User talk:Fram

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.

Template:Archive box collapsible

Please retract this

Per your comment at AN/I:

"Yes, I was aware from the above section that you consider copyright violations as no problem at all...

I consider this defamatory to my reputation at Wikipedia and ask you to retract it. I have NEVER said that I "consider copyright violations as no problem at all." Best regards, — Tim /// Carrite (talk) 03:21, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

You never said it, but you act like it. "Richard has really been run over by a truck for no good reason" and other statements in that discussion quite clearly show your priorities. If you care about your reputation on Wikipedia, you shouldn't be making such statements. Fram (talk) 05:51, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I think that is pretty descriptive of his situation. The original investigation was based on a couple instances of "close paraphrase" of sources, which is quite subjective. The case brought against him on that basis has been Kafkaesque. Do try looking at the world through his eyes... Carrite (talk) 19:30, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

No thanks. Your misrepresentation of the original and of the current case, and his consistent very problematic behaviour and refusal to help in any way to solve this, don't give me any reason to look at the world through your or his eyes. Being blind to obvious problems is not something I want to experience firsthand. The more you comment, the less reason I see to retract my "defamatory" statement. Fram (talk) 19:33, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Your statement

Hey Fram. I noticed that your statement is around 820 words long, but only a maximun of 500 words are permitted in a statement for a case request (including responses). Therefore, I'd like to request you to reduce your statement to meet the 500-word limit before an arbitrator or one of the clerks (including me) reduce it by ourselves (which might remove information you may consider important).

From the Arbitration Committee, — ΛΧΣ²¹ 02:06, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

RAN

I've made a comment on Richard's page which you should look over. Please give the battleground mentality a break for just a day or two and give ANI a chance to work. Thanks, — Tim /// Carrite (talk) 16:59, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I'll let Richard reply on his talk page. So far, in all his replies, I haven't seen any indication that he understands that some of his edits were totally and clearly unacceptable, all he does is finding excuses as if "fair use" is the solution for everything. As for battleground mentality: if you had responded with this proposal to my first topic ban proposal, instead of the outright and hostile dismissal of it, we might have avoided this whole mess in the first place. When serious, recent errors are pointed out, it isn't really constructive to dismiss them as "mudslinging" and the like. Fram (talk) 17:48, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

My friend, the first thing at the AN/I circus is to stop a lynch mob from forming. If that involves throwing a few punches, that's what has to be done. Sorry that it was verbally rough, but it had to be that way. Full proposed remedy is now up at RAN talk page, your thoughts on further modifications would be welcomed here. I'd also like to ask you to co-nominate me at RFA if the ArbCom case moves forward, ironic though that may sound to you. I have no intention of "becoming an administrator," I'm simply going to need to be able to read deleted files to defend at the case there and plan on foreswearing the use of any power tools at the time of nomination, and promising to resign the moment the case is concluded. I hope it to be a pro forma request — assuming there is no other path to being able to read files, which I will investigate. Best, —Tim /// Carrite (talk) 19:02, 4 February 2013 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 19:04, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Comments up from a few of your CCI peers at the RAN page, please do add your comments. If you think this remedy, or something very similar to it, is something that can reach consensus at AN/I, you're the one guy with the brake lever at ArbCom, it would seem. If you want to go the route of a long case there to get to more or less the same place six weeks down the road — or an indef block of RAN, probably the only other foreseeable outcome — that of course is your other option. I'm out for now, think about it. Best, —Tim /// Carrite (talk) 23:11, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I'll let RAN reply first. Fram (talk) 06:00, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

That's reasonable. He should have replied yesterday, but a day to think on it is probably not too much to ask. I've asked Dennis Brown to co-nominate me at RFA and he agreed, pending investigation of my contribution history. I'd still very much like for you to be the co-nominator, if you can take that huge leap of faith about somebody who started a verbal fist fight with you just a few days ago. I'm going to proceed if another Arb weighs in in favor of acceptance before one votes to decline the case, since it's a 7 day vetting process and it seems thats the direction the secretive oracles are heading. Here's the DIFF of my message to him, feel free to get in touch with him and also to take a look at my own contribution history if you haven't already. I get the sense that the proposed remedy is more or less on target in the view of the CCI people who worked on the case but they want a full ArbCom investigation and decision with more enforcement clout. I think the quick and neat route to the same place beats public trial and near execution with all the nastiness that will accompany that, but that's really a matter of RAN getting on board hard and fast with the remedy and you pulling the ArbCom brake lever — neither of which seem to be happening this morning. Anyway, that's today's state of affairs. Best, —Tim //// Carrite (talk) 16:45, 5 February 2013 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 16:51, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I'll not co-nominate you, but I'll also not oppose you (well, not over this: if other things would get unearthed by others, I may oppose as well, but to oppose you over this would be rather biased). I don't believe that the way you handled this situation is how I would like an admin to behave (but then again, some people feel the same about me, so it's just my opinion, not some official condemnation). As for the RAN suggestions, it depends a lot on how he reacts: so far, none of his reactions have been even slightly reassuring, he just doesn't see the problem at all, which doesn't give me the impression that the proposed solutions would really solve anything. Take File:Irénée du Pont I.jpg: if Richard Arthur Norton thinks that this falls under his allowed file uploads section 3, "Images published in books, magazines, and newspapers in the United States of America prior to 1923.", then we are heading for a swift block (or another endless discussion) anyway. An ArbCom case, assuming that they reach conclusions comparable to mine, may perhaps send a much stronger message, even if the result is the same. Fram (talk) 18:18, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

No worries on the non-co-nom. I'm just home from work, will check on the RAN page now. Agreed that he should have been quick to the table with head bowed. Best, Carrite (talk) 03:00, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Evidence phase

I'll most probably be offline from this Friday (8 February) until next Saturday or Sunday (17 February). This is rather inconvenient, but can't be helped now. I'll start compiling my evidence now; in the case that the Arbcom request turns into a full case during my absence, I would be obliged if any talk page watcher (carrite or anyone else) would post the evidence for me. I don't think it would be useful if the case starts e.g. on Friday, but my evidence is presented more than a week later. RAN (and others) must have a fair chance to study the evidence and reply to it.

In the case that the request is denied, I'll delete the evidence subpage after my return of course.

I'll post a link to the subpage here soon. Fram (talk) 10:14, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

The page can be found at User:Fram/RAN evidence and is currently 950 words long. If the case gets opened tonight or early tomorrow, I'll obviously post this myself. Fram (talk) 13:31, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I promise to make sure that somebody gets it up for you if a case starts during this interval. Best, —Tim /// Carrite (talk) 20:09, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I'll post it if necessary. Hut 8.5 09:35, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Hut. Carrite (talk) 18:07, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Uncivil comments

Saying, "Of course, you have long ceased to be a productive editor, but why let reality get in the way of rhetorics?" is uncivil and uncalled for in any circumstance, not to mention the other comments. If you don't like what an editor is doing, don't lower your self to their level. You are an Admin, you should behaving alot better. Do not restore the uncivil comment. Bgwhite (talk) 09:29, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I have posted some policy reminders on your user talk page. Next time, perhaps first discuss things instead of blindly defending the trolls (since that is what Kumioko has become effectively). Fram (talk) 09:32, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

"Effectively" isn't good enough. Just as a reminder for you, the policy WP:NPA says "Derogatory comments about other contributors may be removed by any editor", and "I miss my weekly dose of Kumioko-getting-laughed-out-of-the-room" certainly meets "derogatory" - so your rude edit summaries were incorrect as well. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 09:55, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, whatever. Nice to see you all have gotten your priorities in the right order. Fram (talk) 09:58, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I also believe there are better approaches to the subject. Wikipedia:Don't feed the trolls. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:46, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, at least you take the context into account. Could I have handled it better? Probably. Could Bgwhite have handled it better? Equally probably. Is Rschen7754 out of line with his edit summary suppression? Certainly. Fram (talk) 10:53, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

ANI notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Bgwhite (talk) 09:58, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) arbitration case opened

An arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ). Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/Evidence. Please add your evidence by February 23, 2013, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, — ΛΧΣ²¹ 03:15, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I've posted your evidence here. Hut 8.5 11:15, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

RAN case at ArbCom

Hi again. A brief heads-up that I've dropped your name in my evidence article in the Richard Arthur Norton case at ArbCom. While this document is not yet final, I expect it will remain. LINK. Thank you for your work on the case. best, —Tim /// Carrite (talk) 21:33, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

RAN Arcom case

Fram, in your evidence about RAN, you state

As far as I am aware, RAN has never tried to find any copyright problems; only when others point out the violations does he try to maintain the information, or he simply ignores the reports.

While I'm unaware of any pro-active work he has done, I did point out some problems, and he attempted to address them. My recollection is that this response wasn't uniform, with less than enthusiastic help in some cases, but I do recall (without looking it up) that he did respond. I haven't decided whether I will be submitting evidence in this case, but if I do, I'll make this point. It might be cleaner if you were to moderate your wording, but if you prefer not to, that's your call. Diffs on request.

BTW, while I know your name, we haven't interacted all that much. I want to emphasize that my point is not intended as a criticism of you, there's too much material to review, and I don't fault anyone for missing my meagre contributions. Indeed, my goal isn't to cast aspersions on your conclusions, it is to avoid watering down your evidence by someone pointing out some technical shortcomings. Cases often get convoluted, and I'd hate to have the complication of thrashing this out on the evidence page if you were willing to a slightly modified statement. I'm frankly not enough of an arb process expert to know whether such a modification by you is permitted, so if you'd prefer to leave your statement as is, I'll understand.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 22:49, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Fram is going to be away until the end of next week (see above). Hut 8.5 23:06, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing me to that.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 01:02, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I'll take a look. I did mean "proactivley", so I'll probably modify my statement accordingly, but I have to catch up with the case first so my comment may no longer be applicable after that (perhaps he did a lot proactively as well that I missed, and I'll have to take that into account as well). Anyway, thanks for the note, I'll go and have a look now. Fram (talk) 07:58, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

After looking at the case some more, I'll keep my comment until I see some evidence that it is incorrect. I note that other people involved in the CCIs have the same impression as I had. Fram (talk) 11:14, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Notification of discussion

A few months ago, you participated in a discussion on Wikipedia talk:Did you know about Gibraltar-related DYKs on the Main Page. I am proposing that the temporary restrictions on such DYKs, which were imposed in September 2012, should be lifted and have set out a case for doing so at Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Gibraltar-related DYKs. If you have a view on this, please comment at that page. Prioryman (talk) 21:46, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

deleting valid articles

Please restore the article on Flemish which you deleted. You can move it to whichever name you like, but please don't delete others' work unless you have an actual reason. As it is, we have no article on the Flemish language, which is rather ridiculous. Also, need to change the hat note to link to the language article. — kwami (talk) 09:07, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

The actual reason was that you made an undiscussed move, and then put a new article at the old title to prevent a move back. I'll see what I can do to move the deleted text to a new place. Fram (talk) 09:17, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

You need to read up on WP:good faith. I didn't create the article to prevent a move back, I created the article because we needed the article. I had a bot go over close to 8,000 ISO language names to verify that they link to the correct language, and there were a few dozen that were missing. Flemish was one. Flemish Dutch is ISO [nld]; Flemish Flemish is ISO [vlm] (I think). Our article was already quite clear that the linguistic and common uses of "Flemish" differed, and no-one had a problem with that, nor did anyone have a problem with creating an article on actual Flemish. — kwami (talk) 09:22, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I've added two sources for the linguistic use of Flemish for the language of the whole territory of Flanders. Perhaps you can provide some for your point of view as well. Fram (talk) 09:24, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

That's the same POV! East & West Flemish are the dialects spoken in Flanders. Also, a dictionary is not a WP:RS. — kwami (talk) 09:26, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

That dictionary was used as a source in your version of the article already, so... And I don't understand what "that's the same POV!" means? Flanders is larger than East plus West Flanders combined, since at least 1830. Fram (talk) 09:28, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

The other page is now at East- and West-Flemish (language) (and I have no special attachment to that title, no objection to you moving it as long as it isn't to Flemish, Flamish (language), Flemish language or any variation thereof). Fram (talk) 09:54, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Would you stop making content forks? It's getting quite annoying. And "East and West Flemish" are two dialects, not four. Shall we change the number of dialects of the Flemish article to twelve to be in line with the Dutch article? And your opinion is not a reference – as an admin you should know that – so please don't delete referenced material you disagree with unless your have better refs to support your POV. — kwami (talk) 11:04, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Also, East and West Flemish is not called "East and West Flemish". It's simply called "Flemish". We don't need to change the text to match your funky title. — kwami (talk) 11:14, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

By whom? Flemish is nowadays usually used to describe the common language used in the whole of Flanders, not the medieval county. "Vlomsch" is sometimes used for Westvlaams. Grouping East Flemish and West Flemish together in one group, with the exclusion of others, is rarely done in any current context. Fram (talk) 11:17, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Um, you have now totally lost me. I have not created any articles, you have created an extra article for no apparent good reason (a POV fork for a basically unsupported POV). Your refs don't support your POV at all so far. Fram (talk) 11:07, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

You keep editing the articles to be duplicates of each other. That's creating content forks. The Flemish article originally had a disambiguation section for the lead. That was not acceptable, so I split the two concepts of "Flemish" into two articles. I have several refs that state that "Flemish" for Belgian Dutch is technically incorrect, or that use the term for the language/dialect of Flanders. Thus the two articles: Flemish as Belgian Dutch (ISO code [ndl]), and Flemish as the language of Flanders (ISO code [vls]). We have plenty of other cases where two languages have the same name. That doesn't mean we have to conflate them.

Take a look at the Ethnologue map for the ISO definitions: Most of Germanic Belgium speaks "Dutch", but the west speaks "Vlaams" and the east speaks "Limburgish". — kwami (talk) 11:14, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

No, I don't. By the way, have you checked the ethnologue link for vls: it is about what you call Belgian Dutch, not about E and W Flemish. You are aware that your use of "Flanders" to describe solely E and W Flanders is very archaic? [1]

Actually, no, it's not about that. Or only partially: it looks as though the two conceptions have been conflated in the Belgium part of the entry. But look at the map for the extent of [vls], and it's Western Flemish. Or look at the description under the Netherlands part of the entry, and again it's not Belgian. And then under the Dutch [nld] entry, "Flemish" is given as an alt name for Dutch, and Dutch as given as the language of 4,620,000 people in Belgium (1990), with Brabants and Oost-Vlaams given as dialects, and distinguished from "(West) Vlaams". So ISO "Vlaams" isn't Flemish in the broad sense. — kwami (talk) 21:53, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Flemish is used confusingly both for West Flemish and for northern Belgium Flemish. It is never (or hardly ever at most) used for East and West Flemish together though. Fram (talk) 21:56, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

That may be so. That POV is inherited from the pre-split version of the article, where AFAICT it wasn't contested. — kwami (talk) 21:59, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I hadn't payed close attention to that article until your move and split, so whatever the outcome of all this, it will almost certainly have led to a better (and better sourced) article, compared to the older quite poor one. Fram (talk) 22:02, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Daniel Bellamy, the younger

I'm not going to remove the volume abbreviations but you can fix those if you want.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 11:53, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Mmmmmmm♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 22:29, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) case evidence phase closing

This is a reminder to all parties as well as to those who have submitted evidence, that the evidence phase of this case closes at 00:00 UTC on 23 February 2013, which is in just over seven hours from now. For the Arbitration Committee --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 16:46, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Questions posted at arbitration case for all parties

Hello, Fram. I have posted a series of questions at the Workshop page for all parties to respond to at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/Workshop#Questions from Hersfold to all parties. Please respond at your earliest convenience; you are also invited to post proposals for the case's final decision on the Workshop page using the templates provided (guide to workshop pages, in case you need it). Thank you for your participation in the case; as a reminder, the Workshop page will close in one week's time on March 2nd, and the Committee should begin voting on the proposed decision shortly thereafter. If you have any questions about the case, please let me or a clerk know. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 14:38, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Fram. You have new messages at Talk:Will.i.am.
Message added 17:56, 24 February 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

WilliamH (talk) 17:56, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Fram. You have new messages at Dr. Blofeld's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

User:Deacon of Pndapetzim/oblivion

Hi. Would you be willing to do the history splitting on User:Deacon of Pndapetzim/oblivion? There are only 100 revisions in the date range relevant to the user talk page. Most can be distinguished by edit summary alone (available in the undeletion interface), and page size identifies the remaining few. I suggest taking a copy or screenshot of the history prior to the first G6 deletion, as the undeletion interface has fewer fields visible. I estimate that it will take up to ten minutes. I'm asking you because you undeleted it. Thanks. Flatscan (talk) 05:40, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

For completeness, there are also 2 minor revisions associated with the page moves. They are redundant and unimportant. Flatscan (talk) 05:11, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

How do you want it? One page "oblivion" and one page "talk archive"? Or only undelete the talk page and have the rest deleted again? Fram (talk) 08:28, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Just the talk page. User talk:Deacon of Pndapetzim/Archive XXII fits DoP's old numbering scheme with User:Deacon of Pndapetzim/oblivion/Archive XXI, or you could put them somewhere less obscure. I'm fine with leaving the rest of oblivion deleted, as CSD U1 covers all of it. Thanks a lot. Flatscan (talk) 05:11, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I'll take a look later today. Fram (talk) 08:30, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Done. I also restored one older edit which seemed to be a talk page edit as well. User talk:Deacon of Pndapetzim/Archive XXII. Fram (talk) 10:10, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I think it's a 2007 cut and paste archive that User:Edokter edited for some reason (usually updating signatures after a username change, in my experience). It's not important. Flatscan (talk) 05:38, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Palais Leuchtenberg

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 16:04, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Re: your comment on Polandball at JW's talk page

Hi Fram. Just to let you know, I checked that Polish AFD over, and with the help of google translate, discovered it was shut on the 20th of January as having no overall consensus - hence, it was AFD'd, and didn't get deleted. Just thought i'd let you know. BTW - I replied to your comment at Jimbo's page also. Regards, Fish^Barking? 21:57, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) case

This is a courtesy note to all parties that the proposed decision has been posted. For the Arbitration Committee Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 09:12, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Aldeneik Abbey

Hi, can you proof this from French, I'll source it afterwards.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 12:45, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Mmm we already have Aldeneik and Church of Saint Anne, Aldeneik. I think we'd probably be best merging a few. What do you think?♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 12:51, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I have copyedited the article a bit. I think it would be best to keep Aldeneik separately, and to merge the Abbey article and the Chruch article (and perhaps the two articles on the two saints as well?). Fram (talk) 08:22, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Friendly notification regarding this week's Signpost

Hello. This is an automated message to tell you that, as it stands, you are set to be mentioned in this week's Arbitration Report (link). The report aims to inform readers of The Signpost about the proceedings of the Arbitration Committee in a non-partisan manner. Please review the draft article, and, if you have any concerns, feel free to leave them on the talkpage (transcluded in the Comments section directly below the main body of text), where they will be read by a member of the editorial team. Please only edit the article yourself in the case of grievous factual errors (making sure to note such changes in the comments section). Thank you. On behalf of The Signpost's editorial team, LivingBot (talk) 00:00, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

I left a more detailed comment at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/Proposed decision#General thanks to the parties & participants, but I wanted to thank you and the other parties to the arbitration case for your excellent conduct throughout the process. You should also know that the case is due to close in a few hours (about midnight UTC at the earliest). Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 17:21, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) closed

An arbitration case regarding Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

1. Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) is strongly admonished for creating multiple copyright violations throughout Wikipedia. He is warned that continued violations of this nature are likely to result in an indefinite block from editing.
2. The Committee acknowledges that Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )'s community-placed topic ban on article creations was a valid and apparently successful attempt, recognizes that this sanction has been violated a number of times, and determines that the topic ban will remain in place and is assumed under the Arbitration Committee's authority.
3. Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) is indefinitely prohibited from uploading images or other media files to the English Wikipedia. Should Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) upload a copyright-violating image to the Wikimedia Commons and subsequently make use of that image on the English Wikipedia in any namespace, he may be subject to Arbitration Enforcement.
4. Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) is prohibited from linking as a reference any external site to which he has contributed. He may provide such links on the talk pages of articles, so they may be reviewed by other editors for acceptance according to applicable Wikipedia guidelines and policies.

For the Arbitration Committee, — ΛΧΣ²¹ 00:50, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Adriaen van Gaesbeeck

Thanks for your find regarding the incorrect teacher-pupil relationship with Slingelandt! Nice work - did you email the RKD? If not, I will do so. Jane (talk) 08:20, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I have sent them an email. Thanks for the post and the offer though. Fram (talk) 14:48, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Category:1780s fashion

Category:1780s fashion, 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. Mabalu (talk) 15:40, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Copyright issues

Hi Fram.

Hope all is well with you. A recent Wikipediocracy thread has brought to light a close paraphrase copyright violation by User:Bill_william_compton in the article started by him Love and Mary. I have blanked the offending section, which is an extremely close paraphrase of THIS from the NY Times. A very cursory snort through this user's article starts revealed a flagrant copy-and-paste copyvio in Sanam Singh from THIS from College Tennis Online. I have blanked the offending section as well and warned the user about copyvios. I have a hunch this might end up at CCI. In any event, I notice that this user has Autoconfirmed status for new starts and would like to ask you as an administrator to revoke this status on the basis of multiple copyright violations. If there is another procedure to follow to have this status revoked, please advise.

Best regards, —Tim //// Carrite (talk) 04:35, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm up to four very flagrant copyvios from BWC in about 8 new starts examined, see the BWC talk page for links. I'll leave it to you whether this is a job for CCI or whether another scenario should be followed. Best regards. —Tim /// Carrite (talk) 05:31, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for this report. As far as I can tell, I don't have the ability to revoke "autoreviewed", as this is a purely automatic and mathematical right. I have revoked the autopatrolled and reviewer rights, so that at least his new creations appear in the unpatrolled new pages log. I'll take a look at what needs to be done further, a CCI may well be necessary. Fram (talk) 07:47, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Yes, "autopatrolled" is what needed to be pulled, so that all subsequent new starts had to be seen by at least one other pair of eyes. best, —Tim. /// Carrite (talk) 15:41, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

WP:COIN

Hello! An IP has posted at COIN and mentioned another IP user that you blocked for evading another block. I'm not entirely sure what they're looking for but it looks as though they're disgruntled over a competition that took place on WP where the winner was awarded a trip. I'm a bit concerned about such a competition (where editors are making a game out of the system) not only being held, but being held entirely on WP. I thought you may be able to shed some light on the situation. OlYeller21^Talktome 19:23, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Please stop

Hi Fram - while I know you are in good faith going about retagging and reverting pages that are hypothetically associated with a specific user, there is very good reason to believe that many of those accounts are not associated with him at all and (in some cases) were created specifically to harass the user whose primary account you are linking. The tags do not serve a useful purpose in this case. I'd like to ask you to consider reverting yourself; at minimum, please do not continue any further. Thanks. Risker (talk) 19:55, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to revert those that are not him. Most (probably all) the ones I did tag were clearly him, but if I did add some JtV ones as well, they can obviously be removed. I specifically left out ones like Pedilicious, where it was unclear whether they were him or not, and such an association, if incorrect, would have been over the top. But most of the others are clearly him (often through checkuser even). I'll not revert this, and I don't understand why people keep supporting such a long-term socker and often disruptive editor. Fram (talk) 07:36, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I note that I mistagged Duns Scotus The Blessed who was a JtV sock, not a PD sock. Any other ones? You claim "many", but I seriously doubt that that is true (of the ones I tagged, I mean; I know that there have been others). I'll not revert because he continues socking; I was not interested to keep a track record just for the sake of it, but in this case, we have had enough unban / unblock discussions based on "but he hasn't socked anymore" to make it necessary to keep track of what has been going on (and this is probably only the tip of the iceberg). Fram (talk) 08:01, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Fram. You have new messages at Bill william compton's talk page.
Message added 04:37, 20 March 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

— Bill william compton^Talk 04:37, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Nicolas-Auguste Galimard

Hi Fram, Hoping you are well, I'm stopping by to let you know that on your recent article about the french artist Nicolas-Auguste Galimard I have expanded it somewhat with other research I have found, along with adding two references and then dividing with section titles.

If/when you get a chance would you mind popping back over and reviewing what I done to see how it sits with you (as the author) and what you know about him.

Anyway, thank you for taking the time to create this (and other) pages. Wishing you a good day and much happy wiki-ing,

Kindest Regards, (MrNiceGuy1113 (talk) 06:18, 22 March 2013 (UTC))

Thanks! Nice work, the article is much improved. I made some stylistic changes: section titles should not be capitalized (apart from the first word), and refs should follow the full stop at the end of a sentence instead of preceding it. These things aren't important though, the contents matter, so thanks again for adding those! Fram (talk) 07:51, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Peter Damian

Hello, Fram. Elen of the Roads courtesy blanked and protected User:Peter Damian in June 2011, acting as an arbitrator and per a request made to arbcom by the user.[2][3] Why have you reverted her actions? Bishonen | talk 11:22, 23 March 2013 (UTC).