the focus, not the string of successive CEOs), for big companies like l'Oréal the situation is different and he seems to be a good topic for an article. I see no probklems preventing this article from being moved to the mainspace. Fram (talk) 07:32, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your response on my revised page, I really appreciate it. I have submitted the draft: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Paul_Agon. Best, Nico --NicoluxHC (talk) 09:41, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Just wanted to drop a note that I think it's good of you to try to mediate this dispute. - jc37 08:57, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm not the best mediator in general, but I try anyway. I'm always happy to get feedback from others though (here or at the discussion), it helps to see whether my opinion and attempts are a bit in line with community feelings or not. Fram (talk) 08:59, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I was about correct the red links but there was an edict conflcit. Thanks for removing all the red links and also edits. Can this reference [8] also be used as reliable?--Nvvchar. 09:37, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

That looks at first glance as a site I would describe as "good enough", one which can be used and seems reliable, but which, if there is a dispute and other, reliable sources contradict this site, would "lose" (for want of a better word). Fram (talk) 09:42, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I noticed your username commenting at an Arbcom discussion regarding civility. An effort is underway that would likely benifit if your views were included. I hope you will append regards at: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Civility enforcement/Questionnaire Thank you for considering this request. My76Strat (talk) 10:24, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

• Per our previous correspondence regarding the matter of copyright violation detection on Wikipedia in unison with AfC. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:44, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Please stop You've just deleted Category:Downtown_music_albums and Category:Giorgio Gaber albums even though it was easy to find members for them (and there are plenty more for the former.) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:08, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

They were speedy deletions of cats that were empty for more than four days, not deletions "because no members can be found". Add members and you can recreate the cat, but I'll not stop speedy deleting empty cats because it is possible to populate them. Fram (talk) 10:10, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Recreate Category:Back-On albums please. How are you getting the information that they were empty? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:13, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

There is a page for empty categories, WP:CATEMPTY. I delete all the ones tagged as empty for four days or longer (and which are indeed empty at the time of deletion), as is the rule for that speedy criterion. This ensures that no one can remove cats from articles and get the category deleted immediately afterwards, there goes some time over this "speedy", but nothing else is expected. Fram (talk) 10:16, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Okay As you can see, that's a redlink. Do you have a blue one? Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:23, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Next time I'll reread my message, then at least I'll notice such things... CAT:EMPTY is what I meant to link to. Fram (talk) 10:24, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks I appreciate the link. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:31, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ambrosius Francken II, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Louvain (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) 11:26, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi, well spotted, I didn't even see that bit about being the first Belgian player etc. Thanks for pointing it out and fixing it. douts (talk) 14:41, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

No problem! Let's hope he wins from Murphy, rather evenly balanced so far. Fram (talk) 14:49, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I'm the writer of "St. Mary's College, Chilaw article that you deleted few hours ago. I couldn't see any Unambiguous copyright infringement about my article because I already mentioned the copyright read in References. and have to say that I spent almost two months to create it, and you DELETED it just like that, It's unfair because if something violate copyrights issue or anything, what You could do is to transfer my article to AFC or to my SAND box then you can notify what are the issues rather than delete it straight away. I already mentioned several time and asked questions about this copyright material thing but nobody come up with good answer, and I tried to upload College crest in to wikipedia that one also not allowed. As far I know this all text from "De La Salle Brothers of Ceylon – Part 2 ( 1919-1961 ) - By Bro. Michael Robert, and all credit to Reverend. And I'm a new member and I have many information that not in wikipedia and I'm happy to create many articles in a future, but if you all doing this things again and again that would be also wasting my time, Thanks for your cooperation, If you could please move my article to AFC and guide me through it, I would like to learn. Thanks Hasiwarna (talk) 17:38, 6 December 2012 (UTC)HasiwarnaHasiwarna (talk) 17:38, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

That's the problem, " As far I know this all text from "De La Salle Brothers of Ceylon – Part 2 ( 1919-1961 ) - By Bro. Michael Robert, and all credit to Reverend." You cannot simply republish existing texts to Wikipedia, that text is copyrighted and it is not because you have a website that reproduces that text, that you are the copyright holder to that text. We have to assume, in the absence of convincing evidene to the contrary, that we are not allowed to reproduce that text. If you do own the copyright to that text and want to give it a license compatible for Wikipedia, you can see all the instructions and information at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials#Granting us permission to copy material already online. Otherwise, Wikipedia articles have to be written from scratch, using reliable, independent sources for the information, but not for the text.

I also don't copy copyright violations to AfC, sandboxes, ... since they aren't allowed anywhere on Wikipedia. Fram (talk) 07:44, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Very well, then I Should start to write my own word rather than getting exact text, right? ok I got it thanks for your Information, I think I could produce license compatible for Wikipedia in a near future, till then bye!

Hasiwarna (talk) 03:01, 10 December 2012 (UTC)HasiwarnaHasiwarna (talk) 03:01, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

On 8 December 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Monegros Desert, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that in the Monegros Desert in Spain, the Aregon Steppes are home for many endangered bird species including the Great Bustard (pictured)? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Monegros Desert. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 08:02, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I found this article as a result of its being a DYK and was surprised (actually, stunned) at its poor quality so added the hatnotes and some suggestions. Then I saw your comments and I agree that it is in no shape to be published, let alone on the front page. It would take ages to fix it but do you think moving it as a first step would help until the author could get back to it? Whiteghost.ink (talk) 05:55, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Moving to userspace, you mean? It would be a good step, but I doubt the author or some of their supporters would agree with it. It's hard to deal with this kind of articles, there are no good mechanisms in place for it (apparently not even for keeping it from the mainpage). Fram (talk) 08:43, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

No, I meant would it be a good idea to give it a new (less ambitious) title such as the one that I suggested on the talk page? It seems, insofar as it has a direction at all, to be trying to be about organisations rather than general sport history. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 02:30, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

That would also be an improvement. Matching title to actual scope is at least more honest and less disappointing for the reader. Fram (talk) 08:26, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:43, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Please call me stupid, but I was played for over two weeks. I only found out today. You were the blocking admin. I do not know if other users like DGG knew this was done this way..l. They need to be told, I think, now that he said it in public. But I am tired of this. History2007 (talk) 19:38, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

That account was blocked, so no need to do anything. History2007 (talk) 21:55, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

What concernes the Hon. Axel Merckx, see this : website diplomatie

...end of discussion. 109.131.211.103 (talk) 00:34, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

What discussion? His title of Jonkheer was in the article for years already, your edit did nothng but add legal background which added nothing to people's understanding of who Axel Merckx is and what he has done. Don't you find it a little bit strange that a person known for his cycling career, his Olympic medal, onle gets one section header, "nobility", which he is only because of his father's personal title, not from his own life or career? I don't think you are having the correct priorities here. Fram (talk) 10:50, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Because you are stupid, listen: is says now "Axel Merckx also belongs to the (untitled) nobility." wich is completely wrong. But hey i don't mind. Let it be wrong i can sleep wel, in the dutch version everything is perfect. bye. 109.131.211.103 (talk) 13:45, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

WP:NPA. If you had made clear that the untitled vs. titled was the topic of your changes, things would have been clearer from the start. It remains an extremely minor point, no one except you really cares whether Axel Merckx is "titled" or "untitled" nobility anyway, people care about his cycling career. 08:40, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Wondered if you could locate Banka, Uttar Pradesh? ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 20:03, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

It is a hamlet of Jang Bahadur Ganj (which also hasn't gotten an article yet, but which is listed on Google Maps and other more reliable sources). The name is also written as Banaka Gaon, Banka Gaon, Bankagoan and Bankagaun. This has some more info, but it's basically cobbled together from a variety of sources and a connect-the-dots exercide... It doesn't seem to be listed on Google Maps under any variation of the name. Fram (talk) 08:51, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Category:Culture of Abu Dhabi, 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. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 12:31, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Fram, I've suggested a new alternative hook for Template:Did you know nominations/Tourism in Gibraltar. Could you please tell me whether that meets your concerns and if it doesn't, could you please suggest an alternative hook yourself. Prioryman (talk) 22:11, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Fram, although you've okayed this nomination you didn't add a green tick. BlueMoonset has asked if you could do that - could you please keep him happy? :-) Prioryman (talk) 20:04, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I noticed you were submitting quite a few WPUS related categories for deletion. If deleted you will also need to remove the applicable logic from Template:WikiProject United States. Kumioko (talk) 18:30, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Would the template stop working if empty categories were deleted? That seems like bad code. I'll have a look after they are deleted if necessary. Fram (talk) 10:09, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

No it won't stop, but its also a waste of time to continuously delete and recreate these categories so if you are going to delete the category you may as well rip the coding out of the template as well so it doesn't generate at all. That way not only does the project not have the tracking category anymore but they also won't have the logic to generate it at all. I agree that some can be deleted and are not needed but a lot of those are used and may be empty. It would be better to add Template:WPUS Category or Template:Empty category so they don't generate on the empty category list. Kumioko (talk) 11:25, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

It looks to me as if most of these haven't been used in a very long time. Going further through the alphabet, I also came across the subacts of Category:Inherited importance articles, where many are also empty, and most have been empty for years. It's easier and more prodictive to only keep (or create) the populated ones, and to get rid of the empty ones, which are the vast majority in these categories (230 out of 305 for the auto-assessed ones, 53 of the 72 for the inherited ones).

By the way, while there are a lot of WPUS cats among the ones I nominate, I am not singling them out in any way, I am just going through the empty hidden cats to get rid of the ones that are no longer needed, and it just happens that a lot of the empty and unneeded ones are WPUS cats. Fram (talk) 11:48, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

There is some truth to that but there is more to it and I don't have the time or desire to explain it all and honestly you can do whatever you want at this point. I stopped supporting those projects because I got tired of all the constant bickering from entrenched editors too worried about losing their power who didn't want to collaborate and work together. I honestly expect all or most of those projects to go inactive now so you can delete the whole project. I just wanted to leave a note that I think you are making more work but its not going to affect me so go ahead. Kumioko (talk) 12:45, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

This is an automated message from MadmanBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Hermann Freese, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.ebooksread.com/authors-eng/michael-bryan/bryans-dictionary-of-painters-and-engravers-volume-2-ayr/page-52-bryans-dictionary-of-painters-and-engravers-volume-2-ayr.shtml.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) MadmanBot (talk) 14:43, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hermann Freese, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Brain fever (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) 11:19, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Fram, I noticed you changed the category of the percussion instrument from A to C. I read the details of the different categories, and frankly I don´t think it belongs there. I am a txalaparta player and main contributor to the article, who knows quite a bit about the instrument both in practice and theory, and I don´t think it´s for an average reader, since even people interested in the subject will find it aspects they may not know. Admittedly, there are not many citations, and there may be other issues I am eager to hear of, but sorry C rating is not, it´s full of details. Regards Iñaki LL (talk) 00:12, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

An A-rating means that it is better than a GA (good article), but not yet a FA (featured article). This needs a lot more than just a lot of details. E.g. even a cursory look at the article shows that the first section, Communication, only has one source, while the second and third section have no sources at all. Basically, this article wouldn't meet the threshold for being a "B", so I assessed it as a C. This doesn't mean that the article is bad or wrong, far from it, only that for the higher quality assessments more is required than what is there. Fram (talk) 07:58, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Fram, I stumbled across the AfC process by chance while going through the list of artists on the Your paintings website (3,400 artists and counting...they have over 13,000 artists catalogued). After looking through AfC's recent article passes, I feel this project has gotten way out of hand and should be shut down. The new editors seem to be stopping as soon as they make a contribution to AfC, never coming back. The recent case of William_Wright_(engineer) says enough: as a computer literate person, he needed unusual persistance in order to save his article from being shelved indefinitely, while attempting to navigate the confusing templates in the editing window forced on the user. The diffs in this case tell a sad story drawn out over time, such as this one where the new editor's frustration is apparent in the line "I regret wasting Bonkers the Clown's time by researching and submitting this article. It won't happen again. Please delete this article submission and my account.", which was removed with the edit summary remark "removed personal attack". Maybe I am too naive about what the "new editor" experience is, but if new Wikipedia editors attempting to write biographies of artists are forced here, then I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemies. Clicking randomly on their submitted articles only depressed me more. Have you looked at this before? What are your thoughts? I feel that no Wikiproject should attempt to make judgement calls on the contributions to any other Wikiproject (in these cases, AfC for Visual Arts or Engineering). Even AfD channels their nominations to the proper categories now. I posted on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation, but then I started reading other entries on that page and realized this AfC project is really in trouble. Jane (talk) 10:04, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

In some respects, the AfC is much too difficult. In other, it is laughably deficient, promoting articles that are copyright violations or that are seriously lacking in other aspects. I don't really know what to do with it, they are well-meaning and trying to help, and articles that haven't gone through AfC but straight to the mainspace also often get a rather bad treatment... Fram (talk) 07:57, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I totally agree. Clicking on some of the history pages of created articles, I really don't know whether to laugh or cry. My gut feeling is however, that they are not being straight with the submitters. They are leaving submitters to think they are dealing with "Wikipedia", when in fact they are banging on the front door of a "Wikiproject" and in many cases, the submitter can make their article submission better on the talk page of another Wikiproject. I really feel the whole thing should be shut down (especially as I have since realized the shelved articles are not indexed in search and are a fertile grazing ground for editors looking for DYK material). Jane (talk) 08:16, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, perhaps shutting it down and sending article submitters to specific Wikiprojects would be better, but of course many wikiprojects are nearly dead and submissions there wouldn't get any feedback either. A wider discussion on this may be needed, an RfC or something similar at the Village Pump perhaps to get more input. Fram (talk) 08:18, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

That's what I thought, and that's why I contacted you, because frankly, I really just don't know where to begin. You're right about the low traffic on the wikiprojects, and that's why I think an "outsider's guide to Wikipedia" in one page is necessary for all article submitters. Sometimes an article submitter can best be shown to a Wikiproject talkpage, sometimes to a high traffic article talk page, and sometimes to the Teahouse, but they should all be made aware of the "heartbeat of Wikipedia", i.e. the 60-100 edits popping in per second in the "recent edits" window. I often wonder how many discouraged article submitters come from other WP projects where the "heartbeat" is more like 4 articles every five minutes and where the reception tends to be more thoughtful and friendly. Jane (talk) 08:27, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Fram, stop harassing other editors you don't agree with such as the comments you left on User talk:Zero0000. You don't agree, fine, but don't start running around bullying the editors who don't agree with you to prove your point. I know you are an admin and we are just lowly untrusted regular editors but you need to step back and let it go. You have been asked time and time again to let someone else deal with issues regarding Rich F's case by a number of editors. Kumioko (talk) 11:38, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Kumioko, what are you talking about? I posted a friendly notice at his talk page explaining my view on things: [9]. This is in no way "harassing" or "bullying". You, on the other hand, have spread countless fabulations about me, all obviously without any evidence to back it up. I don't think you should be given anyone lectures on bullying or harassment (lessons in bullying and harassment, yes, but not lectures on it). Everyone knoww by now that you are extremely frustrated about not getting the admin bit (and obessed with editcountitis), but I don't use being an admin to win discussions, so why bring it up? Please stop with your personal attacks and leave me alone if you don't have anything correct to say. Fram (talk) 11:51, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok first I'll address the easy one first. Edit countitis is the least of my problems. In fact I have gone from doing between 10-15, 000 edits a month to just a couple hundred. Aside from that, a lot of edits is good for the pedia and should not be made into a crime. Second, I am not a bully but I am also not a weak minded push over. Am I confident and aggressive towards those I feel are bullies and power hungry, absolutely. I used to think very highly of you and I know that a number of users still do. I think a lot of your contributions are positive but for some reason you have it in your head you need to be Rich's personal edit monitor.

You call that edit friendly. We obviously have a different idea of friendly. That edit was clearly meant to pressure that user into staying away from the discussions. IF a user sees that interacting with someone and in particular disagreeing, in this case you, will draw comments like the one you left, knowing you are an admin. That is an intimidation tactic plain and simple. That is telling the user I'm an admin so watch your back. Intended or otherwise that is the effect of that sort of notice. I also don't really care about the admin thing. Is it disappointing? Sure. But its even more annoying when I see folks who are admins, like you are doing, abusing your tools and status as an admin to bully others. Kumioko (talk) 12:21, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• I think we've been there before... I'm not upset about the ban per se, but your role in this mess. Why can't you let another admin take over? Why do you have to keep combing through Rich's edits? You're WP:INVOLVED up to your eyeballs that it looks like you're harassing him, even though you may have your fanboys. -- Ohconfucius ^{ping / poke} 15:47, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• Please reread WP:INVOLVED, you'll note that it doesn't apply here at all. And why you feel the need to attack other editors just because they don't agree with your POV is unclear, but I doubt they are all fanboys of me. Fram (talk) 15:55, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I think its rather tragic that you say I/we are just being mean and POV and need to reread Involved and try and defend your actions as anything but involved and at the same time claim that your not. I have already admitted I'm involved, its time you come clean too. It starts something like this: Hi, My name is Kumioko and I have a problem....Kumioko (talk) 17:58, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Of course I am involved, that's why I don't take any admin actions and that's why WP:INVOLVED doesn't apply. Being involved doesn't mean that someone is no longer allowed to discuss or follow up things. You are mixing things and can't seem to understand or accept that I am not acting as an admin in this case at all and haven't done so for a long time. Could you please stop wasting my time with ill-founded, unresearched, and completely off the mark accusations and ramblings? Fram (talk) 07:32, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

This message is to notify you that I have started a discussion at ANI for an interaction Ban for Fram and Rich Farmbrough. Kumioko (talk) 12:09, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of officers of the Oxford University Chess Club is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of officers of the Oxford University Chess Club until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. --Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 18:23, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I thought that you deserved something a bit extra for all of the amazing work you've done for the project. I've nominated you for a gift from the Wikimedia Foundation!

JohnCD (talk) 21:39, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, it's much appreciated! Fram (talk) 07:46, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

See here; I've blocked Andy indefinitely. I didn't mean to override your decision; I had originally set out to do the block indefinitely before I saw your block - but I decided to do it based on the rationale I gave at ANI. If you'd like me to overturn, I'm definitely glad to, but I feel that 24 hours away - for an editor who has a chronic problem with personal attacks and disruption - is just too easy. Regards, m.o.p 08:46, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, and no need to overturn. It's a different approach, but not necessarily worse or better than mine. And of course, now that there are people claiming that I shouldn't have blocked, and on the other hand it has been overturned to indef, I seem to be the middle ground and must have done something right! :-) Fram (talk) 08:53, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

To be honest, as I said in my (now non-existent) edit; if a user has had this many problems and isn't blocked indefinitely yet, they're lucky. If they've made it this far, through all the blocks and drama that goes with them, and are still making personal attacks and threatening to vandalize/sock - they deserve nothing less than an indefinite block. Hopefully Andy turns around and atones for what he's done, but, barring a really moving apology, I don't think he should be unblocked.

Again, I do apologize for overturning. I wouldn't have even blocked if I wasn't already set on it (I started looking at the edits and background of the conflict before you had blocked). m.o.p 08:56, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

To keep you up-to-date - due to ANI consensus, block's been shortened to 24 hours again. m.o.p 11:55, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with your assessment of the Speedy Deletion request I raised for the Bibliography of Jehovah's Witnesses, however, I've raised an AFD anyway. To clarify the situation, the list is primarily of sources critical of the group, and it was recently lifted out of Criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses by the 'author' of the new page. For this reason, the context of the list is misleading. It therefore seemed appropriate to use the A1 criteria for a speedy deletion.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:26, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

No, in that instance either a move to a more correct title, an AfD, or plain editing to make it more neutral, are the appropriate actions. A1 is not the criterion to speedy delete POVforks or biased articles (I haven't checked whether the articles is either of those). Fram (talk) 11:03, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

It's neither of those things. It's an appendix. It shouldn't be an article on its own.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:59, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Greetings Fram, I noticed you were creating a lot of unsourced biographies and wanted to suggest if you create any more they should referenced. Below are 3 examples of articles you created recently that are unsourced.

• Johann Jakob Frey the Elder
• Heinrich Freudweiler
• Jan George Freezen

I didn't mark any of them for deletion or tag any as unreferenced because I wanted to give you the opportunity to fix them first. Kumioko (talk) 12:37, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to mark them for deletion, that would be a laugh. I'm not planning on "fixing" them anytime soon, I'll first create another thousand or so of them over the next few years. Perhaps you can use that time to brush up on policies, guidelines, and so forth, or even on being productive in any shape or form. Fram (talk) 12:45, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

That's pretty much the response I expected but I was trying to be cordial anyway. BTW you can certainly question my productivity but at least I am not creating articles using copy pasted material nearly verbatim from the original source. Kumioko (talk) 14:31, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Yep, "source these or I'll AfD them" is very cordial. I've replied at length at the 4 AfDs, basically you are wrong on nearly all counts, apart from the fact that these articles are taken verbatim or quasi verbatim from the source. Yes, that's true, and hardly hidden, and is something that many editors do, e.g. the people that create articles from the DNB. You may even know some of them! Fram (talk) 15:56, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Fram stop being so dramatic. I asked nicely and you not so nicely refused. There is really no misunderstanding here. I could have just AFD'ed them and not bothered with asking you first but I gave you the opportunity to fix them. Yes your right and look where they are now! Kumioko (talk) 17:40, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

No one forced you to AfD them, and there was not a single good reason to do so. You didn't "ask nicely", you started from an incorrect position, left out three quarters of your reasoning (invalid though it was), and then stated basically "source these or I'll AfD them". They were sourced already, they are now at AfD, good luck with it. Last week, I asked you here "Could you please stop wasting my time with ill-founded, unresearched, and completely off the mark accusations and ramblings?" How do you expect I would react if you return with more of the same? Cordially? Just get lost or expect to be laughed at again and again, but don't expect much cordiality if you continue like this. Fram (talk) 18:11, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Fram, I don't even know how to respond that utter nonsense. You didn't source these articles you just left a generic note that somewhere in a massive multi volume dictionary there exists something tied to these articles. Thats not a citation. Your right no one forced me to AFD them but your lack of action and snide remarks didn't exactly stop me from doing it either. Personally I think your lack of knowledge and general demeanor on wiki are not fitting for an admin, much the same reason that some don't think I shoudl be one. Yet you have the tools and I do not. Strange. Anyway, you can say whatever you want but in the end these are still lousy articles that need to be completely rewritten and resourced if they are kept at all. Say what you want about my editing but I have about a dozen featured content and about twice that in GA's, hundreds of thousands of edits and experience in multiple wikimedia projects so between the 2 of us I don't think I am the one being laughed at. Kumioko (talk)

Get lost. Oh wait, you obviously already are. Then: get lost somewhere else. I don't know what is the more pitiable, your lack of clue or your unhealthy fascination with adminship and editcounts. You can continue digging your own hole, but please don't be surprised if you don't get any further answers here. Fram (talk) 18:23, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Hey man you can be mad at me but I'm not the one that cut and pasted material form sources into articles I created making it look as though it was you that wrote it and then used a generic attribution template so that the reader had to dig to find the source. Kumioko (talk) 18:44, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

It's not generic, every article lists the exact article it was taken from. And both the edit summary and the note make it perfectly clear for every semi-literate and openminded editor that I took the text from another source. The only thing that you are digging is your own hole, basically, with every single comment that you make here. Fram (talk) 18:49, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

So we both think the other is a bad editor and a net negative for the pedia. How is that funny? You wrote crap articles and refused to fix them so I afd'ed a couple. Then you got all defenisve and called me names and threw a temper tantrum in AFD and here. So how am I making myself look bad? I think its the other way around here. Kumioko (talk) 18:57, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Temper tantrum? I'm basically laughing at you. I "refused to fix" the imaginary problems you had found. I refuse to take anything you say seriously by now, since your futile attempts to find fault with me are so ridiculously wrong that they are constantly backfiring, but you just keep banging your head against the wall. My editing is not error-free by far, but the way you are going on about things that aren't even remotely a problem except in your mind is just funny. Sad, but funny nevertheless. Fram (talk) 08:49, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Well that's fine because I stopped taking what you had to say seriously long ago. Its only a matter of time before the community sees you how I do/for what you really are. A nuisance. 108.28.162.125 (talk) 00:53, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

How's the Wikibreak going, Kumioko? Seems to work splendidly? Fram (talk) 07:42, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Heinrich Freudweiler is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heinrich Freudweiler until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Kumioko (talk) 14:33, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jan George Freezen is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jan George Freezen until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Kumioko (talk) 14:34, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Hermann Freese is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hermann Freese until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Kumioko (talk) 14:36, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Eduard Frederich is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eduard Frederich until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Kumioko (talk) 14:37, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Hey Fram - this is to notify you that there is a discussion starting on the Article Feedback RfC talkpage that has ramifications for the RfC itself. Your input is much appreciated :). Thanks! and apologies if I've missed anyone Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:39, 28 January 2013 (UTC)