User talk:Fram

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

If I have deleted a page you contributed as a copyright violation, but you are also the copyright holder for the original text, you can find more info on how to resolve this at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials#Granting us permission to copy material already online.


You mentioned me?[edit]

at Topic on Wikipedia talk:Flow/Developer test page? I got 2 notifications. Dougweller (talk) 10:44, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Ditto. Number 57 11:22, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Looks like they were pasting in AN/I. And I thought somebody loved me! Protonk (talk) 12:27, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Just trying to see whether I could still ruin things as easily with Flow as it was 6 months ago. It seems to be half-solved at most... Sorry to bother you, but n the other hand, you can expect much more notifications once Flow really goes live (I got 11 notifications in 1 day from only 2 pages at Mediawiki, thanks to Flow, and that was without anyone pinging me or replying to me!). Fram (talk) 13:40, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
By the way, I think it was AN, not ANI, as I got errors when I tried ANI (and with many other things as well, Flow isn't absolutely bugfree yet...). And no worries, I do love all of you! ;-) Fram (talk) 13:44, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Reply - You mentioned me as well, but I get the following error: "Error

Jump to: navigation, search

Insufficient permission to access the content.

Return to Main Page.

[d997a3a6] 2014-08-30 16:25:29: Fatal exception of type Flow\Exception\PermissionException" --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:30, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Whatever it was, I'm told you deleted it. It stil weirds us all out. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:19, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Reply - @Orangemike:, I didn't (and cannot) delete anything... --Jax 0677 (talk) 06:54, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedia administrators[edit]

Hi, I picked your name at random from Category:Wikipedia administrators. After a strange item appeared on my contributions list, I asked about it at the talk page for Flow, a MediaWiki extension currently being tested by the Wikimedia Foundation. A community liaison stated that this issue would be patched after a conference in London. This conference is long over, the patch, if implemented, has not removed this "contribution" from my list of contributions. My deletion request went nowhere, in part because it is not possible to tag the .. page(?) for deletion. Would you please remove the problematic item from my contributions list by deleting it? With thanks, Eddymason (talk) 22:09, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

  • The above was resolved by re-attributing the edit(?) to "Flow talk page manager", which is not a registered account. I believe this is why I was unaffected by the recent notifications issues. Perhaps the WMF associates could help the users by re-assigning all Flow contributions to "Flow talk page manager". It'd be a lot of work, but their dedication to the Mission will surely compel one of them to take on this task. Personally, I am not good with computers, so the suggestion above might be out of place. Apologies if this is the case. Nonetheless, it is fascinating to watch the interactions between you and the WMF associates on the Flow talk page, perhaps enough to consider investing in Orville Reddenbacher or Jiffy Pop. Buena suerte! Eddymason (talk) 18:23, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

telegraph stations and favor[edit]

Hi Fram -- You opened Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Powder River Telegraph Station, I commented with tentative Keep vote there, you asked me there whether I had any evidence of notability for that station. To address the question, no, I do not have specific evidence of notability about that station that i can provide. With wp:AGF, i tend to believe the page creator is a Powder River area history buff who probably does have local history sources that are not available to you or me; I tend to believe there really was such a station and that it does have some history. About the AFD, I wonder if it could be concluded more nicely as a redirect to a list of telegraph stations, as part of avoiding erasure of the new contributor's work on this and related articles. It seems that telegraph stations aren't much covered in Wikipedia; i have created Category:Telegraph stations which just has a few. There are additionally some more U.S. historic sites that are individually notable and that preserve a telegraph station, but I am avoiding creating those articles for now.

Could you possibly please take a look at Draft:List of telegraph stations, a new draft article I have just started, and possibly please help develop it a bit? I am hopeful that it could be promoted to mainspace and serve as a useful list-article. I think i have already supported, there, that there are numerous treatments historically of lists of telegraph stations, so Wikipedia having a list-article on the topic should be acceptable. Secondarily i hope that the Powder River Telegraph Station AFD could be concluded with a redirect to there, although I have not yet suggested that at the AFD. --doncram 21:21, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Ugh, no, a list with lines like "place X was a completely unimportant example" (in your draft: "The Powder River Telegraph Station was a repair station along the telegraph line between U.S. military outposts at Fort Meade, South Dakota and Fort Keogh, Montana.") really isn't what we need. We don't do the same for e.g. people from a certain location, "list of people from X" is supposed to only contain potential bluelinks, not a list of all people who ever lived there. There is nothing about this telegraph station that makes it worthy of inclusion so far. So I will not support a redirect. Even less so, of course, for the two other articles which you supported as well. Fram (talk) 04:31, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Echo valley[edit]

My messages told me

Fram mentioned you in their post in "Copy of real Teahouse discussion" on "Wikipedia talk:Flow/Developer test page". 13 hours ago | View board View mention

When I got there I got

[78011e34] 2014-09-01 22:01:44: Fatal exception of type Flow\Exception\PermissionException

I guess you are playing with Aunt Flow? Fiddle Faddle 22:02, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the WMF people believe it is ready for further deployment. So I did some testss. As could be expected, it isn't. The echo notification you got is collateral damage :-) Fram (talk) 04:27, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
I doubt that will stop them. This is their pond. We simply think it is ours. Face-wink.svg Fiddle Faddle 09:01, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Well, we can always block the culprits, like the German wikipedia did. Or change the code as to dsiable Flow. Or do other things they seriously dislike :-D Simply pointing out the many problems and deficiencies of the product, and trying to stop any further rollout (even to one or two pages) is all I can realistically do at the moment. At least they won't be able to claim that there was no opposition! Fram (talk) 09:06, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
  • What I don't understand is why the many pings I get from you are all "5 days ago". Look, Fram, the least you can do, if you're pinging me all the time for some little experiment, is buy me a beer or something. Drmies (talk) 23:09, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Are you still getting new pings? And how many did you get? I thought I pinged a lot of people once, by checking that some flawed Flow functionality was still flawed (but thankfully no longer broke the whole echo system). But I haven't done any similar tests since, so if you are still being bothered by these, perhaps it's time to discuss this at WT:Flow. Fram (talk) 07:05, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Ah, I see that people are complaining about this (at a deleted topic! Deletion doesn't seem to work as expected), the Flow people obviously did something unwanted (surprise). I'll head over to WT:Flow to see what is happening. Fram (talk) 07:07, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
      • I just got one a minute ago--it said it was from six days ago. I think that's the second time today, and the pings always travel in pairs. Drmies (talk) 18:01, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
        • I've asked at WT:FLOW to reverse that Echo-Flow implementation ASAP (as in right now), but no one has responded yet. They have tried to defend other things, but not very effectively. Fram (talk) 18:10, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Your recent "only warning" against User:DannyH (WMF)[edit]

Hi Fram, I've responded here, and also placed a notice on WP:ANI regarding your behavior here. This kind of threat is wholly inappropriate. I would ask you to please return to a reasonable mode of working together. Flow is not being deployed to additional English Wikipedia production use cases; there are some first, early conversations about possible use cases, and some test pages used to showcase and play with its functionality.--Erik Moeller (WMF) (talk) 22:49, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Fram, thanks for taking a resolute stand against this latest example of the WMF's disruptive overreach. Writegeist (talk) 00:04, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Seconded. Eric Corbett 00:23, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Thirded. RomanSpa (talk) 05:35, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Erik Möller, You are the last person at the WMF to convincingly use the phrase "please return to a reasonable mode of working together" or "this kind of threat is wholly inappropriate". Please don't bother me again. Fram (talk) 08:19, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Your behaviour Fram really needs to improve, this horrific hostility between yourself, Erik and WMF helps nobody. I'd also like to remind you that some of us here both appreciate the work the WMF are doing, we think they're genuinely improving the project and like the new features that have been introduced, so please don't go around fully protecting pages and disrupting other editors use of these new features. You're not a bad administrator by any stretch of the imagination and I'd be terribly sorry to see you end up dragged through the shambles that is Arbitration. Nick (talk) 10:02, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Flow is not a feature, Flow (as it stands now) is a bug. I like some of the new features (Echo comes to mind), but even that has been ruined by Flow now. But if you want to use Flow, you can use the community-accepted test pages that already existed, not the ones sneakily and against consensus introduced by DannyH and protected by Erik Möller. Fram (talk) 10:05, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

"WMF seems very bad at responding flexibly to changing circumstances, to reality checks, to problems that arise from earlier goals and choices; it just sticks to what was decided years ago, no matter if that is the best thing to do or not. VE, MV, Flow, the list is getting quite long. All the words about community input, working together, listening to the users, and so on, seem to be just as hollow now as they were a few years ago. Then again, most of the people uttering them are the same, so why should we except any improvements?" A perfect, concise statement of this whole mess. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:29, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Flow testing[edit]

Hi, for some reason I keep getting Echo alerts for stuff that you appear to be doing while testing Flow but there is never anything there. It is becoming a pain, among the numerous other alerts that I receive, and they do not seem to clear from the red "new alert" box next to my username even when I visit the page(s). Can this be fixed? - Sitush (talk) 11:46, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I've now seen the above thread and the one at ANI. If nothing else, Erik needs to start listening more and dictating less. - Sitush (talk) 12:06, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes, the original alert was due to a test of mine, the repeated alerts and problems to get rid of them are an error in Flow (one I have asked to revert ASAP, to no avail). Fram (talk) 13:40, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Fram, when you're done pinging me and blocking everyone at the WMF, perhaps you can go over and stir up the folks at Wikidata or whatever that joint is called that does the interwiki links, since that seems to be broken as well. Their error message is fun, though: "$1. Invalid token." Drmies (talk) 23:31, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
  • The pings just don't stop! What's going on? Drmies (talk) 13:44, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Honestly, no idea. I'm not testing anything, haven't made any edits in Flow for a while, so this time it isn't my fault :-) I have asked repeatedly at WT:FLOW to reverse this Flow-Echo implementation (from day one, basically), but the only reply I eventually got was that they will upload a patch to fix some of the problems. As usual, reverse a release or development is something that is not possible for the WMF. Fram (talk) 14:01, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

A Barnstar for You![edit]

Barnstar of Integrity Hires.png The Barnstar of Integrity
For a courageous stand against the roll-out of inappropriate and incomplete technology. RomanSpa (talk) 05:32, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! (Also to everyone else who supported or fairly criticized me). Fram (talk) 06:38, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Flow and notifications[edit]

Hello. I made the mistake of posting at a flow page and someone pinged me from it. Now whenever I click on my notification dropdown it just shows me a "message" from a flow page and not my notifications. Do you know how I can get it to get back to how it was before? Chillum 23:18, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Never mind I found where I can turn it off in my preferences. That was annoying though. Makes you wonder when some clever vandal will go to a flow page and ping everyone who posts at ANI or something. Chillum 01:55, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Doesn't need to really ping them, typing some 10 characters is sufficient in Flow to get everyone at ANI annoyed. I know, cause I did this in February at the first Flow tests. It doesn't seem to have improved since, except that the Flow notifications are now even more annoying than before ;-) Fram (talk) 08:17, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Empty cat?[edit]

Category:Historic districts in Essex County, New Jersey Doesn't look empty


Category:Historic districts in Salem County, New Jersey--S Philbrick(Talk) 11:53, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

They were empty at the time of nomination, but have since been filled by edits like [1]. That's not unusual for "speedy" empty cats, which have a four day waiting time for that very reason. Fram (talk) 12:04, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Robert Jefferson Bingham[edit]

HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:03, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks / inviting more folks to test.[edit]

Hey Fram. I've been closely following your feedback to the dev and comms teams on the various Flow pages, and I just wanted to say that I appreciate your thoroughness in testing out Flow; you've been able to articulate a lot of important use cases that haven't crossed my mind. I know we come from different perspectives on Flow, and that there is a legitimate reluctance to trust the WMF to do the right thing at the right time with new software. I understand that when you fully protected those two Flow pages on the Teahouse and Co-op, you did it because there were outstanding issues about it and was not ready for general use. Personally, I agree that Flow isn't ready right now, and to be honest, I'm agnostic to how/if editors will use it in the Co-op down the road (if they find it useful, great. If not, that's fine too. And if we find in testing that it's intractably unable to function in our space, it's no big loss for us.) But I think Flow has potential to be a good system for communication even if it's not ready right now, and I'm just willing to give it a shot and help articulate what our needs are.

I think if we want to make Flow work well at all, it's really important to get a lot of editors who do different kinds of work to test it out. It feels like the conversation about debugging and features in Flow has been limited to just a handful of editors; I wondered if you were interested in helping me get in touch with more editors to invite them to test it out over at mediawiki and expand the conversation. I, JethroBT drop me a line 21:04, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words. For the moment, I'm just waiting for the WMF to see how they are going to react. I don't think it is a good idea to invite more people to test if the WMF is going to continue with their we-know-better approach anyway, but we'll have to wait and see for that of course. Fram (talk) 04:28, 9 September 2014 (UTC)


Re: [2] .. did you know the Oversight committee had an embargo on using this name on Wikipedia? Maybe the situation has changed and you know about it. -- GreenC 21:21, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Then the Oversight Committee needs to find a way to indicate this at the article / talk page. The page was not protected, had no edit notice, no nothing. A "secret" embargo is useless of course. Fram (talk) 04:25, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Another user went to the village pump kindly asking for help regarding how to reference this anywhere, and they were banned for asking for help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:45, 11 September 2014 (UTC)


With regard to your recent comments: I know that the WMF is truly bad with user interaction over Flow. In case you hadn't noticed, I have been pressing certain issues and pointing out several problems, though not in such a volume as you. I also oppose Flow, and I have supported your actions up to this point. However, there really is a line that we must hold ourselves to, which is not to make personal attacks against people who don't deserve them, and aside from abuse from Möller, we're seeing nothing except incompetent community interaction combined with people doing what they're paid to do, which manifests as the qualities you expounded on. That doesn't warrant implying that they're all up each other's anuses, and such rudeness will serve no purpose but mutual hatred. That comment alone, please note, is all I called you out on.

I suggest that you take these complaints to the big cheese, who is supposed to be sorting such things out, in a calm yet detailed way which will improve engagement – unless you believe Lila has already been corrupted. Surely it is better to try a possible way out than carry on a demonstrably futile path. Your anger is understandable, but doing nothing but exacerbate it will only lead to suffering.

I don't wish to pretend to be wise, or to know a solution. I appreciate your efforts to hold the developers to account, but we can all see that your anger is becoming futile. I don't really know what else to say. BethNaught (talk) 09:04, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm thinking about what to do. I certainly don't hold your comments against you, I appreciate what you have done and how you try to help. But at the same time I believe the comments to be fully deserved. A product manager who doesn't know (and apparently doesn't care) about bugs filed before he was hired? Who doesn't care to respond to many questions asked, even about rather fundamental claims he has made, or about fundamental issues like community consensus? A product manager who doesn't care that his roadmap is blatantly incorrect the moment he posts it, and that the principles they proclaim are a mockery of what they do? Both DannyH and Erik Möller (and a few others like Jorm) should really be removed from any interaction with enwiki (and other wikis) ASAP. Whether they can and should have a behind-the-scenes job at WMF is up to them, I don't care, but they have shown time and again to be unfit for their current roles. Fram (talk) 09:12, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm glad to see your message on Lila's talk page and have added my own take. There's less invective than in yours, so I hope you won't curse me as ineffectual ;) But I thought having two complaints, not one, might make it seem more important to Lila. I'll look forward to her response with optimism until proven wrong! BethNaught (talk) 14:44, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Yours is probably the better approach! Thanks for your patience and for adding your own opinion. I don't curse people for having a different opinion, even that user (forgotten the name) who wants to enable Flow on his user talk page doesn't deserve cursing (even though I totally don't understand such a wish). I reserve the cursing for those people who demonstrated that they no longer deserve respect, and even then I usually do it off-screen :-) Fram (talk) 16:41, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi, Fram -- I've been trying to figure out a way to talk with you, and this might be a calmer place than others. You're absolutely right when you observe that I've been keeping my distance over the last couple weeks. The fact is, it's been really difficult to have a conversation with you. I don't feel like we're talking to each other in a tone of mutual respect and good faith. We're both people who care a lot about wikis and Wikipedia. It feels like everything that I say will be picked apart, weaponized and then posted in several places as proof that I'm incompetent. That means that I have to watch everything that I say, and say as little as possible.
I would really like to talk to you. I think that we could have challenging and productive conversations. I'm not exactly sure how to get there. I guess it depends on whether you actually want to talk, or if you just want me to go away. DannyH (WMF) (talk) 17:31, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for coming here, I appreciate it. You are at a disadvantage in that my respect for the WMF (or their representatives here at least) is very low, due to accumulated problems over the years and very frustrating discussions with most of them (I would like to make an explicit exception for Quiddity and Elitre, both are people I respect a lot). I tried to give you, as a newcomer, the benefit of the doubt, but I saw you soon act the same as many of the others I no longer respect (as WMF employees, I know none of you as persons).
Of course, due to my previous experiences, I may well be a lot quicker to dump you in with the others (about whom you don't have to agree with me, I don't expect you to dis colleagues of course) and not give you a truly fair chance. Coupled with the fact that the deficiencies of Flow soon become the deficiencies of its Product Manager, even the ones that existed long before you came along, and you can see that you had an uphill battle from the start.
But, having said that, I do think that you did quite a few things that, while perhaps not (yet) deserving the scorn I gave, were problematic or dubious. The deployment to the Teahouse, for which Quiddity had to endure the flak, was particularly bad. The rollout of the new Echo functionality, which was (I hope you'll agree) clearly not ready yet, was another problematic issue. The refusal to roll this back, with some particularly weak arguments, did not give me any confidence either.
The update of WP:Flow with a roadmap and achievements which were partly totally unrealistic, and partly written in the typical management jargon which sounds nice but is either indecipherable or totally meaningless, gave a strong impression of someone at the wheel who is not interested in open and honest communication, but wants to "score", tick of boxes on his end-of-year evaluation no matter what.
Now, all these may be incorrect impressions, or not caused by you, or one-sided. But its the impression I got, the image I now have of you (although a post like the one above really helps to counter this); and relatively small things like your "That ability isn't currently in admins' hands, because, as people have correctly pointed out, Flow isn't ready for widespread use." (which, I hope you'll agree, is logically speaking nonsense) really tick me off and only reinforce the "one can't have a fruitful discussion with DannyH" impression I have (I try to be honest here, I know that the statement is not nice but I try to indicate how I feel).
Like I said, you didn't get the same chance your peers did (as many of them blew it for you), and the sins of others are blamed on you as well probably, but I fear that sometimes that's the fate of a Product Manager. I'll try to give you a fair second chance, but please then also try to answer my (and others) questions in an open, honest fashion. The discussion may still be lively, and I'll often disagree with you, but I'll be able to respect you and just discuss the flaws of Flow, and at least we may then leave behind the more personal animosity. Fram (talk) 18:15, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
That absolutely makes sense. That roadmap really was not worth being scrutinized as much as it has been in the last couple weeks, and that's my fault for posting a not-very-helpful roadmap. I wrote the first version of that in June, when I'd been working on the team for two months, and was still learning a lot about the product and where we were going. I just posted a much more realistic roadmap, which does a better job of expressing my actual philosophy and work style.
I have definitely been increasingly distant and unclear. I don't want to live like that, or treat people that way. But I think that's a natural response, if people are deconstructing everything that you say. I want to be more open and honest about what we're working on -- challenges, open questions, mistakes and all. If every sentence is challenged, or if changing my mind is seen as weakness or incompetence, then I have to be distant and less real. But I don't want to be like that.
So, I don't know. It's worth a try. It's nice to meet you. DannyH (WMF) (talk) 00:19, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes, the roadmap caused a lot of the problems, as it is the main basis we have to check the status and the things to come. When it appears to be rather incorrect, it doesn't encourage trust. Coupled with rather too much optimism in it (both on the "what is done" and "what will we do when"), it reminded too strongly of previous rollouts like VE. I'll take a look at the new roadmap, and will drop the issues of the old one.
Changing your mind is a good thing, but not when it comes across as "saying one thing and doing another", which has been a problem (WMF, not you personally). You just have the bad luck to come here for a product that has already a bad name, from a software company (WMF) that has a bad reputation; and you aren't always helped by the comments by others from the WMF made in those discussions (e.g. about mobile editing and Flow). I'll try to give you a fair second chance. Still don't like a lot about Flow though ;-) Fram (talk) 07:34, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, I really appreciate that. If it helps, there's a lot about Flow that I don't like either. :) There's a really long list of things that we have to change and add. It's going to take a while to get it into workable shape. But I appreciate getting a little space to figure it out. Thanks. DannyH (WMF) (talk) 17:49, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Mobile editing might be the future for talk pages...[edit]

...but for now it's a beta feature. Most people editing mobile won't have link to talk from article, and what are the chances of a newbie editor ever finding article talk without even that? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:07, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

That's what I don't get. They are putting all this effort in redesigning talk pages, but it is not accessible from mobile and isn't made any easier to find for newbies either (which was claimed as one of the reasons they don't use talk pages in the first page). What's the point of having a better interface (assuming that would be the end result) if your target audience can't find it anyway? Fram (talk) 07:14, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I would need your help[edit]

Hello Fram, I hope you are faring well these days. I am interested in building a bridge to allow Betacommand passage back into our community. I am hopeful that you will ally with me in this endeavor; not because it is a thing you are thrilled to facilitate, but for the safeguards required to quell apprehensions of those inclined to oppose. Is this an effort you would be willing to endure? Or would you consider it a fool's errand – one you would vehemently oppose? Best regards.—John Cline (talk) 08:13, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I am not going to support this (actively). I don't think it makes sense to allow back people after they have used more than enough chances. However, I'll not vehemently oppose it either, that I reserve for people actively working against Wikipedia, not people helping it too often in the wrong way; those I don't want on Wikipedia, but I can understand people seeing that differently, and if a way can be found to include them without the earlier problems, then I don't have a problem with their return. It's just that I'm more sceptical in some cases, including this one. Fram (talk) 08:42, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
I appreciate your candor, and understand your skepticism. You have shown yourself to be more reasonable than some are predisposed to presume. This alone is worthy of thanks; more than I can express! Sincerely.—John Cline (talk) 09:02, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Glyptothorax kudremukhensis / Glyptothorax kashmirensis[edit]

Hi, I see that you have deleted the articles for Glyptothorax kashmirensis and Glyptothorax kudremukhensis. I'd asked for a translation from the Swedish Wikipedia entry. Both these entries are for critically endangered species and are on the IUCN red-list. Even a basic entry will be a good starting point to populate these pages. Please consider restoring the pages. -Cpt.a.haddock (talk) 09:41, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

You can contact a wikiproject about these, or some editors fluent in Swedish. But articles should not consist of no information whatsoever, but a request to translate it. You can create a basic entry and add the expand Swedish template, but not have only the expand Swedish template. Fram (talk) 09:43, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
That seems like a rather arbitrary and silly restriction. But what the hell. Let me try a wikiproject. Thanks for your time. - Cpt.a.haddock (talk) 10:32, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Not really. Article with information on the subject: fine. Article with no information on the subject; delete. Yuo may consider it silly, that's an opinion which is not right or wrong, but it is clearly not arbitrary. Fram (talk) 11:07, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) I've posted on Cpt.a.haddock's talk page, telling him that I'll translate the articles on the Swedish WP for him. Thomas.W talk 11:10, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! My Swedish really isn't up to par (or should that be pär in Swedish? :-) Fram (talk) 11:41, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Par. Golf terms usually aren't translated, but adopted as they are. Translating what little text there is in the articles is no problem, what is time consuming is fixing the taxobox and the references (since most parameter names in the templates are in Swedish). Thomas.W talk 12:11, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Do these reasons get stored anywhere? If not, why are we forced to give them?[edit]

yep, they go in the page history. Gigs (talk) 17:28, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

SPI you have been familiar with in the past, appreciate your input or help[edit]

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cuddlyable3. --Jayron32 02:00, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

AfD warning[edit]

If you are going to take it upon yourself to issue warnings, perhaps you will answer my questions with rather more civility than the cabal who have virtually assaulted me over the last couple of days.

I nominated a total of four articles to AfD over two days. This is not vast, wholesale nomination of a scale that becomes disruptive. It is only a small proportion of the edits I made. I believe that those who have characterised me unduly should receive a reprimand at least as official as this warning. Your opinions please.

I came across a number of articles which did nothing to establish the importance of their subjects. I was aware that the lack of such an assertion left an article liable to speedy deletion (A7), and that any article liable to speedy deletion thereby has reason to be deleted. I was, I know realise, in error in thinking that A& applied to films (why on Earth it wouldn't is beyond me: I cannot believe that anyone believes that a film meets GNG by virtus of existing). If an article falls foul of a speedy deletion criterion, why should it be considered immune from nomination for deletion?

Kevin McE (talk) 13:59, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Kevin McE: I hope you have checked WP:BEFORE, new editors are not so professional when it comes to creating articles. You have to check properly before you nominate for deletion. You can fix yourself too. Sometimes subject is very notable, but new editor violates copyright, it is appreciated when you repair those errors yourself and notify editor about the policies. Thanks. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 14:09, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
No, I didn't, because it does not address the key issue. I have no interest in Argentinian lawyers, Indian festivals, or low interest films. I have no expertise with which to expand them or habit of researching the sources that might yield more information on them. What I have an interest in doing, as a user of Wikipedia, is encountering a useful resource. A resource that says "X is a festival in India" is of no value. Whoever posted that is far more deserving of reprimand than the person who points out that such a note serves no purpose in existing. Kevin McE (talk) 14:31, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Stop looking for things to blame in others. Look at what you did wrong, and learn from it. Fram (talk) 14:34, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • One article was about a politician, with an interwiki link and with a category indicating his function.[3]
  • One was about a festival (which speedy would that be?), and had a source.[4]
  • The other two were about films, which are indeed not speedyable. Not speedyable doesn't mean that they are automatically notable, but that there would be way too many false alarms if this was added to A7 (including the two articles you nominated for AfD). Certainly this, a film with 7 bluelinked actors, based on a bluelinked book, should have given you serious pause.

Just like way too many articles on Wikipedia, these were not fleshed out like they should be and could do with a lot of work. Deleting them would have been a drastic step in the wrong direction though.

Furthermore, if you would have made a few mistakes and many good calls, it wouldn't be such a big problem, as it would just need a refinement of your approach. Here, your opinion was wrong (and clearly wrong) every single time. Your non-AfD edits have nothing to do with this; you have not been warned about those, they have not been judged: the problem is with AfD only, and you have three choices: stay away from AfD, seriously improve your approach (i.e. only nominating articles where you have followed WP:BEFORE and no notability could be established for the subject, if notability is the reason for the nomination), or be forced by a block to stay away from it. As for reprimands for others: if you had shown any understanding of what you did wrong, and any indication that it wouldn't be repeated again and again, you wouldn't have been characterised in that way. But you can hardly expect people to smile when you continue to nominate articles for the wrong reasons and refuse to show any willingness to improve. Fram (talk) 14:16, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Question: what makes e.g. Bolat Raimbekov better than the articles you nominated? Fram (talk) 14:25, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

The fact that it establishes the grounds on which his notability is founded.
How does being a member of a professional cycling team give more grounds for notability than being a film with seven (or even one) notable actors? I am not arguing to delete Raimbekov, but that article is no better than most of the ones you wanted to delete as it stands, and has less claims to notability when looking further than what is written here. Fram (talk) 06:25, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Articles should not be in place without reason for them to be there. It is the responsibility of whoever decides to start an article to do that, and if he/she couldn't be arsed to do so, they obviously couldn't care whether it is read and used or not. I was wrong in thinking that you might be willing to take a more sensible approach: don't know why I thought you might be. Kevin McE (talk) 14:38, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) "More sensible approach"? He's doing what the rules say he should do. If you don't like the rules, start a discussion to try to change them, but don't expect others to bend the rules for you. As for your responses to posts on your talk page (yes, I've read them), if a bunch of experienced people tell you that you're wrong, and even tell you that you'll be blocked if you don't change your ways and your attitude, it's in your best interest to do what they tell you to do. Thomas.W talk 14:52, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
@Kevin McE: How it is their responsibility? You know that they don't OWN the article. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 14:56, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
The Tripura festival stubs were blue linked when clearing red links on Trichy or Varanasi or something like that (actually it was the Tripura state article itself) I think which we were working on productively. Rather than shut off the red links, I thought it more productive to quickly blue link them as I could see sources lighting up in google books. Yes, they should have been started with more information but I had a tons of red links to clear and it seemed more positive to create them than hide them. Anyway, I believe I asked Rosiestep and Nvvchar to help expand the stubs, as Rosie clearly expanded this a bit shortly after creating, so I didn't just dump them, I'd hoped they'd be expanded. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:21, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Bocholt-Herentals Canal[edit]

You recently added a comment, including a threat of removal, to the article I just created. Please be aware that the negative tone of this message is extremely putting me off: I am quite aware the article is far from being perfect, but instead of threatening to remove it you could much better spend some effort at improving it. And please don't come and tell me it comes from the tool (AWB?) you used: if you apply stupid negative tools that only reflects on yourself. Allow me to insist on a more positive approach and more appreciation for well-meant effort.

On a technical note: the main source for my work was the existing article on nl.wikipedia - Dutch being the local language in the area, and the Dutch article looking quite ok in every respect. But I have been equally soundly scolded in the past for using other wikipedia pages as references - which leaves me quite lost. If you have a "correct" way out, you can tell me about it, just in case I might be inclined to another try at adding to this encyclopedium, but above all do please apply it to the article. Much better than threatening to remove it!

Yours in frustration, Jan olieslagers (talk) 11:38, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

PS user User:The Banner just illustrated on the same article how it is perfectly possible to use bots in a positive way - take that for an example! Jan olieslagers (talk) 11:44, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

That is the standard template for articles without a single source. It doesn't threaten to remove the article, it indicates that material which is challenged by anyone and doesn't get sourced may be removed. AWB has nothing to do with it, I would have added the same manually, it is Template:Unreferenced.
Starting from another Wikipedia page is not a real problem, as long as you are reasonably sure that the information in it is correct. But in the end, all Wikipedia pages must be verifiable thruogh reliable sources, and Wikipages are never reliable sources. They should not be added as references. Perhaps something like this can be used as a source for the information? Fram (talk) 11:47, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Dear, thank you very much for taking this as positively as you showed. (And yes, it is clear to me that we want reliable sources, and that referencing one wikipedia page to another has no relevance to the outside world.) Even better, you took the trouble to find a possible reference, and it does look like a very good one, in fact its content is remarkably similar to the Dutch article that I more or less translated. But I should think that, to serve as a reference on the en.wikipedia, a text should be in English language? Yours much more kindly, Jan olieslagers (talk) 15:10, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes, the text on nl.wikipedia seems reliable enough, we can trust it, no problem there. I do keep regretting the negative tone of the message you inserted ("the article ... DOES NOT ...") - there is room for improvement there. Jan olieslagers (talk) 15:10, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Well done[edit]

This will probably get ugly before it gets better, but I sure as hell hope the deletion sticks. Tarc (talk) 12:53, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Yep, I know it won't be uncontroversial, but sometimes one has to stick out his or her neck. I'm glad that more people semed to lean deletion than keep at the MfD anyway, but letting this drag on and on, with the draft talk page shenanigans that were happening, would not help Wikipedia or the situation in any way. Fram (talk) 12:58, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Good job. That needed to be done. BethNaught (talk) 12:56, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Fram (talk) 12:58, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Thank you. I won't be starting an article on her, we can be sure. Its cases like these that made me realize the unthinking inclusionism of my earliest days can be bad. She really is not notable.--Milowenthasspoken 13:02, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • What they said. Kinda wish I had pulled the trigger before commenting. Thank you. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:03, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Good work! It was an epic MfD. Everyone with there own opinion, so many disagreements, personal attacks. At last it came to an end. Thanks for your great judgement. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 13:24, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

The deletion will certainly stick if CMDC's suppression request to OTRS is successful. A couple of thoughts. If any BLP subject who wants their BLP removed is now to be obliged, we can expect quite a reduction in the number of articles about people who'd rather have none at all than put up with one that's written by someone they don't like and/or contains any information that's less than flattering. And of course if the whim of a biography subject is to be the overriding criterion for deletion it follows that we should extend equal courtesy to any attention-seeking nutjob who demands the creation—or retention—of their very own BLP. Fun times ahead! Writegeist (talk) 17:49, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. Fram's deletion was a rather poor move, but perhaps his new rules only apply to articles about WP editors? Eric Corbett 17:58, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
I have never stated that all articles should be deleted if the subject complains. I have explicitly stated that I have no problem with someone uninvolved recreating the article (following standard BLP and notability rules). And your reasoning is not correct: giving people the right to have their article courtesy-deleted (which was not what happened here) does not mean that the opposite should happen as well (some people may demand it, but it is up to us to decide if we listen or not). There is no rule that our policies must be balanced or that every deletion requires a creation. Fram (talk) 18:13, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I just wanted to join the chorus up above and thank you for taking a stand based on what is right. Although I very much disagree with how you treated Rich Farmbrough (I've found him to be one of the most helpful editors on this site) your actions in this matter are appreciated. Viriditas (talk) 23:14, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

re: BMK's talk page[edit]

Hi Fram. I'm at a loss of what to do with this editor. He refuses to engage in any discussion about points that a raised. I've tried his talkpage and to point him to the article talkpages too. Suggestions? Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 11:05, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

dispute resolution. Or just leave him alone. But don't continue to post on his talk page (or ping him repeeatedly about the same thing, which has the same effect). Fram (talk) 11:08, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
So he's allowed to edit war against two editors and consensus? Thanks for clearing things up. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 11:17, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
I haven't said anything remotely similar to what you are now stating. Pointing someone to "dispute resolution" is not saying that the other party is allowed to do whatever you claims he does. I have not said anything about what BMK does or should do. I have said what you should do, instead of continuing to go to his talk page. Fram (talk) 11:24, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
To be consistent you've pointed this out to him as well? Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 11:39, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
No. I note someone being bothered at their talk page. The reason may or may not be legitimate, for that you have dispute resolution. The method was wrong. For that I have warned you. Has BMK bothered you recently on your talk page (or by excessive pinging or the like)? Then, for consistency, he may need the same warning. Fram (talk) 11:41, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Well you know the answer to that, as he refuses to engage with me. Maybe you could drop a friendly message on his talkpage about discussing the issue on the article talkpage in question, which would be to everyone's benefit. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 11:53, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
I have given you all the answers you need, repeatedly. Continuing this line of conversation will lead to nothing. Fram (talk) 11:59, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, you're very helpful. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:04, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Looking at WP:DR, in one of the pre-loaded boxes it states "Please remember to notify them of this discussion". How do I do that when I can't post on their talkpage? Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:34, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) You can certainly post that on his talk page, and you should. If he removes it it simply means he's seen it, and you should not repost it, per WP:BLANKING. Doc talk 12:43, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Doc. I'd like to hear this echoed by Fram, as he's threatened to block me if I post there again. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:49, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Notifying him (once) of any dispute resolution process you have started is acceptable (and in some cases mandatory). Just keep it short and to the point, and don't reinsert it if he would remove it. Fram (talk) 12:52, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Cheers. Thanks Fram. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 13:03, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Revising a delete summary[edit]

Fram, if possible to do so, could you revise the delete summary for User:Sitush/Carol Moore and Draft:Carol Moore to reference Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Sitush/Carol Moore? It's always better if editors can quickly find the full explanation for your actions, which I don't disagree with, but other editors might be very concerned seeing a delete summary with IAR in it. (BTW, I'm not stalking you, I was involved in the MfD.) Thanks, Oiyarbepsy (talk) 19:17, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Edit summaries can not be changed afterwards, sorry! Fram (talk) 13:05, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

September 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Nidomain may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • = Wikipedia isn't a "How to use your Mac OS X Server" manual. This subject has no [WP:N|notability]] outside such manuals.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 12:36, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

St Sebastian church, manganur[edit]

Hello, I am Incrazy I created article St Sebastian Church, Manganur in which you made a template for deletion due to no evidence. Now I improved the article by adding images, coordinates, references so, consider this article. Can I remove the deletion template?

Hi. You are free to remove the template, but then I'll take the article to articles for deletion, where all editors can give their opinion during a one week discussion. Images, coordinates, ... are good to have, but don't add anything towards WP:Notability, the evidence that this is more than just a church like every village and town has. The source you added is the only thing that helps for that, but is in my opinion insufficient. Fram (talk) 04:26, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Ongoing AFD question[edit]

Hello Fram,

I wonder if you could help me troubleshoot something. An article I created on September 4, Arjun Singh Sethi, was tagged with an AFD on Sept. 8. You can see the AFD here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arjun Singh Sethi. As requested, I rewrote the article, adding a number of new references and responded to the AFD, which you can also see below it.

The AFD has not generated debate and thus some good faith relistings were added- we are currently in the middle of the second one. As there is still no quorum, this process has gone on past 14 days, longer than an AFD for a WP:BLP normally takes. Unfortunately, "Page View Statistics" seems to be down at the moment, but a few days ago when I checked, the page had received about 1074 views- which means that people are viewing the article. I know that the goal of the Wikipedia is to improve rather than delete pages and I feel I have done that. I wonder if you have further insight. Regards, -Classicfilms (talk) 13:24, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps just make a short list of reliable, independent sources about him, not writings by him published somewhere else; and put that list in the AfD. At the moment, the article is a source avalanche and it is very hard to find which sources, if any, are actually giving some significant attention to him. If no one hsa paid attention to him a a person, then he isn't notable. Fram (talk) 13:32, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi Fram,
Ok, Thanks. I thought that what I wrote was pretty clear but I will try to reorganize as a list. Am a bit swamped in RL at the moment - will get to it in a few days. -Classicfilms (talk) 13:33, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
I have trimmed the article and rewritten the list on the AFD page. Regards, -Classicfilms (talk) 05:46, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Please refrain from commenting on my talk page[edit]

I don't think I can prevent you from doing it without starting some sort of bureaucratic process but can you please refrain from commenting on my talk page. It is not conducive to furthering the aims of Wikipedia. Thank you. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:58, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

If you don't want a warning before action is taken, then the next time you violate your restrictions I'll skip that step. It's your loss. Fram (talk) 07:08, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

IP address verification[edit]

Hello Fram: At my first RfA in the General comments section, you provided confirmation of my edits per the IP address I was using, which was greatly appreciated. I'm considering another RfA, so I'm curious about how your analysis was performed during RfA1. At Special:ListUsers/checkuser you're not listed, so if you didn't have this permission, how was your determination made? Please respond at your convenience, and thanks again for your provision of objective information at my first RfA. NorthAmerica1000 15:04, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh, that was a while ago. I indeed don't have checkuser, I think I just used common sense and some edit history digging. Probably looking at the oldest edits you made, and noticed that before your named edits an IP address did more or less the same. I'm not quite sure any more, but that should be about it. Fram (talk) 17:05, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the prompt reply. I'm actually considering requesting a check user query for myself prior to moving forward with RfA2, to put the incorrect and misstated notion of multiple accounts (plural) to rest once and for all. As stated at RfA1, I had only one (singular) previous account, and prior to that edited as an unregistered user. Again, I appreciate your efforts at the time to confirm this. NorthAmerica1000 02:38, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Special characters[edit]

You seem to be in charge of the VE special characters. Is there any reason that the Greek alphabet isn't there? I thought about putting it in myself, but I thought I had better check with someone first in case there was a good reason for leaving it out. SpinningSpark 17:19, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Questions about VisualEditor can best be posted at WP:VEF. I only edited the special character page to test it, but IMO it sucks big time, and hasn't been fundamentally improved in the 8 months since it was introduced. Feel free to change the page, I have no problems with anyone editing it. Fram (talk) 18:40, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Jesse and Ryley help ASAP[edit]

hello, you have recently deleted my page of "jeese And Ryley", the page is mostly made up of my own copy right. Do to the fact that I know them personally, but there are a few things off of Vine, and of social media that I can reference. Is there any way you bring the page back up and I'll give Wikipedia rights to the page. Also if yes are you able to walk me threw on how to do so? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jessica&jesse ryley :) (talkcontribs) 21:57, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

The deletion of the page has nothing to do with copyright, only with the total lack of notability as evidenced by the lack of reliable, independent sources about you or your Vine channel. Fram (talk) 04:46, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Userpage usage[edit]

I am new to Wikipedia and have collected a few interesting quotes along the way. It was brought to my attention here, that collecting evidence or even interesting diffs is bad form. Thus, I am in the process of cleaning that up. I would appreciate you take my efforts in good faith, and offer suggestions to improvements on things that strike you as improper. The tone of our entire collection of communications suggests nothing but bad faith. To be frank, that your position was a clear minority on WP:RSN, suggests you should not portray yourself as an uninvolved admin, looking to block others. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 13:00, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Wipe your user page clean, start all over with some information about you as an editor, and leave off all references, no matter how veiled, to other editors. And I'm not portraying myself as an uninvolved admin; I said that, while I was previously uninvolved, you would now probably consider me involved and I would avoid blocking you, even though you well deserve it, as you bring in general nothing but disruption and severely POV-based edits, while acting the injured, innocent and offended party. I have had no dealings with ARBPIA before this, and only became interested in the RSN discussion because it considered a comic book. Reading your statements though, I was appaled at how you described the source and the kind of guilty-by-association arguments you used. Your poisoning of the well worked with the first few responders, but gradually the tone of that discussion has shifted. I then looked further at your behaviour, since and before, and can't find much redeeming factors in it. I don't care on which side of the PIA situation you or anyone stands, but anyone with such an extreme one-sided POV as yours should simply stay away from the topic. Fram (talk) 13:09, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

While I am new to Wikipedia, I know there are strong feelings and asked for input on talk pages. You are not new but present misguided statements (What "severely POV-based edits"?), showing clear misunderstanding of the subject matter, and unmitigated bad faith. e.g. there's a gargantuan difference between interviews in a democracy and interviews in a territory under control of a highly violent (putting it mildly) militant group. Editors looking at the value of the source should know this information. If you feel so strongly about this. Fine. Let's open my RSN post for community input. Let's work on this issue so we can bury the hatchet and cease with unfounded assertions on your side on how bad and one-sided my edits are so that I must be removed from the topic. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 20:32, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm glad to see that you have continued to put "bad faith" in nearly every post you make. I see no reason to continue this discussion, and your posts at RSN and my replies are already open to all scrutiny you can want. Fram (talk) 04:29, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Have I used "bad faith" in the wrong way? If you are so certain I poisoned the well. So much so, that you pronounce loudly your desire to block me. It makes perfect sense to have the RSN reviewed. It makes another sense when you respond the way you do. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 08:38, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Randolph County, Illinois#Randolph County Sheriff's Office (Illinois)[edit]

What do you think about my alternative? Bearian (talk) 16:19, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

BLP violation[edit]

I'm not an expert on said policy, but it seems you're suggesting Meir Pa'il participated-in or witnessed killings and is covering them up.[5] That's a far fetched claim for anyone with basic knowledge on the history of this living person. You should retract it. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 09:41, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

No. "I was there" are his words, from a source you provided. That he was with the IDF force at the time is also quite clear. The massacre is noted by the contemporary UN report. "Nobody was murdered. I was there. I don't know of any massacre."[6] Feel free to raise my "blp violation" at any noticeboard you feel necessary, or contact sa many admins as you want. I don't claim the things you are suggesting, I state the facts, which indicate that he is not a reliable source of criticism of acco's book, since he is clearly involved in the situation (by his own claims). That doesn't mean that he is right or wrong, only that presenting his criticism a coming from a historian is omitting the much more pertinent fact that it comes from a self-declared participant in whatever happened or didn't happen. Fram (talk) 09:55, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
I used the words Israeli Historian. You still need to amend your biased statement. Pa'il was also at Deir Yassin. Look it up. I won't raise this anywhere since it is not on article space. Also, it is an honest mistake on your part and I should probably just nudge you to learn about the subject matter so you can correct yourself. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 10:10, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
As usual, I fail to see any relevance (or even real logic) in your comments. "Pa'il was also at Deir Yassin". And? Did I state otherwise? Does it miraculously make my statements biased, wrong, BLP violations (and by the way, BLP applies to all namespaces, not just article space)? If you want to point out an error in my statement, then do so plainly and in clear language. But the crypric statements you so often make only help to disregard your posts completely. You make a claim I've made a honset mistake (which may be true), but don't indicate what that mistake was. The chance of me correcting it without knowing what the mistake is are pracically zero, of course. Fram (talk) 10:19, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
I don't need to explain[7] but I'll do it anyway. Pa'il is known as the opposite of "a coverup" (again, lookup Pa'il and Deir Yasson) but you don't know this basic note about him, which means you can smear him as one. Good show. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 21:53, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
I didn't smear anything or anyone, I noted a clear divide between his statements and the UN report (are you smearing them as liars?), and I especially noted the gap between how you presented his position and words, and how the source you used did. I don't know or care whether he is right or wrong, that is not our job to decide: but we should present the facts neutrally, while all you do is presented a very skewed picture. So, thanks for explaining what you meant, but I don't see an error or a BLP violation in my statements and will not change anything in them. Fram (talk) 12:41, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
The UN report. Who wrote it? Was his staff Israeli? Arab? Who were the sources of information? Do they have clear conflict of interest? If they were alive, would it be ok to smear them as having a clear POV to propagating lies if you don't have any sources (i.e. like Meir Pa'il)? Does the report use anything remotely close to Sacco's narrative version? Let me know. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 01:40, 5 October 2014 (UTC) clarify point in relation to BLP. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 08:08, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Let me know if you have any interesting thoughts to share. Until then, let's keep this discussion on the RSN board. Fram (talk) 12:16, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Arbcom clarification request[edit]

The request for clarification you initiated has been closed and archived without action here for the arbitration committee --S Philbrick(Talk) 13:14, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough, thanks. Fram (talk) 13:15, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Minor planets[edit]

Nicely done with the redirects.

Have you added all of those pages to your watchlist? OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 01:52, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Notification quirk[edit]

Hi, regarding this edit, I just thought I should point out that notifications only work when you link to someone's page and add your signature in the same edit. In particular, a notification is not generated if you add a link to a post with a preexisting signature without adding a new one. MANdARAX  XAЯAbИAM 08:28, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I also linked to 7+6=13 at the repoened DYk template, so in this case it shouldn't be a problem, but in general that is a rather annoying bug. Fram (talk) 08:30, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Seems unlikely to be a bug, but rather an intentional feature. "Quirk" is a good word since it covers both possibilities. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:01, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
• I agree that the above is not a bug, but the following does appear to be one:
• I was curious why your edit did not generate a notification for me. You linked to me and signed it in the same edit, so it should have worked. I checked the MediaWiki page which says "this feature only works for posts inside a section of a talk page". Again, it should have worked. I did some testing, and discovered that notifications are not generated if you create a section and mention a user in a subsection of that section, all in the same edit.
• Regarding the nomination for which you attempted to ping me.... I never looked at the article beyond adding "reportedly". While the current hook may be questionable, it was definitely worse before I added the "reportedly". MANdARAX  XAЯAbИAM 20:22, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks for letting me know, and yes, this really is a bug (the other is understandable, although I think it is fixable). As for the ping: I rather ping too many people than not enough, I don't want to discuss things behind people's backs. The ping doesn't mean that I blame anyone in particular or everyone equally for any problems. Fram (talk) 06:34, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Copying comments[edit]

Sorry. That was an inadvertent error. Thanks for catching that. 7&6=thirteen () 11:37, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

No problem, didn't seem malicious, but was rather confusing. Fram (talk) 11:54, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Diligence in fact checking[edit]

Baseball catcher.jpg DYK award of special merit
Great catch! 7&6=thirteen () 12:46, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Asian Football Icon[edit]

Well, it's completely verifiable, it's on AFC's website, however "Asian Football Icon" does not seems to be the right name.[1], reply expected. Ueutyi(talk) UTC-8 23:21, Oct 7th, 2014 — Preceding undated comment added 06:26, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

The article you link to describes him as an Asian football icon, but doesn't indicate at all that he has received some special or unique AFC trophy for 60 years AFC. He has been interviewed an an icon, as part of the 60th anniversary celebrations, but this doesn't support the article you created. Fram (talk) 07:10, 8 October 2014 (UTC)


Well I think I didn't do that I never went to this page and reverted your edits and I never left a message on your talk. I was propably launching igloo on my tab. It could had happened that I have touched wrong button because it is all finger touch. But I didn't do it deliberately. But thanks for letting me know these mistakes. I will surely exercise caution. Owais khursheed (talk) 11:39, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. We can always use enthusiastic editors, so let's hope things improve from here on! Fram (talk) 11:51, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Regarding Haryana I had seen this edit in the morning but I didn't do anything to it because it was correct. I am from Haryana and I know that Samsung headquarters are situated in Gurgaon. But it was again my mistake as I launched igloo the first article I entered was Haryana and the program showed me different options like pure vandalism. I could have pressed that button. But I will surely now exercise caution in tablets and finger touch mobiles. Owais khursheed (talk) 12:05, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I have never used igloo so I can't comment on how user-friendly or not it is. I use Twinkle, which for some tasks is very useful. Fram (talk) 12:12, 9 October 2014 (UTC)


Sir, I am confused with this Bijbehara Massacre. The article I think contradicts with itself. The article says that it is about Indian Army vs Kashmiri rebels meaning militants. Then it says that it was an unarmed protest against seige of a mosque and Indian army killed 48 people (protestors). And 12 BSF men accused of firing at innocent people. And the victims were given compensation money.If th the protestors were militants they would have never been given compensation. So that means they were not rebels or fighters because rebellion means armed war. I have got sources which are official newspaper's here which say the people were unarmed, then why does it is said on wikipedia that they were rebels and then contradicting with itself. Please let me know whether I am right or wrong

Thanks Night Fury (talk) 16:58, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

It is best to rasie such issues at the talk page of the article, or at the Wikiprojects that support the article (normally these are noted at top of the talk page). You can also tag the sections or sentences that are wrong, in your opinion, with "citation needed" or "dubious-dsicuss" tags. Or you can simply edit the article, change it, add the sources that support your version, and wait. If no one onjects or reverts, then all is fine. If you get reverted or someone otherwise objects, you discuss it on the talk page of the article. If that doesn't help, you can look for outside help, e.g. requesting a [[WP:30|third opinion). Fram (talk) 18:13, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. Night Fury (talk) 18:18, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Avoid comment on the contributor[edit]

This is ad hominem and unduly personal for such a discussion on such a page. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:35, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't like hypocrisy (and I don't mean you, Alanscottwalker). Fram (talk) 13:41, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
Well, each of us does not like many things, but there is little point in taking it out in ad hominem, and it is against policy - so as the advice says, 'step away from the keyboard' (or at least click to some other site), because no-one is required to type and press save. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:34, 11 October 2014 (UTC)


Can you tone it down a little? I agree with a great deal of what you say. But the message is in danger of being lost by people thinking "oh, it's just Fram going on again." You'll be more effective if you can dial it down a notch in terms of both quantity and intensity. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:19, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that there is such a quantity of nonsense and hypocrisy at the moment, making it hard to dial it down. I'll see what I can do. Fram (talk) 13:42, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Incomplete DYK nomination[edit]

Symbol question.svg Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Japanese people who conserve Article 9 at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; see step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 19:03, 11 October 2014 (UTC)


arb request — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bob the goodwin (talkcontribs) 01:02, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

23/24/26/28 Regiments[edit]

When you changed the disambig pages for the above, did you even check if there are any other regiments that could be added to the list?

Because there are at least 15 articles which could of went into the 24th Regiment disambig page and plenty for the other regiments.

All your edits will now be reverted wasting my time, when all you had to do was to type the regiment into the search bar and your answer if they were any other similarly numbered regiments would be there.

Gavbadger (talk) 15:19, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

So you created incomplete pages which weren't really of any help to the readers? Why didn't you create them correctly the first time, instead of creating "disambigs" that didn't disambiguate between anything at all? Fram (talk) 18:33, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
It was late at night and I ran out of time, leaving them 24 hours wouldn't of hurt anyone. Gavbadger (talk) 19:26, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Just like the redirects didn't hurt anyone. Having to click "undo" is not that much time, coming here to complain probably cost you a lot more... Fram (talk) 19:51, 14 October 2014 (UTC)


... so much for your note. It would be wise for you to close that thread entirely. As for comparing "paranoia" with "egomania", that's utterly inappropriate. You have, on one hand, an editor yelling "And don't even get me started on private emails, or is that something else we need to talk about?" (i.e. paranoia, or else please provide me with another word that describes the allusion of an unsubstantiated and unproven collusion to achieve an, as yet, undefined aim, or otherwise evidence to back up the allusion). On the other hand, you have an editor who is prepared to provide numerical evidence, quotes from other editors etc, to support a position which is claimed to be a "lie".

However, good attempt to calm it down, but you really do need to read the whole transcript before firing off warnings which clearly make it obvious you haven't. Oh, and if you block me for this (as your version of "personal attack" is quite clearly different from most of mine), good luck in the future, those of us (and include you in that) who are worried about quality at DYK, not just quantity, will have just shrunk. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:51, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Block you for this note here? That would be quite ridiculous indeed, I have no problem with someone telling me his opinion in an open manner. You were both clearly crossing a line, that one of you was a lot further gone or had less justification than the other may be true but is not really that important. You both needed to stop it (or seriously reduce the vitriol), or start a form of dispute resolution. If my note had that effect, then fine, even if it means that you are somewhat pissed off with me at the moment. I usually support your position, you don't need to sink to the level of that opponent to defend it (note, that's advice I have gotten a few times as well, it is easier to see the problems with other's behaviour than to adjust my own, I'm well aware of that situation...) Fram (talk) 18:39, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Who knows what happens around here, people are frequently blocked for bogus reasons. I disagree with you that my statement of his paranoia was "crossing a line". To allude to some kind of subversive email campaign of collusion with no evidence is a perfect example of the condition. On the other hand, to be accused of outright lying which has since been clearly disproved is a direct personal attack which should be retracted. In any case, as I suggested, close the discussion, and be assured there'll be no more from me to him ever again since I will never speak to someone who has lied about my posts, my motives, my claims. Cheers now. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:56, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
To be fair, I did ask you to close that thread down some days ago, it may have helped to have done that. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:49, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
True, but I hoped that a warning would be sufficient. Clearly not... Fram (talk) 09:52, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Well it didn't take long but now you're accused of being my "stooge" (I looked that up, just to check, it's "a subordinate used by another to do unpleasant routine work.") I'm not sure where I "used" you, but I'm sorry that the mud is being slung wider afield already. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:14, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

ANI and Bridge[edit]

Well, I composed a long and thoughtful thank you and explanation for your talk page - only to have my Internet connection decide to take a holiday. Typing on my phone just isn't as easy as it once was, so I'll have to be short.

We're on the same page here... I only went to ANI to get eyes on what looked in the moment like a serious issue that I did not have the ability to react to myself. I didn't want to waste the editor's time with creating more articles that won't pass BIO, and I wanted someone to take a shot at getting a response, where I didn't have the time at the moment to try. I didn't see that you were already trying to work with them, and I didn't mean to interrupt that.

The source for the articles is written (edited) by someone with the same name as the editor. They obviously need some guidance. I apologize for getting in the way of your work.

More when I get back online. Thank you, Tgeairn (talk) 09:20, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Nicolas.hammond's articles[edit]

I have added Category:Living people to his articles, and created talk pages with the {{WikiProject Biography}} on some I have also included {{WikiProject Contract bridge}}. I shall agree that his articles includes section, "Early Life", has nothing except "2BD". You have AWB, you can just track my contributions and remove from each, or I should do it? OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 10:47, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I'ld rather first wait until the editor is back (i he isn't chased away by now), to see what his reaction will be. If he populates the sections, there is no need to remove them first (they do no real harm obviously, although they shouldn't have been there in an ideal world). Fram (talk) 11:35, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Japanese people who conserve Article 9[edit]

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:14, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Case request declined[edit]

The arbitration committee declined the request for a case involving the DYK wheel warring. The arbitrators comments here may be helpful. For the arbitration committee, --S Philbrick(Talk) 14:32, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Talk:LGBT rights under international law[edit]

I see you recently deleted Talk:LGBT rights under international law as G8. However, that page was G8-exempt, as indicated in the page logs (and in the page text itself with {{G8-exempt}}, if I'm not mistaken). This is because the page contains the result of a wide-ranging RFC, with many incoming links from other discussions, and because the last time the page was deleted, a user used the opportunity to resume editing in violation of its decision. Could you please undo the deletion? —Psychonaut (talk) 10:17, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for leeting me know. I hadn't payed sufficient attention, so I have now restored it. Fram (talk) 11:16, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Bloom block[edit]

Hey Fram, I am not going to overturn it as I am not exactly uninvolved (Bloom and I have worked together frequently in the baseball wiki-project and elsewhere), but on the face of it, I am not sure I agree with your block ... after reading his comments, while they are heated, they seem to be within the tone of the discussion going on at that page, so I am not sure this block isn't a tad one-sided. I will leave it to another administrator to review his unblock request though ... I just wanted to chime in and ask for clarification as to whether there was something specific in his most recent edit that you deemed a personal attack, or the comment as a whole. Thanks in advance. Go Phightins! 10:28, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I had given both sides the same warning, a few days ago. Bloom was the only one (or the first one hypothetically) to not heed the warning and continue with similar comments. I could hardly have blocked both sides after only one of them didn't follow the warning. If there are any comments by The Rambling Man made at DYK after my warning which you feel are also in violation of the warning (or of our general NPA policy), feel free to point them out. If I agree, I'll block him as well. Otherwise, I don't believe it is correct to see this as a one-sided block. As for the specific comment, I think DangerousPanda's decline of his unblock request says it all. Comments like "shown that, time and time again, you're simply unable to tell the truth.", "It says a lot about a person's maturity when they stoop to this level" and so on are exactly in line with the comments preceding it, for which I specifically issued a warning (to both sides). Fram (talk) 11:24, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

List of NFL on CBS Schedules[edit]

Hi I looked in the AfD pages and couldn't find one for this article so I'll just comment here since you nominated it. Go ahead and delete the page please. I only created the page to get the schedules off of the main NFL on CBS page, I didn't make the schedules, an anonymous user did. I just deleted them from the main page and put them on a side article. But I am 100% in favor of just getting rid of them entirely. I would like to remove them from all of the sports related pages, as several of the MLB television articles have them too and they really clutter up the article. Does this mean I have a go-ahead to remove them then as well? - A ML-Talk-Cont-Count

Holocaust comparisons[edit]

Citing Minor planet lists[edit]

In response to List of minor planets: 402001–403000. To cite the lists in the List of minor planets, which collectively contains about 400,000 rows of content. All 400,000 are listed here . In the JPL Small-Body Database Browser, which could be found here: . Enter any number from 1 to 412,000 would lead to details about the minor object. For example: Ceres number is 1. Lightspeed2012 00:01, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, but I don't really get what this is a reply to. I am doing two things, changing stubs on unnamed minor (minor) planets to redirects, and (mostly in the future) merge the list of planet meanings to the lists of planets. Are you opposing one or the other, or just trying to help (for which, thank you)? I don't think I need the link to the JPL database for any of these two tasks, it usually is already present wherever needed. Fram (talk) 06:44, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 22[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Corné van Kessel, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Valkenburg. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:33, 22 October 2014 (UTC)


as for your damn threats wheres the blockl when AndyTheGrump goes and tells someone to ":fuck off and die". Where the block when the death of brown people is celebrated on ITN? Answer that!Lihaas (talk) 20:43, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Obviously I notice everything that goes on at Wikipedia and choose to ignore these things. Or not... Fram (talk) 21:06, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Small note[edit]

Bayartsetseg Altangerel[edit]

This article, which you deleted earlier today, has been re-created in more or less its original form. Can you zap it again? Thanks. -- Bikeroo (talk) 16:00, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Unsourced new article[edit]

Dear Fram, yesterday I created the article National Basketball Development League (Japan). You tagged it as unsourced and uncategorized. I have added a reference and a category this morning, so I have taken the liberty of removing the uncategorized tag. Given the very short length of the current articl, is the one reference sufficient to remove the tag for now? Thanks, AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 03:22, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you are free to remove the tag once you've added a source. Thanks! 07:26, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Thank you very much! AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 14:41, 29 October 2014 (UTC)


This outlandish outburst[9] surely must be worthy of a block, or at least a strong reprimand.--WaltCip (talk) 03:36, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Not really. Obviously, he shouldn't be making such edits, but it isn't offensive or reprehensible like the ones I warned him for. This one sounds like some late-night drunken "we lost" comment only. If it would become a habit, things might change of course. 07:25, 30 October 2014 (UTC)


Hello there, I note that a few weeks ago you cautioned this user User_talk:Owais_Khursheed#Reverts_and_vandalism regarding his poor attention when reverting & issuing warnings. I believe he is still making many mistakes, probably caused by careless use of automated tools, including restoring wp:copyvio content I had removed. Please educate this user in careful editing. best regards (talk) 11:03, 2 November 2014 (UTC) @Contributions/, I only reverted because I wanted to fix the issue by copy editing. I will now do it manually. I agree that I make some mistakes but only with igloo, I have never made an mistake with any other other semi automatic tool. Thanks Night Fury (talk) 11:45, 2 November 2014 (UTC)


Hi, I haven't been following the discussions about Flow lately. Is this still on? Is there still significant opposition? I'd be grateful if you could give me a very brief update. Thanks! --Randykitty (talk) 10:41, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

They have basically gone back to the drawing board, and nothing much is happening on this side at the moment. No significant new releases have happened for some months now (which is good). I don't follow the situation at mediawiki though, perhaps there is some movement there, but as far as enwiki is concerned, Flow is now in hibernation (we could rename it "Snow" perhaps). User:DannyH (WMF) or User:Quiddity (WMF) can probably correct me or add more info if needed. Fram (talk) 10:44, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Excellent, thanks! --Randykitty (talk) 10:55, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Google books[edit]

You may find it useful to use this Google books citation tool which I have only recently found out about. You can just copy/paste the citation it gives at the bottom, though I don't like its format much. However, the best thing is the reduced url which you can alter by adjusting the final digits if you need to refer to a different page number. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:20, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I hadn't seen that one yet. Thanks! Fram (talk) 12:13, 4 November 2014 (UTC)


Hey bitch ass, you deleted Final Realm III and called it a "hoax". That's not a hoax. My friends Ford Collier, Pierce Mattingly, Ryder Bates, and me (Kevin Garcia) have created this game. You have to at least provide your reasons for calling this a hoax, asshole. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DarkestKnight12 (talkcontribs) 22:06, 5 November 2014‎ (UTC)

That's a poetic nickname.--Yaksar (let's chat) 22:15, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Hello, Fram. Please check your email – you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template.

Request for undeletion[edit]

I'd previously declined the speedy on Clay County Sheriff's Office (Kentucky). I don't think political positions fall under A7, and many county-level offices meet the GNG; this appeared to be to be a valid stub. I'd looked at similar articles, and practice seems to be to redirect to the county itself if an existing version was insufficient. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 14:35, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I considered it as an organisation, not a political position (the articles on notable sheriff's offices handle about the organisation, with many employees and actions, not about the political position). I'll undelete and redirect instead, as there is no evidence of any notability for this office. I am sorely tempted to go through all the US "police office" by state lists, and remove all the countless redlinks to these sheriff offices, as they encourage people to create such articles... Fram (talk) 14:42, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Adriano in Siria[edit]

HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:04, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Request review of closure[edit]

I have mentioned you at Wikipedia talk:General sanctions/Units in the United Kingdom, asking you to reconsider your closure of the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive266#General sanctions for matters pertaining to units of measurement in Britain. I would be grateful if you could review your closure in the light of the points I made there. --Boson (talk) 18:28, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Please feel free to forget my request. I think my concerns were justified but, as has been pointed out, separate sanctions already apply at WP:MOSNUM and RGloucester has now accepted the reversion of his/her unauthorized change to the text. Especially given his/her reaction, any further action at WP:AN would probably generate much more heat than light. Sorry for bothering you! --Boson (talk) 05:41, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Bug 72191[edit]

I thought you'd be interested in knowing about bug 72191, which looks very similar to your idea #9 in this old list. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 01:08, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Colin Cheong[edit]

I know that PC2 is not widely accepted. However, edits had been infrequent before semi-protection. Lower to pending changes level-1 or "unprotected" PC2? --George Ho (talk) 01:36, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

No, I'll either unprotect it or let it stand as it is. I'll not apply PC to any articles until there is a new community consensus about it. Fram (talk) 08:08, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
PC1 or unprotection? --George Ho (talk) 08:12, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
I only use unprotect - semiprotect - full protect, so unprotect it would be. Fram (talk) 08:15, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
PC level-1 is less strict than PC2, you know that? I guess it doesn't matter; go ahead and unprotect it then. --George Ho (talk) 08:21, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Your block on Amss125 for the bus stop articles[edit]

Seems a bit harsh don't you think? You issued no warnings for such a block only to cease creating articles. All the articles he created, regardless of how notable, required a level of effort and time. Your block seems a bit WP:DONTBITE to me — BranStark (talk) 14:10, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

He didn't stop, but also didn't react in any way. All his articles are headed for deletion. What is more bitey, blocking him, or letting him continue and delete all his work anyway? I have no problem with the block being lifted once he starts communicating, but someone who doesn't interact at all and creates countless unwanted articles after it has been pointed out (by Prods, AfD, and my request to stop creating them) is only disruptive, even if it is with the best of intentions. Fram (talk) 14:18, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
I can see what you're saying but what if he didn't know what all these messages meant and that he just kept his attention in the article space? I still find it harsh that he was blocked for only trying to edit the project, I wouldn't say he was being disruptive per se. I know his articles will eventually get deleted but come on, even vandals get 4 warnings before being blocked, this guy got none — BranStark (talk) 14:46, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Most vandals get less than four warnings (excluding bot warnings). If he ddidn't yet know what all these messages meant, then how would you propose to get through to him? Fram (talk) 14:57, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
True, it's not always the case but generally vandals will receive at least some kind of warning before a block is imposed. It says in Wikipedia's own policy "Careful consideration may be required to differentiate between edits that are beneficial, detrimental but well-intentioned, and vandalizing. Mislabelling good-faith edits as vandalism can be considered harmful." Which category do you feel he fell under? He may have received multiple warnings regarding his articles being nominated for deletion but didn't receive a single warning about potentially receiving a block for his edits. The problem I have here is that he was treated below what you'd consider appropriate behavior when dealing with a vandal — BranStark (talk) 15:21, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
The category you helpfully put in bold ;-) The difference, at least to me, is that vandals (at least vandalism-only accounts) normally get an indef block, while Amss125 received a 24 hour block. Fram (talk) 15:31, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Hi Fram. You tagged me at ANI, but it was closed long before i saw it. I just wanted to say that, sock or not, it was a completely appropriate block. And yes it looks like a sock. Thank you for doing a great job. Rettetast (talk) 12:56, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Deletion review for Serhiy Bondarchuk(Heaven's Hundred)[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Serhiy Bondarchuk(Heaven's Hundred). 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. Anatoliy (Talk) 01:49, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Your question[edit]

I have answered your question. I wrote those castle articles at the beginning of 2013 (almost two years ago) and yes, they had significant issues. I later gave up on them because I didn't have the knowledge, and was unable to paraphrase appropriately. If you can dedicate some time to go and check the rest of the articles I wrote about castles, I'd be much appreciated. → Call me Hahc21 14:12, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Anthony Kumpen[edit]

Symbol question.svg Hello! Your submission of Anthony Kumpen at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 01:53, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Jean André[edit]

  • Grove Art Online: "André, Frère Jean"
  • BnF: "Jean André (1662-1753)" [10]
  • Art Tribune: "Jean André, called Frère André (1662-1753)" [11]
  • WorldCat: "André, Jean, -- 1662-1753" ... "named person: Jean André" [12]
  • Dictionary of Biographical Reference (1871): "André, Jean": [13]

Jheald (talk) 12:18, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, that's rather convincing. I seem to have been duped by frwiki (not reliable, I know, but one would guess that they would know their French painters) and the French government culture website[14] which lists him always as André Jean. But clearly I was wrong and shouldn't have reverted your move. Apologies and thanks for bringing it here! Fram (talk) 12:36, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
I've moved it back, but left a note on the talk page. Jheald (talk) 14:08, 27 November 2014 (UTC)


Hi Fram; I have mentioned you in passing in this AN/I thread. You are welcome to contribute or ignore it as you see fit. J Milburn (talk) 12:56, 27 November 2014 (UTC)