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.


How to write Simple English articles[edit]

Hi, thanks for responding on AN about this page. I explained there that it wasn't a cross-namespace redirect. Please undelete it so non-administrators can view its contents and history. —rybec 11:13, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

It was not a mainspace page here soft-redirecting to a mainspace page on some other wikimedia project like simple or wiktionary, but to another namespace on another wikiproject (Simply). So yes, I think that does qualify as a "cross-namespace redirect". By the way, from near the top of Wikipedia:soft redirect: "Soft redirects to non-English language editions of Wikipedia should be avoided because they will generally be unhelpful to English-language readers." This would apply to the Arabic ones you created.
Anyway, I have restored it and tagged it for deletion, it's not worth the hassle I get over it (yes, if these thousands of hits were humans, but creating redirects for bots or scripts? Really?) Fram (talk) 11:30, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library Survey[edit]

As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi t | c 15:52, 9 December 2013 (UTC)


WikiDefender Barnstar Hires.png The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
For the tireless way that you've been exposing technical problems and WMF developer incompetence at Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback. Thank you. — Scott talk 15:13, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. Though "tireless" is rapidly becoming "tired" :-) Fram (talk) 15:21, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Hello Fram, you can call me 74, if you like. "I don't think anyone else is doing this, perhaps because they still believe that the WMF handles this, or (more probably) because they can't be bothered with VE anymore at all. Congratulations!" Fram @ 14:32, 6 Dec. Well... cannot be bothered is one way to put it. Believe that the project cannot solve the issues that enWiki needed it for, because it is architected incorrectly? Cf Eric Corbett. Believe that the free-as-in-beer testing will only help polish the rough edges, but cannot magically turn a square app into something that will fit the circular enWiki hole? Cf myself.
  Getting over the rhetorical questions, and to a real actual question: why *are* you helping them test, and filing bugs, and pointing out problems? There are alternatives to taking what they give us, I'd be happy to expound at length, if you are slaving away doing the QA because you think there is no other option but to fix VizEd. Remember, how VizEd went from on-by-default to opt-out, because all the beta-testing by WSC and others was ignored. WP:FLOW is coming next, live and on-by-default by summer 2014 so the theoretical Gantt chart claims... and it depends 100% on VizEd.
  Why help make those two peas-in-a-pod succeed? Better to leave them, will all bugs "closed" and the project "ready to go live" by spring, ignore that huge cumulonimbus thundercloud-bank on the horizon, everything's fiiiinnneeee. Yes, the WMF will get a black eye, again, in June 2014. But what miracle could even conceivably prevent that from happening? Hope this helps; thanks for improving wikipedia. (talk) 22:57, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Imidoyl chloride[edit]

Just give us a day or so on this article. We are working on it and your tagging interferes with our efforts to add ----- content and links. --Smokefoot (talk) 12:32, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

How does my tagging interfere with this? It wasn't in the middle of any edits, you can continue editing (or restart editing) as much as you like, and you can remove the tag once sources have been added. If you want to create articles without being interrupted, then create them in your userspace (snadbox). And I hope that you are just one editor, because multiple editors using one account is not allowed. Fram (talk) 12:35, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
I realize that it is difficult to fathom how tagging - which must be a very satisfying activity - could interferes with new content creation, but it does. So give us a day or so, and we'll meet all the regulations,allowing you can focus on other tasks. Thanks --Smokefoot (talk) 12:41, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Which is an utter non-answer. Basically, you don't like your article being tagged. If you have a better reason, please provide it. Fram (talk) 12:43, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Kafziel arbitration case opened[edit]

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kafziel. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kafziel/Evidence. Please add your evidence by December 29, 2013, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kafziel/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 22:33, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Can you check if the current version is ok?[edit]

Hello Fram,

Can you check if the current version is ok?

The artist has been dead for so many years, the only information we are able to get is piece by piece on the internet. Sorry, I might have directly copied some information from other websites. Can you only removed the parts that you think have problem rather than deleting the whole page please?

Regards Leon — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leoncoolvip (talkcontribs) 22:17, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Current version seems to be OK. But no, I won't remove only the problematic parts, when I notice that some parts are copied, the whole page gets deleted, for a number of reasons (removing the copyright violation from the history of the page is one, the whole text becoming suspect is another; it's not because the copyvio isn't immediately spotted that the rest of the text is not a copyright violation from somewhere else). 08:19, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

kafziel typo[edit]

Hello Fram, I hesitated to directly correct this, since the presumed-typo is also a word. Can you clarify if you meant manner, or maybe, manned-the-battlements?  :-)

...working in the manned Wikipedia is supposed to work. ... at 08:10 [1]

Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kafziel/Evidence. Thanks for improving wikipedia. (talk) 22:36, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Ah, that should have been "manner", thanks for the note. Fram (talk) 08:06, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Sure, thanks for *posting* what you did. In fact, I'll be linking to it, as the best response to Hasteur's most recent accusations of how Kafziel-the-cowboy is the only one at fault.  :-)   Thanks for improving wikipedia, see you around. (talk) 13:46, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of JC I[edit]

Please don't delete the page I worked a long time to get the page up, I know I need to add more to like the album cover and review's. This was the bands first album and I am in the proses of putting together the whole catalog of albums. MDSanker 16:02, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

All together they have recorded 13 albums. MDSanker 16:15, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Special Barnstar Hires.png The Special Barnstar
I herewith award you the Special PRIVACY Barnstar for this bold and important effort to try ensuring Anonymity for Mr. Snowden and all of us. -- Trofobi (talk) 01:42, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I need some help.....[edit]

I set up the Stub Contest, which is running at present and Mitchazenia and I are marking entries as we go. The main aim was expanding stubs but I also added regrading stubs that have been expanded to the scoring as well...this has backfired somewhat in that folks are reclassifying thousands of articles that had been marked as stubs but have been since buffed (the idea is that this is a good way to clarify how many stubs there are).

Anyway, we need some help scoring, so if you had any spare time to do some wikignoming this would be great as I am busy with Xmas shopping and all sorts of crap IRL (also my house doesn't have aircon and it is stinking hot here right now....). E.g. Wizardman has re-rated over 1000 articles from stubs to start class or better. I've checked 225 of them so far - see Wikipedia:Stub Contest/Entries/Wizardman. What I've been doing is ticking them once checked and once completed, then putting the tally on the scoreboard. Can you see how it works? There are some issues with scoring between stub and start as there are some conflicting criteria on the assessment page, but I've generally been a bit lenient. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:55, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

i.e. if you have any time to even do a few I'd be insanely grateful.....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:58, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Category:320s disestablishments in Israel[edit]

Category:320s disestablishments in Israel, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 00:35, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Category:131 establishments in Israel[edit]

Category:131 establishments in Israel, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 00:35, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Category:130s establishments in Israel[edit]

Category:130s establishments in Israel, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 00:36, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Tintin (character)[edit]

Hello Fram, I come to respectfully ask if you would please review the Tintin (character) article that I have submitted for FA. You and Hiding are the only obvious choices to ask, as you once played a major hand in this and other Tintin articles. Thank-you for considering it; I would be most honoured if you could stop by. The review is here: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tintin (character)/archive1. Prhartcom (talk) 06:09, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Archiving of request for clarification[edit]

Your request for clarification has been archived to Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )#Request for clarification (December 2013).

For the Arbitration Committee,

--Bbb23 (talk) 04:28, 1 January 2014 (UTC)--

Godwin Family Tree listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]


An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Godwin Family Tree. Since you had some involvement with the Godwin Family Tree redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). John Vandenberg (chat) 14:05, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

List of best-selling books[edit]

Sorry, that was a typo (went too quickly)! Thanks for catching that, Fram.JustAMuggle (talk) 10:05, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

No problem, I make them all the time. Fram (talk) 11:21, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Jerrick Davis[edit]

why was this page deleted? it was unsourced but there is a 7 day grace period and the page had only been online for just over 1 day? --Jerurdav (talk) 18:33, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Unsourced biographies of living persons (BLPs) get a seven day grace period. Unsuorced negative BLPs get deleted on sight. The article accused a person of criminal activities without any source, so had to be deleted immediately. Fram (talk) 07:54, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
so would arrest documents be sufficient?-- (talk) 16:45, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
You would still need to show evidence of WP:NOTABILITY, and adhere to WP:BLPCRIME. Being arrested normally isn't enough to get mentioned, you need a conviction (apart from really high-profile individuals). Fram (talk) 07:31, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Ok well will the Page be restored without the arrest article until i recieve the documents from MR.Davis — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jerurdav (talkcontribs) 21:24, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Free, unsolicited advice[edit]

Lugnuts is clearly trolling and trying to derail the Hale thread cf. his "Waa-waa-waaa" comment, after which he immediately complained of personal attacks when his behavior was questioned. Given that we can't ban uncivil trolls if they have good wikilawyering skills and sport some FAstars on their on userpage, just ignore him. Someone not using his real name (talk) 22:16, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I ignored most of his comments, I hoped someone uninvolved (or someone disagreeing with me) would step in but that seems to much too ask nowadays. Thanks for the advice, worth every penny :-D Fram (talk) 07:53, 14 January 2014 (UTC)


Hi Fram, you may want to see Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#This_is_the_key_proposal_wording_DYK_needs_to_consider. Thanks, Matty.007 17:21, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Files missing description details[edit]

Dear uploader: The media files you uploaded as:

are missing a description and/or other details on their image description pages. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the images, and they will be more informative to readers.

If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 04:47, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Surveillance Awareness day proposal[edit]

You wrote: "Before this gets discussed here as if it is a thing that certainly will happen on Wikipedia, this should get a community discussion."

If you see anyone doing this, please let me know so I can disabuse them of that misconception. This only happens after we've asked permission and consensus from EVERYBODY. Maybe it gets consensus, maybe it don't; But we're making a serious departure from status quo-- everyone deserves to be made aware before this happens. --HectorMoffet (talk)

Thanks. People are discussing what to put on the page, voting on it, but this is putting the cart before the horse, and has a realistic chance of being a giant waste of time, if the consensus turns out to be "do nothing". Fram (talk) 11:08, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Well, I can see how it would look like a waste of time to someone who doesn't enjoy doing it. :) I've been learning a lot both about the subject (as we improve related articles) and learning about the views of other Wikipedians. In no way would it be a "failure" for this to result in a consensus for status quo. I don't have a manifesto I'm pushing, I don't know what the right answers are-- that's why I want feedback from the community. If we have a discussion and we learn that the WP community prefers status quo-- that's a fact worth learning! --HectorMoffet (talk) 09:26, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
No problem then :-) While I will be opposing any proposal to have a SAD (surveillance awareness day) main page, I have no problem with the work that has been done on any articles related to it. But it's only human that some people will feel that the amount of work they have done entitles them to a reward, i.e. that the day shoud proceed because a lot has been done already, which would be the wrong reason. It's reassuring that you don't feel that way though, so I'll just let you continue and wait for the RfC (or similar discussion). Fram (talk) 09:42, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 10#The Rfc section[edit]

Hi Fram. Because you participated in Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 10#The Rfc section in January 2013, you may be interested in Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure#Transclusion. Best, Cunard (talk) 01:00, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

about bruce makey![edit]

Bruce Mackeycompletely self-promoting! Look at the creator. Himself! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrew Eugene (talkcontribs) 10:37, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Bruce Mackey died in 1997. Have you even read the article? Fram (talk) 10:39, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

careless tag removing![edit]

tags are tagged to be paid attention! If you remove an inappropriate tag, please be kind enough to tag it with the proper one.

I can't read your mind to know what the proper tag would be. Often, it seems like no tags are needed at all. Fram (talk) 10:48, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you![edit]

I noticed my wrong tags after re-reading! Please support me with links that might help me to contribe. I'm new on this field although i write alot. Thank you again ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrew Eugene (talkcontribs) 10:58, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Barnstar of Diligence Hires.png The Barnstar of Diligence
Thank you for encouraging new users like me to get more educated on editing. You deserve better! Andrew Eugene 11:14, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! Fram (talk) 11:29, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 21[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lepus cornutus, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Jan Brueghel and John Johnston (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:17, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Book Covers[edit]

Comments? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:47, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I've undone his change and left a comment on his talk page. A new, hard-working but overenthusiastic editor sill learning a lot of things. Fram (talk) 07:58, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

MrX / Toddst[edit]

Can you notify Todd on his talk page? I have always considered that a needful step in a consensus-based unblock, letting the blocking admin know directly rather than via noticeboard etc. Thanks... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 09:30, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

No problem, will do now. Fram (talk) 09:47, 22 January 2014 (UTC)


Minor Barnstar.png The Minor Barnstar
why not BlueSalix (talk) 13:58, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. My fourth barnstar in less than two months, I must be doing something wrong here ;-) Fram (talk) 14:09, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Authority Control-VIAF -- is not a kind of source?[edit]

Your edit: Jarosław Mikołajewski ("This biography of a living person does not include any references or sources") --

- is Authority Control-VIAF not a kind of source? Jaceknow (talk) 22:30, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, you're right. Having inline sourcing would be better, but the article is not really unsourced as it is. Thanks for the note! Fram (talk) 07:29, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

Thanks for your archival fixes.

Turns out it was a minor issue with the coding which I've fixed.

Have a great day,

Cirt (talk) 14:56, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

No problem! Fram (talk) 15:01, 28 January 2014 (UTC)


Hi, Fram.

You recently applied the indefinite block on Crashsnake after discussion on WP:AN. Per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Crashsnake/Archive, an IP that was likely being used by him was blocked per WP:DUCK for a week. If the IP resumes editing after a week, do you have a recommendation for a course of action? BOZ (talk) 05:26, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

If the same IP resumes the same or similar behaviour? Longer blocks, a month to start. A note on Crashsnakes talk page as well (if it isn't there yet), since it is the kind of thing that will (negatively) influence his chances of an unblock of course. Apart from that, not much we can do. WP:RBI applies here. Fram (talk) 07:46, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Recent post[edit]

Your recent post is a good one. Please consider signing it. TitoDutta 14:37, 4 February 2014 (UTC)


I've left a note for you at Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback#Bugzilla. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 08:42, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Could not find the requested workflow.[edit]

I think you mentioned me at [2], not sure how to reply there, but glad to see some progress with Flow. It doesn't seem to work with WP:ECHO, it appears but ECHO gives the above error rather then link. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:52, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I transcluded the Wikiproject:Comics there to see what effect that that would have. One thing I didn't expect was that such a move would trigger echo notifications for all people on that page! I'll relate your experience at the Flow talk page. Sorry to have distrubed you, wasn't my intention ;-) Fram (talk) 12:54, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
No worries, but to build up on that bug report, it is stuck on the red one, it's not reseting to zero; I click on it, get the error, red one remains. Also, please be so kind and echo me if you reply here, it's not like I'd monitor this page (just came buck to add a note about echo being stuck). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:56, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
OK, User:Piotrus, I have posted your first adventures in Flowland at Wikipedia talk:Flow#Flow + Echo = Error?, I'll add your further remarks there as well. Fram (talk) 12:59, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
FWIW, I was pinged as well, because of you copying a discussion I was involved in at the Wikiproject:Comics talk page. And the same for me, my notifications cannot be reset, and when I click to view the 1 message, it gives me the same error: "Could not find the requested workflow". Fortdj33 (talk) 13:43, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Ditto for me; same issues as Fortdj33 describes. --Rosiestep (talk) 14:25, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the reports. I have left an apology at the comics project talk page, and have asked for a shutdown of Flow, considering how easy it is to disrupt things with it (every vandal can do the same with very little effort if they want to). Fram (talk) 14:36, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

February 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to List of French marquisates may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"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:
  • | ''[[[[Vilain XIIII|Vilain de Gand]]''

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:01, 5 February 2014 (UTC)


Original Barnstar.png The Original Barnstar
We may not agree about every matter on Wiki, but trust me when I say that I very much respect your tenacity and willingness to call a spade a spade (or a sack of shit a sack of shit, as the case may be). Good luck in your further endeavors battling incompetent careerists and such... Carrite (talk) 18:00, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! And likewise... I don't know how long the WMF will keep up the juggling of me, with Philippe beaudette thanking me here, and Erik Möller blocking me at MediaWiki at the same time, but it keeps life interesting. Fram (talk) 07:26, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Maybe Philippe should block you here, and Erik should thank you there? Just for variety. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 07:56, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
For all his faults, I think Philippe means well and his thanks was appreciated. A "thanks" from Erik would be not good enough to be used as cat litter. Fram (talk) 08:02, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protection request[edit]

Can you semi-protect Under My Skin (Avril Lavigne album) page, please? (talk) 15:04, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

If the problems start again, the page will probably be semi-protected or fully protected again. For the moment, let's give the unprotection a chance first. Fram (talk) 15:07, 7 February 2014 (UTC)


I'm rather concerned with the editing of this individual. View his edits in the past few days. He doesn't add any categories, location half the time, sources half the time or stubs tags ever, or doesn't format the sources properly most of time and they're typically tourist sites or blogs like in Leather wallpaper. I've just been frantically trying to categorize and clean up as many as possible. He needs to slow down and focus on improving the quality I think. Care to look into it? He means good faith, but he doesn't realize how much work he's creating for others with cleanup and categorization.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:16, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I have asked him a few times to preferably categorize his articles, or else to at least tag them as uncategorized. He didn't respond at all, so I took it to WP:AN, where there was no consensus that he did anything objectionable (to my surprise and that of some others). This basically tied my hands, and removed my interest in dealing with this. So I share your concerns completely, but there isn't much I can do, sadly. Fram (talk) 13:14, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of Zeon[edit]

I understand this article was deleted from being unsourced however, redirecting it to the page Gundam doesn't help at all, that page doesn't provide any insight into the various movements and the ideology, and Zeon is exclusive to the Universal Century timeline not, it doesn't exist in the other timelines. So would it be ok to include a section on Zeon in that article and redirect Zeon to Universal Century#Zeon instead of Gundam? --Primus1x (talk) 18:37, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I have no problem with this, but if you do this and get reverted by others, you'll need to discuss it with them. Fram (talk) 13:15, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Request for Help[edit]

Hi. I'm sorry to trouble you with this. I have recently contributed to a deletion debate that you initiated, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Italian geniuses. I was surprised to discover that one of the contributors to the debate seems somewhat similar to another, the creator of the article under discussion, both in shared interests and in verbal style. I have tried to draw people's attention to this without actually accusing the editors in question of both being the same person, but have nevertheless had to express my discomfort with this. Unfortunately, the only place I could think of to do this was in the deletion debate itself. I'm not a huge expert in Wikipedia - I've been an editor for a while, but usually I just do easy jobs like correcting spelling and grammar - but I'm pretty sure that somehow having two editors actually being the same person is unhelpful. I'm pretty sure the nasty word for this is "sockpuppet", but I feel bad saying it out loud (so to speak). However, I don't really like the possibility that the result of this debate may be unfairly affected.

I have two requests for help. First, please would you take a look at the deletion debate, and check my reasoning. If I've messed up, please correct me. I don't mind looking dumb in public if I've made a mistake, but I have done my best here. Second, do you happen to know what I should do if I am unhappy about possible "sockpuppets"? I really don't want to upset people by saying nasty things to them, but equally I do want to help people play fair. What's the best way to handle this, please?

Sorry to bother you with this, but I wasn't sure who else to ask, and when I saw on your user page that you're an Administrator I thought you'd be a good person to ask, especially since you initiated the deletion debate. Thanks in advance for your help.

RomanSpa (talk) 04:52, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

As the initiator of the debate, I'ld rather not get involved with any sockpuppet investigation around it, it easily comes across as "sour grapes", trying to win the debate by other means. You have raised your concerns at the debate, the closing admin will normally read and judge them, I'ld leave it at that. Fram (talk) 07:48, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
OK. Thank you. RomanSpa (talk) 11:43, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Please remove deletion[edit]

Hi, I would like to request that you remove the deletion for WikiProject:Sundays at Parmer. I created that page because I am a Wikipedian-in-Residence in New York and I am helping a gallery called Parmer in NY get set up to fill in this page with their project details. Please see this listing to verify that their project IS active. Wikipedia:Meetup/ArtAndFeminism#Brooklyn: PARMER I created the tab header and all and was planning on letting the gallery owner fill in that page- that is why it was pretty empty yesterday after I first created it. It took a lot of work to make and I would really appreciate if you would un-delete or else help me ensure that it doesn't get deleted again. I have a bunch of information on hand that I can use to populate the page in the meantime. Please let me know asap as Parmer will be hosting an event next weekend, and we want to be able to link to this page to give people more information. OR drohowa (talk) 14:34, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

No. Wrong namespace, wrong objective. I don't believe Wikipedia is the right place to let gallery owners maintain their own pages for their "private attendance only" evenings. I note that I deleted Wikiproject:Sundays at Parmer/Tab header, but that you also still have Wikipedia:Sundays at Parmer/Tab header anyway, so undeleting this would achieve absolutely nothing. I'm more tempted to delete the remainig pages than to restore the deleted ones. Fram (talk) 14:57, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Gallery owners are part of GLAM and there is nothing in any guidelines on Wikipedia that prevents people from making pages about their projects. Anyone is free to edit the content and articles they post as 'desired' on the WP page, but the gallery is in this woman's home and she has reasons for keeping it small, IE, it is going to be the same group of people meeting each week to edit... What namespace would you suggest if not a WikiProject? Perhaps I will make it a GLAM page since the G is for 'Gallery.' I accidentally made the Wikipedia:Sundays at Parmer/Tab header because I am fairly new to making Tab headers and originally mis-named it. Please reconsider un-deleting. OR drohowa (talk) 15:38, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
In user space? No, as long as they are not overtly promotional. In Wikipedia space? Projects need to have a wide enough focus. Why not simply make subpages of the ArtandFeminism project? Seems a lot more logical. Wikiproject is not a namespace though, Wikipedia is (Wikipedia:WikiProject XYZ). Fram (talk) 15:43, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Frans Claerhout[edit]

My mistake during the nomination of Frans Claerhout for deletion, sorry about that. I made some minor modifications and tagging of the article. --BiH (talk) 12:12, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

No problem. I was looking to delete the article as well, but it turns out that he is quite a notable painter and seems to well deserve an article, despite the dubious username of the article creator. Fram (talk) 12:30, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but perhaps he is just a fan of his work and decided to use his name as his/her username. I have messaged him/her to introduce some references in the article. --BiH (talk) 12:41, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, that was for another article I have monitored. However, this username is pretty strange. --BiH (talk) 12:44, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Disable mainspace cats in drafts namespace[edit]

Hi Fram,

Just wondering why you are disabling categories in Drafts when mediawikiwiki::Draft_namespace#Open_questions says this:

Should we remove draft categories from the category page listings, so that we can use article categories on drafts without them showing up?

Are the rules here different? I would appreciate a notification when you reply. Thanks in advance, XOttawahitech (talk) 16:12, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Ottawahitech, Article categories should only contain pages in the mainspace, nothing else. The amount of problems (spam, copyvio, ...) in the AfC and Draft namespace is much higher than in the main namespace (it's too prevalent there as well), and allowing Drafts to appear in mainspace (article) categories would only increase the chance of people using it to spam their companies and the like. Never mind things like BLP categories which can be quite sensitive. I have no idea of the policies and rules at mediawiki, and don't care about them either, mediawiki luckily doesn't decide enwiki policies, guidelines, or habits. Fram (talk) 07:42, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the prompt response and especially for notifying me. I agree it makes sense from your point of view, however it appears there is no consensus reached on this issue. Am I mistaken? XOttawahitech (talk) 16:48, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Good points from both of you. MediaWiki does, however, provide our software. Foundation devs made the new Drafts namespace for us via the MediaWiki software community, so that is where the central discussion should be: in my personal opinion. Fram, please point us to the Drafts categories discussion at as @Ottawahitech: and I have not found it on our own :( . --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 10:52, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
No, Mediawiki provides software only, they have no influence whatsoever on our policies wrt e.g. whether draft categories have a place in our mainspace categories or not. I'll try to find the policies that rule on this, but it seems only logical that pages which are not in the mainspace, are kept out of the mainspace categories (just like e.g. user pages are kept out of mainspace categories, and AfC pages are kept out of mainspace categories. Fram (talk) 07:37, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Being new, we have no explicit mention of the draft namespace. However, our policies seem easily adaptable and relevant. From Wikipedia:Categorization#User pages: "Similarly, user subpages that are draft versions of articles should be kept out of content categories, but are permitted in non-content or project categories, like Category:User essays. If you copy an article from mainspace to userspace and it already contains categories, remove them or comment them out. Restore the categories when you move the draft back into article space."(emphasis mine) The policy is clear that draft pages don't belong in mainspace categories, so I see no reason to make an exception for pages in the Draft namespace (what would be the purpose of a separate namespace if you let the pages appear among the "accepted" articles anyway?) Fram (talk) 07:43, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

That is a reasonable, though debatable, extension. There are benefits to categorising drafts in the new Drafts namespace, for example to attract collaborators, that don't apply to user subpages. If English Wikipedia hasn't that discussion already, it should do (though I think it should discuss it with other users of MediaWiki software, because if and when the software can separate the 2 namespaces from category listings, it could become quite powerful.) --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 14:59, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
The better way to attract collaborators seems to me putting the talk page of the draft into the correct Wikiproject pages, which should (in the best case) attract knowledgeable, interested people to the subject. But adding pages to Category:Living people, Category:1987 births, Category:Companies established in 2012 will not attract any collaborators. Fram (talk) 16:19, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

A cookie for you![edit]

Choco chip cookie.png k CloudCakes (talk) 16:35, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Deleted page[edit]

Hi Fram, how do I get back a page that you have deleted erroneously due to Unambiguous copyright infringement? I created this page because I am part of this organization and therefore we have the right to lift passages from an article we have published to put right into the Wikipage. I spent many hours constructing and retyping passages in the Wikipage and it would be very annoying to have to create it again.

Additionally, I read through the Wiki you have provided but I do not understand how we can "allow" Wikipedia to be able to use our copyright.

The page I am referring to is Please advise urgently.

Alee214 (talk) 01:21, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

One possible method is that the website of the NY women's bar association puts the text you want to use on their website with an applicable icense added to it; something like "The text of this website [or page, if you are specifically releasing one section] is available for modification and reuse under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License and the GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts)." (see the page I linked to at the top of my talk page for the exact text and circumstances). As it stands, we have the word of an anonymous user that they have the right to copy the text, but no evidence for this at all.
Once we have evidence that the text is no longer copyrighted, we can undelete the page you created, so that you don't have to type it all over again. Fram (talk) 07:26, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Fram, we have added the language onto the webpage that the information is taken from Can you now reactivate the original page? Alee214 (talk) 00:35, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! I have restored the page. It can still be challenged if someone is unhappy about the licensing for some reason, but normally it shouldn't be speedy deleted anymore. Fram (talk) 07:26, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Hi Fram! I hope this message finds you doing well. It appears that this editor is now communicating with both of us. I have deleted this article again due to the incompatible licensing statement as indicated on the organization's website. In essence, permission has only been authorized in accordance with CC-BY-NC-SA, i.e., non-commerical use only. I will continue to work with this editor to ensure the release of the material under an allowable license, after which, I will restore the content. If you have any questions or qualms, please feel free to drop me a line. Best regards, Cindy(talk) 18:59, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your note. I am note the most knowledgeable editor wrt which license is exactly required, that's why I usually point editors to the official pages (see the top of my talk page). I assumed that the one they picked was a compatible one, but didn't really research it. Thanks for taking care of this! Fram (talk) 07:24, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank You for your Insight[edit]

Dear Fram, Thank You for your insight. I've made some mistakes and apologize for that, but let me tell you that the mistakes are unknowingly and purely unintentional. Sometimes there's some conflicts with my internet connection and that gives this type of error. I don't run any bot, but try to welcome new users to Wikipedia. I believe that there should be no discrimination for welcoming new people on Wikipedia. I feel happy if a new user asks for help. It may not be convincing for you but it makes more valuable for me to help the new comers. I can't go and write on new users page that "Hey I want to help you". So I leave this welcome message and yes, I agree that there are some editing conflicts and I hope you understand them as frequent editing gives some results like that . Again thanks you for the information.I'm learning from my mistakes :) --Jnanaranjan Sahu (ଜ୍ଞାନ) talk 10:48, 20 February 2014 (UTC)


It is not a hoax. I have looked it up and found that it is real. --Old Time Music Fan (talk) 00:56, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in, but I was intrigued by OTMF's comment. I have checked, and found no good evidence for the existence of Bobinarsha Orton City. Please see my note on the article's talk page for more details. Thanks. RomanSpa (talk) 19:16, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Land of Green Ginger[edit]

Hi. Just to let you know that I have added categories to The Land of Green Ginger, and removed your "needs categories" template. Thank you. RomanSpa (talk) 18:22, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of Rise of the Lion[edit]

Page you deleted wasn't made by me. But I would like to make it. It is new album by Miss May I.[3],[4],[5],[6] Ping me. OccultZone (Talk) 11:48, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

@OccultZone: Feel free to recreate the page, I have no objection against a page on the subject (haven't researched it, but usually if the band is notable, their albums are notable), but the page I deleted had no indication of what it was about (I thought it was a band, not a record even), had no sources and barely any contents. A page which briefly explains what it is about, like you did here, would probably survive a bit longer ;-) Fram (talk) 12:04, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Done. OccultZone (Talk) 05:49, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Sony Xperia Tablet Z2 [edit]


An article that you have been involved in editing, Sony Xperia Tablet Z2 , has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Deoma12(Talk) 11:42, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Modifying comments[edit]

Why? The categories were already commented out? Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:38, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Ah, sloppy work on my part, I missed the "comment" tags around the cats. Normally I skip those, been careless in this case. Fram (talk) 07:28, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Les fleurs dédaignées[edit]

Can you explain a little more at the talk page for this article your rationale for the redirect and pulling the DYK? I had begun by using text from Hilda Rix Nicholas, with an opportunity for myself or others to develop the article further, and had already written a summary background para that wasn't straight from the Hilda Rix Nicholas article. The Rix nicholas article didn't contain the info about the gallery purchase. I'm not really getting the point of the exercise as an improvement of the encyclopedia. I have reinstated the article (and added one little bit for now), but there's nothing I can do about the hook being pulled. Also, is there any particular reason for not raising it at a talk page first? hamiltonstone (talk) 05:45, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) It was noted and agreed that this article was an "unattributed copy-and-paste" from another article. Hence it was of paramount importance that it should not be highlighted on the main page and why it was pulled so quickly. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:08, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. Fram (talk) 09:09, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
OK, how is it supposed to be attributed, and can someone point me to the relevant policy / guideline? hamiltonstone (talk) 11:56, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia contains all the necessary information! Fram (talk) 12:06, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Fram, appreciate that - I hadn't seen it before. Would this be relevant to this case: Wikipedia:Copying_within_Wikipedia#Where_attribution_is_not_needed? hamiltonstone (talk) 12:16, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Ah, you created the other as well? Then, while I still think pulling it from the main page was a good idea (otherwise you'ld get two credits and two main space spots for the same article twice, once as part of a whole, once separately), you are right that attribution is not necessary. It would still be better, in the future, if you indicated something like "text extracted from article X" in the edit summary, this would reduce the chance of people seeing copyright problems where non exist. I'll undo my redirect. Fram (talk) 12:41, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. Yes you are right that it would be better to do that in the edit summary and now that i've seen that editing guideline, i will try and remember that in future. I take your other point. I'm currently working up an expanded and modified version at my sandbox, so it will be more fully independent. Thanks. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:49, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for creating these articles, by the way, rmoving it from the main page doesn't mean that the effort is not wanted or appreciated (certainly know I now that it really is your effort, and not a rip-off from someone else). Not getting a DYK does not diminish the value of the article or the subject. Fram (talk) 12:52, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Categories on Draft[edit]

Hello there. I have a question regarding this edit you made. Your edit summary mentioned user space, which it isn't exactly, is it? So, for a draft that is meant to be in article namespace after its approval, should the categories indeed be "removed" in that sense? I'll leave it as you changed it in the mean time, I was just curious. :) Thanks! ~ twsx | talkcont | ~ 07:45, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

"Disable mainspace cats in userspace and drafts" was the edit summary, so I don't see why this isn't clear. Once a draft is approved and moved to the mainspace, the cats can and should be activated again; but until then, the page does not belong in mainspace categories. The same happens to pages in the AfC (articles for creation) namespace as well. Fram (talk) 08:25, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
No idea how I managed to miss the last part of the summary. Thanks for clearing it up. Cheers. ~ twsx | talkcont | ~ 09:12, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
No problem, thanks for asking! Fram (talk) 09:28, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Your Relationship with Old Time Music Fan[edit]

Hi. I see that your relationship with Old Time Music Fan continues to be difficult. This is to encourage you not to let this wind you up any further. I should start by saying that I'm making this comment because I have interacted with both of you positively in the past, and respect both of you for your various contributions to our great project. I'm copying this message to both your talk pages.

Both you and Old Time Music Fan have a lot to give to Wikipedia. You are different in terms of both wiki-experience, and (obviously) in temperament, but this is a good thing. We're all here because we want to make Wikipedia better, and this is more likely to happen if we have the widest possible range of editors. You both belong here, and, even though I'm not expecting either of you to like the other, I do hope you will each respect what the other has to offer. As an observer, I can easily see that Old Time Music Fan is full of a new editor's enthusiasm, whilst I can just as easily see that Fram is full of the long-standing editor's experience and professionalism. It is natural for there to be occasional clashes between you - each approaches problems differently from the other. That said, I do feel that neither of you is behaving as well as you might at present. Please remember that Wikipedia is based on civility. Right now neither of you is being particularly civil to the other, and this is not helping either of you, nor is it helping Wikipedia.

Fram: It seems to me that your main concern is to ensure that new articles, and edits to existing articles, should be as well-written and reliable as possible. You have noticed that Old Time Music Fan sometimes makes mistakes, and have suggested corrections. All this seems good to me, and I agree with you that we should always aim as high as possible. That said, it's worth remembering that (a) people do go back and improve the articles they've started, so we don't need perfection from the start; (b) everyone can improve our articles, so even if someone just starts an article and leaves it as a skeleton, other people will improve it over time; (c) articles belong to everyone, so if you see an error it's often as easy to correct it as to complain to the article's creator.

Where I feel you're making a mistake is in the way you have been communicating with Old Time Music Fan. You certainly haven't been rude to him, but in guiding someone it is usually better to embiggen than to belittle. As far as possible, please remember that bluntly written text can seem more abrasive than the same words spoken aloud.

Old Time Music Fan: As I've said above, I feel that Fram's concerns about the quality of your work are sometimes justified. I can see that sometimes you do good work - Teicha (Rietschen) is shaping up to be quite a good page (though there's still lots to do), and that's your doing - but I can also see that sometimes you are a bit slapdash in the articles you create - starting Entenbach (Englischer Garten) the way you did does seem rather careless. I believe that you'll improve in this area over time, and would be happy to help you with this.

However, you are making two mistakes that are not consistent with how Wikipedia works. First, please assume good faith. When Fram comments on your editing he has the best interests of the project at heart, and even if he phrases himself undiplomatically his motives are pure. This isn't personal for him, and it would be wise not to treat his comments as personally directed at you. Second, it is not civil to sulk. Threatening to leave because someone says something you dislike is not the mark of civil behaviour in our community; threatening to leave several times starts to look a bit silly.

I very much hope that both of you will be able to resolve your current personality clash: Wikipedia needs both of you. What I hope is that (a) Old Time Music Fan removes the "Retired" line from his user page, and continues to work on being more careful in his article creation activities; (b) Fram works on being a bit more tolerant when other people make mistakes, and phrases his requests for improvements more gently. It would also be nice if each of you could apologise for treading on the other's toes, but I'm not holding my breath on this one!

I suspect that in many ways the best thing for both of you would be to simply decide not to communicate directly for a few months. There are plenty of other editors who will identify and improve the articles you are working on and the problems you are trying to resolve. I'm prepared to act as an intermediary between you if you feel that would be useful. In any case, I hope you can both resolve matters between you as productively as possible. Please let me know if there is anything I can do to make things easier for either of you.

RomanSpa (talk) 19:40, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Errors can be corrected by others, if you start with some minimal standards. Blindly creating articles from lists, without checking whether the topic warrants an article or even exists, is way below these minimal standards. People make mistakes, that's not a problem, as long as they try to avoid these mistakes after they have been pointed out. Old Time Music Fan though, has done everything but: he denied the problem, recreated the incorrect article, tried to avoid scrutiny by suddenly getting autopatrolled, blamed the one that found the error, quit, quit, quit again, created more articles in the same vein, complained when these were deleted (by others), created yet more articles in the same vein... The only reason he isn't blocked is because he seems to mean well underneath all these problems, but that excuse won't protect him or her indefinitely. If people are not willing or able to improve enough to meet our minimal standards of what can be expected (like correctly matching a source and a fact, or the most basic fact checking of an edit you make), then they have no place here. Fram (talk) 07:55, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

I have tried to avoid these mistakes. --Old Time Music Fan (talk) 18:06, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Then try harder. This isn't a good start, and I have given Dr. Blofeld the same templates (and worse) often. Fram (talk) 06:42, 31 March 2014 (UTC)


April 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Bernatowicz 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:
  • indication of why this would be a notable subject, and the little that is here seems to be wrong (as far as I can tell, it is a Polish surname, not (originally) a German one, although there are

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 09:44, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Some really old news[edit]

Hi Fram. I happened to run into Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/EffK, by chance. I noted that the various socks discovered during arbitration weren't blocked (anymore), and that you had blocked the master. I'm going to file some paperwork, just for the sake of redundancy, and block all those socks. It seems pretty useless considering how old it is, but I hate having loose threads in the beautiful fabric of our project. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 14:47, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! A gift from fellow Wikipedians.[edit]

You have been selected to receive a merchandise giveaway. We last contacted you on April 3, 2014. Please send us a message if you would like to claim your shirt. --JMatthews (WMF) (talk) 07:27, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

WP:ARCA#Clarification request: Rich Farmbrough[edit]

Hi Fram, I've closed the Arbitration Enforcement request regarding Rich Farmbrough and referred it to the Arbitration Committee at WP:ARCA#Clarification request: Rich Farmbrough. Regards, Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 09:04, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Fram (talk) 09:48, 9 April 2014 (UTC)


Hey Fram, when you remove hooks from preps/queue, could you re-open the nomination and add it to Wikipedia:Did you know/Removed? Thanks, Nikkimaria (talk) 17:17, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I'll try to remember it! Fram (talk) 06:08, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Motion proposed in Clarification request: Rich Farmbrough[edit]

A motion has been proposed in Clarification request: Rich Farmbrough. For the Arbitration Committee, Rockfang (talk) 16:56, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Can't Prod[edit]

I can't PROD this article القيم الآسيوية, the option is not working, but it is a duplicate page. Original one is Asian values. OccultZone (Talk) 10:06, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Taken care of by another editor since. Thanks for letting me know about the problem! Fram (talk) 11:24, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Renewed semi-protection of my user talk page[edit]

Hello. BishonenSwe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is the latest sock of Finnedi (talk · contribs) (see this SPI). So would you please apply new semi-protection to my user talk page? The protection applied last night was only for 12 hours and has now expired. Thomas.W talk 13:10, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Now semi-protected for a week, let's hope things calm down after that! Fram (talk) 13:14, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. And please whack BryndisYngvadottir (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) if it hasn't already been done, because it's the next Finnedi sock (with a very predictable name...). Thomas.W talk 13:21, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Blocked two minutes before your post here by Favonian. Fram (talk) 13:29, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
I posted on his page first, by wasn't sure he was online. The name "BryndisYngvadottir" was a variation on both Yngvadottir's username and a handful of socks created last night, so there was no doubt whatsoever about it being him. Thomas.W talk 13:34, 15 April 2014 (UTC)