User talk:Fram

Template:Archive box collapsible

List of best-selling books

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

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

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

See [1] for my changes: I hardly changed the HP entry at all, two of the three companion books were already claimed to be included in that number. (Since the second source given (the only one claiming "more than" 400 million) mentions none of these explicitly, the figure obviously included either all or none of the companion books. I assumed the first, since the wording "HP books" includes the companion books IMO. But I can live with your interpretation as well.) And the so-called "dead link" is not dead for me. For Mao, I was referring to the two sources already given, both of which only mention published volumes, not sold volumes as is required in this list. Feel free to remove the "according to various sources" part if you consider it confusing, but please don't give printing figures as sales figures. (The same problem of "printed" vs. "sold" exists for the Hitler's Mein Kampf source I tagged.) I'm glad you agree that the Sturgeon entry was dubious. The Goosebumps sales number of "more than 300 million" instead of "300 million" is clearly reflected in the source already given. That's all of my edits. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 12:46, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

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

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

ANI discussion about temples

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

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

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

Cruise & Maritime Voyages

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

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

1st century historians

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

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

Concerning your renaming of "Outline of Knowledge" to "Outline of knowledge"

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

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

Thank you.

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

Interest in Bernard Cornwall

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

Courtesy note

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

Should have mentioned this ages ago

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

Rename request

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

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

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

Thank you.

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

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

Guilds of St. Luke

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

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

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

Move request: Schaerbeek Cemetery

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

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

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

2010 Canterbury earthquake

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

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

Occitan Republican Left

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