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.

GA delistings

Fram, I was wondering whether you'd mind if I regularized the Talk:Kadmat Island and Talk:Kaunakes pages by putting your delisting comments onto a formal individual GA reassessment for each. This would also allow an Article History section to be started, which will link to the listing and delisting reviews. As it stands now, it's a bit of a mess. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:37, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

No problem, I'm not very good with the more formal aspects of these. Fram (talk) 06:35, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Great, thanks. I'll also take care of Talk:Sacred Jackfruit Tree while I'm at it. Glad you're keeping an eye out for these. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:08, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Thomas Detry

On 3 September 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Thomas Detry, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that golfer Thomas Detry broke the Challenge Tour record for largest winning margin with his 12-shot win at the 2016 Bridgestone Challenge? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Thomas Detry. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Thomas Detry), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 00:01, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Arbitration Case opened

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/The Rambling Man.

Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man/Evidence.

Please add your evidence by September 17, 2016, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.

For non-parties who wish to opt out of further notifications for this case please remove yourself from the list held here

For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:04, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Time sink

Hey Fram. Thanks, just a heads-up, you will find that attempting to discuss things with certain users will rapidly become a timesink as the last word principle seems to apply. You're better off just keeping the quality of the main page up. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:36, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

True, but I try to get my reply in at least once. After that, it depends on the quality of the responses I get. I'm discussing things with WMF people at the moment in another discussion, so I am used to timesinks and fruitless discussions, but it's sometimes amazing how many people on the sidelines you can convince even if the person you are discussing things with remains stubborn. Fram (talk) 16:39, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

That's a fair point. Having dealt with the unbelievable attempts to provide misleading or incorrect information to our readers at the ref desks, and trying to remedy that, I've discovered that timesinks exist across a lot of Wikipedia, and that some people are just here for the social aspects. I thought we had WP:NOTFACEBOOK (oo, we do!) but perhaps I'm wrong. In any case, cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:48, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

"Social aspects", on wikipedia? More like the anti social aspects...♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:23, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Arbitration evidence

The Arbitration Committee has asked that evidence presentations be kept to around 500 words and 50 diffs. Your presentation is over 620 words. Please edit your section to focus on the most relevant evidence. If you wish to submit over-length evidence, you must first obtain the agreement of the arbitrators by posting a request on the /Evidence talk page. For the Arbitration Committee, Amortias (T)(C) 11:08, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

I notice that you have removed evidence provided by an IP, 188.220.246.23, at The Rambling Man's Arbitration hearing and then blocked the IP's account. Would you care to explain? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:01, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Ban evasion. Note also how IP 188.220.246.23 put his evidence in the section for 86.168.124.54 (whose evidence was deleted repeatedly (not by me) and the IP blocked by Drmies). See the block log for 188.220.246.23, where mine is the fourth block in a month, all for the same reason. [[Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Vote (X) for Change|This] should tell you all there is to know. Note the advice there: "Do not engage in their discussions. Do not feed the trolls. Simply Revert, block, ignore. " The editor is banned since 2011. Finally, the "evidence" was about a main page article (so not DYK / ITN / ref desk), concerning edits between the banned editor and FPaS, not TRM. You can still read the evidence in the history, if you think there's something there or if you feel that I have hidden any evidence relating to TRM or otherwise was acting in an involved capacity. Fram (talk) 10:10, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

No, that's a reasonable explanation. I just thought it strange that you were removing evidence when I would have expected that to be a job for the Clerk. It would certainly be wrong for me to remove your evidence, for example :) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:35, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Oh, if the only reason had been "not about this case", then I would have left it to a clerk. But WP:DENY is best done as fast as possible, to make it less interesting for the banned user to continue to post things. Fram (talk) 10:43, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

DYK

Hi Fram, I'm dont normally maintain DYK hooks - but there was a notice on WP:AN that queue 1 has a hole in it, apparently from your edit; I've commented out this line for now - feel free to address in any way that is appropriate if you want to. Best regards, — xaosflux ^Talk 15:03, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Fram (talk) 16:17, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection

Hello, Fram. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.

Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.

In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:

• Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
• A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.

Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:47, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Category:Adjutant Generals of Illinois has been nominated for discussion

Category:Adjutant Generals of Illinois, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. 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. Bearcat (talk) 09:44, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Pax

It has been suggested that we take our differences to Arbcom but I do not think that appropriate. It states there "The Arbitration Committee only deals with the most serious, entrenched, or persistent disputes and cases of rule-breaking, where all other reasonable means have failed" and I doubt we are anywhere near that. Anyway, it would be a distraction and a great waste of time when I would prefer to be building an encyclopedia.

I think you do a useful service at DYK but I don't like the way you treat other editors when you find errors. You have been sniping at me for some time on the DYK discussion page. I think some of your statements about me both inaccurate and exaggerated but I have chosen to react little until just over a week ago when I thought you treated MPJ-DK unfairly. My thread "Vanity" could be construed as being a personal attack on you, but your evidence to the TRM case predated that and I consider it was a personal attack on me.

So here is an offer. If you stop referring to me in a derogatory manner at the DYK discussion page and elsewhere, I will stop reciprocating. What do you think? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:04, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

"I have chosen to react little until just over a week ago when I thought you treated MPJ-DK unfairly. My thread "Vanity" could be construed as being a personal attack on you, but your evidence to the TRM case predated that and I consider it was a personal attack on me." The thread "vanity" wsa started by you, discussing two examples: the Grobbelaar hook, which had nothing to do with MPJ-DK, and a hook from you from 2014. It's a bit hard to see how that has anything to do with me supposedly treating MPJ-DK unfairly. It looked and looks a lot more like you feeling that you were treated unfairly. My evidence at the ArbCom case? Quoting a clear personal attack by you, which you then repeated in the evidence section as well. If pointing out that you make personal attacks, with evidence of such an attack, is in itself a personal attack, then you don't know what ArbCom cases are about.

With Ritchie333 posting the link to that editor review of yours from 2014, I note that there already you tried to "defend" yourself with utterly irrelevant questions only intended to poison the well: in that case, whether I had a Wikipediocracy account, in this case my status on Jimbo Wales' talk page. In both cases, you decided that a refusal to answer irrelevant questions is admitting that the answer is "yes". If you can't see the problem with that tactic (and conclusion), then there is little hope left to have a meaningful discussion with you. Even in your "pax" offering here, all I see is "you started it" and "you attacked me and I refrained from replying" and similar holier-than-thou statements. A genuine pax offering doesn't read like "I'm better than you, but I am willing to give you a second chance".

Seeing that the problems you cause at DYK go back since 2013-2014 (perhaps earlier, I haven't checked), I do think we are well into the "serious, entrenched and persistent dispute" area.

As for how I treat editors, you can look at e.g. the reaction of MPJ-DK in the "Corrected error in hook on Main Page, then removed it completely as it turns out to be wrong" section: "What the? I'm at a loss for words for such an f'up. Mighty be time to hang up the tights." Now compare it to the reaction of the editor who reviewed this hook. Fram (talk) 14:22, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

The Rambling Man arbitration proposed decision posted

A proposed decision has been posted in the open The Rambling Man arbitration page. Please review this decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. If you are not a party, you may opt out of further notifications regarding this case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man/Mass Message List. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:36, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Male artists

Thanks for spotting me - I try to eliminate any I'm not sure about/have checked, but one or two sneak through from time to time. (Don't know what happened with Louise Abbéma, though - I was sure I'd excluded her each time.) --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 21:54, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Paralympics

Per your suggestion, I have created an RfC on the Paralympics. I am not certain whether an non-admin is permitted to do so though. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:41, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Everyone can start an RfC, as far as I am aware (and concerned). Policy is not created by admins, we are only supposed to uphold it. Fram (talk) 07:57, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

archives

Good point[1]. Would there be a way to reword it to cases where there is a selection process, and/or material that is highlighted in some manner by the archive maintainers? One example is Chronicling America from the LoC, that has a selection process for newspapers "representing that state's regional history, geographic coverage, and events of the particular time period being covered."[2] -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 10:08, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

I think that would become too complicated to correctly describe in a notability guideline (or essay). Fram (talk) 10:11, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Let's stick to essay-level for now ;) I'd propose something like:

A periodical archived at a major library or institution is generally not an indication of notability. Many archives are not selective in what periodicals they archive. However, periodicals highlighted in an archive via a selection process may be an indication of notability. For example, the US Library of Congress is not selective in what periodicals they archive, but the LoC hosted project Chronicling America is a selected archive of "historic newspapers".

-- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 10:40, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Shueisha

Someone requested move protection on this article at WP:RFPP, so I did that. If you think it's excessive, feel free to undo. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 16:22, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

No, that vandal is quite persistent so protection may well be warranted. 16:23, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Arbitration case request declined

The Arbitration Committee has declined the Fram arbitration case request. For the Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 00:13, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Upstairs, Downstairs

Hi. Thanks for your attention to the sheaf of minor character articles, recently created. I was mulling over whether to create a giant multi-AFD for these, but I guess you're right to prod them first. The creator's clearly a fan of the series and editing in good faith, but they're mostly unreferenced, none of them notable enough per WP:GNG for a separate article, and should be redirects to a list-of-characters article at best. If it does go to AFD, I will support redirect. Wikishovel (talk) 09:15, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I have skipped a few for some characters with 20 or so episodes, perhaps they should get deleted as well but that is less clear. But these I have prodded are really very minor characters, I hope that a prod will suffice but I can't see them being kept at AfD. Fram (talk) 09:19, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Archive

Would you mind if I archived your talk page? It goes back nearly two years. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:41, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, you're right, I hadn't noticed that it was this big again. You are free to archive it, and otherwise I will do it myself, whichever you prefer. Fram (talk) 12:53, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Done! Thanks for the note. Fram (talk) 14:07, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

uploading further screen shots

I want to upload further screen shots to show the character of Cyril Bassington-Bassington and Mr. Blumenfield. ok ? --ColeB34 (talk) 15:06, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Mr. Blumenfield is a guest character in 2 episodes of the TV series only, why should we even have an article on him? Cyril Bassington isn't even a recurring character in the TV series, he only appears in one episode. At the very most, these belong in a list of characters. No need to upload screen shots. Fram (talk) 08:18, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Talk:LW6/8/GA2

Fram, I noticed that you wrapped up the B1, B2, and B3 classification GAR today. This is just a friendly reminder that you have another GAR open that affects over a dozen articles in the same subject area. I have no idea what, if any, work has been done on the various articles since you opened the assessment eight months ago; you will doubtless check them before proceeding. Thanks, and best of luck. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:21, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I planned on doing them today, but of course you had no way of knowing that. Fram (talk) 05:27, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

I see you delisted the ten L classifications. Any thoughts about the three other articles covered by that nomination: Para-alpine skiing, Para-alpine skiing classification, and Para-Nordic skiing classification? They're still listed as being reassessed. No rush, but something should be done with them relatively soon. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:48, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

The only good thing about this reassessment is that it has now been concluded, eight months after it was initiated.

The bad things is your complete disregard for the GA process that the community has adopted for reviewing GAs. You take no notice of the GA criteria and have not adopted the instructions for reassessment. Having taken on this reassessment, you should have given the other party the opportunity to fix any problems you identified. "Remember, the aim is not to delist the article, but to fix it." You have an ongoing issue with the editor involved in this reassessment. Please in future put any GA reassessment that involves such an editor up for community reassessment, rather than acting, as in this case, as prosecutor, judge, jury and executioner. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:36, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Your view on my GA reviews has been discussed before. You were utterly wrong then, and again now. I have listed my reasons for delisting the article. A GA article should be well written (I identified problems with this), Verifiable with no original research (I identified clear errors), and Broad in its coverage (I identified problems here as well, especially with 3b, "it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail"). These criticisms were present in my initial listing (e.g. "poorly written collections of seemingly random facts" and "Overcapitalization" (and "wrong and inconsistent capitalization") were mentioned then, and are still problems now. I noted sentences like ""Skiers in this class may injure themselves while skiing. " in my initial review, and they are still present (and noted in my eventual delisting). "the 7.4 km race" was mentioned in my initial review, and still present. What I did wrong was give them way too much time to correct these problems. But the end result, the delisting of these articles, is correct, as they clearly aren't GA articles and no serious effort to get them to that level has been done. 09:14, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Sure, but the main point I was making was in the last sentence. In the case of Nvvchar, a community reassessment would have been much better. You gave him no opportunity to make improvements and just seemed to be targeting your victim until you achieved your objective. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:07, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

A formal reassessment for articles incorrectly promoted hours or days before is extreme overkill. Reassessments are for articles which no longer meet the GA criteria, not for articles which never met them. Fram (talk) 09:23, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Featured Topics

Hi. I'm just letting you know, since you made this edit, that you're not supposed to remove articles from topics unless they were deleted or merged into another article. Please remember that the next time you do article reviews involving articles that are part of topics. GamerPro64 14:47, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I noticed that no other FTs had articles below GA in their template, so I thought that such removal was standard. Fram (talk) 09:02, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Marc Sleen

On 10 November 2016, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Marc Sleen, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Stephen 05:02, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Page deletion

My page 'claire edmondson' was deleted due to a copyright infringement, was wondering what I can do to restore it? Putting the whole link from freethebid.com, instead of just a link to the website? Please let me know, as I need this page up and running asap. Thanks!

MerMarr (talk) 17:10, 10 November 2016 (UTC)M

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins

Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

A new user right for New Page Patrollers

Hi Fram.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Stop making wrong harmful generalizing statements

Stop making wrong harmful generalizing statements about me, like you did at several occasions on my talkpage. You stated that I made too many bogus explanations. It was shown that your generalization was wrong for every single example, and you were asked to refrain from making harmful generalizations. Later you continued saying that I [Sander.v.Ginkel] routinely adds incorrect information, without mentioning where you found incorrect data on articles. Even if you dislike a Wikipedia user, keep it fair and honest. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 20:01, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

I explained my statements repeatedly. Nothing was shown to be incorrect, you simply made up fanciful explanations of why you e.g. added a source to articles, when the subjects of these articles weren't included in these sources. Incorrect sources, incorrect birth years, incorrect "last appearances" in competitions, claiming "current" clubs based on information from 2011, ... Yes, plenty incorrect information in those articles you created, and all of it mentioned at length on your talk page. Fram (talk) 20:16, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Adding data without a reference is something else than adding incorrect information. So like I said, mind your sentences. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 08:27, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Adding a reference as if it partains to the subject, when in reality it is not about the subject at all, is incorrect information. "Adding data without a reference" was not in my list above, so please read and understand before you write. Fram (talk) 09:01, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

@Fram: I think you can not read yourself. incorrect information is information that is wrong, not all information without a reference is incorrect. someone who routinely uses false references and adds incorrect information (what you're saying) is different from someone who routinely uses false references and adds information without a referece, or someone who routinely uses false references for adding their information. If you really don't understand that this is different, I don't know you should be am administrator. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 09:13, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

For the last time, I have not listed "information without a reference" in my above list of examples of incorrect information. Incorrect information was "incorrect birth years, incorrect "last appearances" in competitions, claiming "current" clubs based on information from 2011, ..." in my post above. You are making strawman arguments, claiming that I said something I didn't and then arguing why that fabrications of yours is false and makes me a bad admin. Fram (talk) 09:49, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Again, stop making false stamements!! You mean a wrong birth year in a complete wrong article because I didn't finish it (and you replied within minutes because you wanted to do that). Oww.. you mean the incorrect "last appearances" of the person that looked like another person... And third, if I state in the articles that it is from 2011 the information is outdated, not incorrect. So yes adds incorrect information is wrong and routinely adds incorrect information is totally wrong. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 10:09, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

You wrote Ahmed Badr on 21.35 17 November, and stopped editing it 21.36 on 17 November. After I started editing it the next day, yuo again edited it twice at 09.02 on 18 November. I corrected the birth year on 10.48 on 18 November. No idea what you mean with "a complete wrong article", no idea why you write articles you don't finish and then think that that is an acceptable excuse (it's not as if I edited it in the middle of your edits, you had moved on to other articles by then), and no idea what the "you replied within minutes" is supposed to be about. Fram (talk) 10:25, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

You probably know who I mean, it was Patricia del Soto. Like I said of Ahmed Badr, was a typo after having added the same year of birth here. Are you still not seeing that you sentence routinely adds incorrect information is wrong? Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 10:38, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

So I give one example of you adding a wrong year of birth (Badr), you add a second (Del Soto) and a third (the 2004 template), and then you claim with a straight face "Are you still not seeing that you sentence routinely adds incorrect information is wrong?"? Speechless... Fram (talk) 10:49, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Badr and 2004 template was the same error and typo, I fixed it right away when someone told me. Del Soto was an unfinshed article. So this is what you call routinely adds incorrect information. Like I said before multiple times, stay kind and fair and mind your statements. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 10:57, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

You finished editing Del Soto on 12.42 the 21st. After some other edits, you created Olga Domenech on 13.34 the same day. I first edited Del Soto at 13.44 that day, and posted about it on your user talk page on 13.49. Nothing here suggests that this was an unfinished article, you had moved on to other articles; and nothing warrants your "(and you replied within minutes because you wanted to do that)" claim. It was more than an hour after your last edit to the article and at a time you had started creating other articles already. Fram (talk) 11:05, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Everybody will agree this is not a finished article, the dob in the infobox is correct, on other places it had to be corrected. But I've never seen point #5 and #6 at WP:CALM, so I'll do #8 Sometimes you just need to walk away. Do not let an edit war supersede your personal Wikipedia time.. I think you should do the same. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 11:16, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

So, you leave an article unfinished and go on to create other articles instead, and this is not the kind of editing that may be commented upon? It is actually bad that someone points out what you did there? If you want to leave articles unfinished for a while, use your sandbox or draft space, but don't pollute the main space with them. Fram (talk) 11:24, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

We discussed this issue already. This section is about something else. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 14:03, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

I was discussing Ahmed Bahr (among other things), you were the one that introduced Patricia del Soto here in this discussion. Now that your commnts boomerang, this section is suddenly about "something else". Basically, what you seem to be saying "if I exclude all examples you have given so far, I can say that you have not given any examples so far" or something similar. Which is obviously true but not really a good basis to have a discussion. Fram (talk) 15:09, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Fram. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Third warning, stop making harmfull statements about me

This time at User talk:ThiagoSimoes where you wrote: I have had too many discussions with you now where you have shown unwillingness or incapability to read even the most basic things correctly. I've never shown unwillingness or incapability to read. If you continue to harm me without a good reason you may be blocked from editing. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 10:24, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Please read "Stop making wrong harmful generalizing statements" above, it contains enough evidence for my claims and thorourhly refutes your "I have never". These comments may be harmful, but they are not "without a good reason". Fram (talk) 10:27, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

If you refer to something, make it clear. Don't say see above. Please show me my unwillingness or incapability to read including basic things. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 10:42, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Let's see, I'm not to complain about your "unwillingness to read", I refer you to a section above, and you are unwilling to read it. Right... Fram (talk) 10:46, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

I replied to every single statement you made. So don't say "unwillingness to read".Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 10:54, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Many of your replies don't seem to be about what I actually wrote though, repeating incorrect claims again and again (like your belief that I equated unsourced information with incorrect information). Fram (talk) 11:01, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Category:10th-century BC establishments in Israel has been nominated for discussion

Category:10th-century BC establishments in Israel, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. 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. GreyShark (dibra) 14:16, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

AfD

Why are you calling this AfD (WP:Articles for deletion/2016 Copa Sudamericana Finals: disruptive, unwarranted and disrespectful? I nominated it for AfD because it's a copy of 2016 Copa Sudamericana. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 09:40, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

I am calling it disruptive, unwarranted and disrespectful because I consider it disruptive, unwarranted and disrespectful. The fact that everyone agreed that it was a clear Keep shows the "unwarranted" aspect. The fact that you chose to do this at a time when emotions are still raw and many, many thousands of peole read the articles about these events is the "disrespectful" aspect. "Oh, they all died so we won't have a final, then I guess we don't need this article any longer, bye!", that's the message that AfD note gives to people coming to the article. And an AfD that is unwarranted and disrespectful, well that's rather disruptive in my book. The two articles clearly are not copies of each other, although they contain some identical information. Fram (talk) 10:19, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Please read next time, and the reason why I nominated it. I said it because it's a copy of the main page. There are many incoming links because the link is at the page of the flight crash, otherwise 2016 Copa Sudamericana would have get the incoming links. All replies said that the finals are notable, yes I agree, but's already covered at the main page. Smartyllama (talk · contribs) wrote As the FInals of a major tournament, they satisfy WP:NFOOTY and WP:SPORTSEVENT even if they were cancelled. See also 1946 FIFA World Cup, which was cancelled as well, but there was enough in reliable sources and notable enough to write an article about it. So the fact that it was (maybe) ultimately cancelled is irrelevant. If it satisfied notability before it was cancelled, it still does. Well bad example as 1946 FIFA World Cup is a redirect, but I would believe it can become an article, but there would never be the article 1946 FIFA World Cup final. Because of that I made it a merge proposal, with exactly the same reasons, also disruptive, unwarranted and disrespectful?Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 10:26, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

The whole of the 1946 WC was cancelled, so we had no idea who would play the final, no winner would be announced, and so on. Not really convincing as an argument. On a different note, I just removed part of your changes at 2020 Summer Olympics opening ceremony (and I love that you are editing this, seems kind of inconsistent as it might still get cancelled)[3]. Please see WP:NPOV and similar policies and guidelines. Sentences like "this expensive, but jaw-dropping, feat" have no place in Wikipedia: and the announcement of a company that they would like to present this spectacle at a ceremony, without any indication that the organizers are in any way interested, is something that belongs in an article about the company (if notable), but not at the ceremony. But I'll drop a note at your talk page about this, as I now see where you got this from, which only makes it worse. Fram (talk) 10:35, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Sure, of course. Please screen my whole editory history and shoot at everything you don't like. Oh no, you're doing already. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 10:38, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

That's the problem, your whole editing history needs screening because way too many of your edits are problematic. It's not what I don't like, it's everything that you do that is against policy and guidelines. Fram (talk) 10:40, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Edit

By performing this, please also clean up the other pages where the templates are linked to with LST. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 21:46, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Don't be silly Sander.v.Ginkel, no-one is under any obligation to fix all the problems of Wikipedia. In fact, now you're aware of such an issue, you could do it yourself!!! Amazing! Have a great evening! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:51, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: Not in this case. Fram acts before a consensus is reachead regarding to the templates at templates for discussion. That is a really bad practice for an administrator. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 22:01, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

You can't expect one editor to fix up all the problems across Wikipedia from one specific change. If your comment was pointed and meant to say "don't make this change", that's a different matter. Either way, don't expect others to do the work for you, and don't use tacit threats to enable your personal position. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:04, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Wait for consensus (again)

As an administrator you should now really well not to act before a consensus is reached. So stop acting like you did already twice at List of 2011 UCI Women's Teams and riders, before a consensus where you are yourself involved in, is reached. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 23:04, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

The discussion is about whether the templates will be deleted or not. The discussion does not mandate that if kept, the templates must be used. People are free to do what I have done even if the templates are kept. My edits were obvious improvements of that page. Fram (talk) 05:32, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Upon checking, you were still reintroducing errors to that page, so I have restored my version. Apparently it isn't that easy to get it right with all these templates? Fram (talk) 05:35, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

There are complains about you at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

You are warned several times regarding your way of communicating. As you continued doing so with the most recent statment being that all I said was a load of crap', it has been reported. See Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents for the notification. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 10:45, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Noted. Fram (talk) 10:46, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Question

How is Betty Campbell notable? Note that Kudpung also deleted it. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 11:26, 8 December 2016 (UTC) [4][5] Fram (talk) 11:28, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Request pull deleted article

Hi Fram, i'm trying to help a newcomer on the dutch wikipedia. apparently he created an article Microdermabrasie on the English wikipedia but in Dutch language. You (correctly) deleted the page, but can you pull it out of the graveyard and put it on the Dutch wikipedia? You can put it on my "kladblok (sketch page)" which is this page and/or to the newcomers kladblok which is here: [6]. Thanks for your help! Regards Saschaporsche (talk) 11:54, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Done! Fram (talk) 12:06, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the speedy help! Saschaporsche (talk) 12:10, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Prize for Best foreign comics publisher listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Prize for Best foreign comics publisher. Since you had some involvement with the Prize for Best foreign comics publisher redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Si Trew (talk) 10:28, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Prize for Best French comics publisher listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Prize for Best French comics publisher. Since you had some involvement with the Prize for Best French comics publisher redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Si Trew (talk) 10:28, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Peter van Straaten

On 10 December 2016, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Peter van Straaten, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:47, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Year of birth/death not corresponding with references

Hi Fram, I noticed that several of your articles have not the year of birth of death as in the reference you listed. This might be a typo or information copied from somewhere else. As this is crucial information of a person it might be good you take a look at it. Also of you say according to other sources in an article, you should list them. The articles I tagged are with these issues are: Pierdomenico Baccalario, Andrea di Cosimo Camillo Gavasetti, Pierre-Marie Gault de Saint-Germain, Franz Gareis, José García Hidalgo, Juan Galván Jiménez, José Galofré y Coma, Gaspare Galliari, Bernardino Galliari. Thanks, Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 13:58, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Fram, I see you fixed most of the listed articles above. However I see that the dates/years in many occasions were wrong in the articles. To let you know, I just tagged some articles where you listed a year of birth/death without a reference. Thanks, Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 11:52, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

"Most"? I thought I did them all. "Many occasions were wrong"? Two. I'll take a look at the articles you tagged. I thought though that you were first going to correct the errors listed at WP:ANI? Fram (talk) 12:01, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

You didn't do Pierdomenico Baccalario. Yes, I'm busy with it~, but these were the articles I already listed before (see the discussion). And I have another question, you created many articles where you copied text from this book. I believe you that the book is in the public domain, but where can I see that such a book is in the public domain? And does that mean we can also copy text from for instance https://www.tasnimnews.com/en to Wikipedia pages? Thanks, Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 12:12, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I saw now that I missed that one. As for PD, for a UK book that is life of the authors + 70. So every book (well, there are a few exceptions, but this isn't one of them) where the author(s) have died before 1 January 1946 is PD. Michael Bryan (the original author) died in 1821, and the two editors: Robert Edmund Graves died in 1922, and Walter Armstrong (art historian) died in 1918. Furthermore, the book is included in some reliable free websites as having no restrictions, e.g. from Cornell University. Fram (talk) 12:28, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Tasnimnews is not public domain. Whether the license allows copying of text is not immediately clear to me (I don't know the ins and outs of all licenses), but it would rarely be useful to copy Iranian news articles verbatim to an encyclopedia. Quoting from them, "according to Tasnimnews blablabla" may of course be perfectly acceptable (assuming they are reliable, I haven't looked deeper into this). Fram (talk) 12:31, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for you clear answer. That helps :). So if I find for instance some day some old book about sportspeople it could help expanding Wikipedia. Yeah, TasnimNews is a bit different. It's one of the biggest news agencies of Iran, but it publish everything under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. As I move many images from this website to Commons I see several articles. It's not about copying whole articles, but when doing so it might be helpfull copying crucial statements about certain news aspects to Wikipedia, without having it to rewrite it into other sentences. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 12:47, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Just be aware of WP:PLAGIARISM. When you copy text (or only minimally change it), you always need to make it clear that you haven't written the text, and of course indicate who did it. That you are allowed to copy some text doesn't mean that you are allowed to claim it as your own, even implicitly (I don't think that was your plan, so I'm not accusing you, just explaining things). Fram (talk) 12:50, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Mass rollback

Regarding this discussion at AN/I, you can find a mass rollback script here. Cheers, --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:00, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Mariana da Silva Machado

Hello. As you have doubts about my edits, I prefer from now that you edit the articles and not me, in order to not to say that I commit violations of any kind on articles. Also, I want to clarify that I did not start those articles about naturalized footballers, I just complemented them according to the information I manage. Regarding footballers from Equatorial Guinea, I only started articles of footballers of Equatoguinean descent, who are senior international players and who have nothing to hide. Right now, I'm seeing some articles with wrong information, i.e. Mariana da Silva Machado. There it says she was born in 1994. That's not true. My main reference is Federação Paulista de Futebol. It's not a social network, but a football federation from an important Brazilian state. They report she was born in 1989.Women's footballers listed in "M", currently registered is Sao Paulo State clubs (click on "Mariana da Silva Machado") I have another source, Diário da Região, an online newspaper from São José do Rio Preto. On 23 September 2015, its journalist Ozair Júnior wrote: "The dream of being at the Rio de Janeiro Olympic Games is close for midfielder Mariana da Silva Machado, 26 years old. Carioca (citizen from Rio de Janeiro), raised in Cidade de Deus, the player who since 2012 plays for Rio Preto, was naturalized by Equatorial Guinea and has just been called to defend the country's national team in the two decisive duels against South Africa, on October 3 and 18".Diário da Região news If Mariana were born in 1994, she would be 26 just in 2020, but we are in 2016 yet. I kindly ask you to consider these sources. I do not want to violate anything, but I also do not want any lies to go around on the articles. Thank you.--MonFrontieres (talk) 23:42, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

• P.S: I fluent in French, some Spanish and Portuguese, so sometimes I have some grammatical problems when I write in English because it's not my native language, but I try to improve it daily.--MonFrontieres (talk) 23:54, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I just found in the daily newsletter (BID) of the Brazilian Football Confederation (CBF) official website, from 18 January 2016, the registry of Mariana da Silva Machado which indicates inside that she was born on 30 July 1989. BID CBF website (select 18 January (Janeiro) 2016 where says "Data", then next to the right select "SP" instead of "UF" and then click on "Filtrar"; after that, the results will appear, and look for "Mariana da Silva Machado", click on "+ BID" and then you can see what I'm saying about her). If all these links are not reliable sources, I don't know what references they are.--MonFrontieres (talk) 04:48, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

You have Mariana da Silva Machado, born 30/07/1989, in Brasil. And you have Mariana Isabel Machado Silva, born 24 February 1994, in EG. That one source linking the two isn't really sufficient, certainly not when a source like [7] lists her as "nationality:Brazilian". Considering the track record of the Equatorian Guineans, your investigative journalism may well be correct, but ultimately Wikipedia is not the place for investigative journalism, certainly not for such delicate things as accusing people of fraud. WP:BLPCRIME and the remainder of the BLP policy are very strict on this. Fram (talk) 07:37, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

What should I do to proof Mariana Isabel Machado Silva doesn't exist?--MonFrontieres (talk) 14:43, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

No idea, she exists for FIFA and the like, so it will be very hard for you to prove it. Basically, you need a better source than that. So far, I haven't seen any that would be remotely good enough. Fram (talk) 14:47, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Better source? I gave you different sources from Brazil, where the player was born and raised. Was journalist Ozair Júnior lying about her story? Were Brazilian Foootball Confederation lying about her date of birth? Were Federação Paulista de Futebol lying about her place of birth? So Brazilian people lie about a Brazilian footballer, and Equatorial Guinea, a country which always play clean in football, says the truth and then FIFA and the like believe them. It makes a lot of sense...--MonFrontieres (talk) 15:19, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

You have sources about one, and you have sources about the other. What you don't have are good enough sources linking both together. As long as those are missing, we must treat them as two separate people (there are enough examples on Wikipedia of people with nearly the same name and age, in the same sport, who were confused but turned out to be two separate people anyway). Being probably or most likely right is in a case like this not good enough for Wikipedia, sorry. Fram (talk) 15:28, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

I just found the proof. In the last paragraph of Diário da Regiao 2015 source, Mariana da Silva Machado told to the journalist: “Em 2012 fui campeã da Copa da África, mas depois me machuquei e na última convocação não pude ir” (“In 2012 I was champion of African Cup, but after that I got injured and in the last call I could not go”).[8] In Equatorial Guinea 2012 African Cup squad there is no Mariana da Silva Machado, but Mariana Isabel Machado Silva, but Mariana da Silva Machado claims she was African champion in 2012. Well, what's your opinion now? Is it still insufficient?--MonFrontieres (talk) 15:41, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

That's better, but even then you need to present the two sides (dates of birth and so on) neutrally, as if both can be correct. It is not our place to declare the Brazilian dates correct and the FIFA ones incorrect, and even less to declare any intention of false play or anything similar. Fram (talk) 15:47, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Where can I present the two sides neutrally, as if both can be correct?--MonFrontieres (talk) 15:54, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Well, as an Equatorial Guinea side, I found this [9], but they talk about Mariana da Silva Machado, not Mariana Isabel Machado Silva. Then, on the CAF List of Players of Equatorial Guinea 2012 AWCN, they put that Mariana Isabel Machado Silva is a midfielder,[10] which it is casually the same position as Mariana da Silva Machado.--MonFrontieres (talk) 16:01, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

• Another source from Equatorial Guinea. Guinea Ecuatorial Press, the official web page of the Government of the Republic of Equatorial Guinea. They talk about the 2012 Africa Cup semi-final against Cameroon, where Mariana (according to CAF report of tournament and subsequently this match, Mariana Isabel Machado Silva) is named as one of the Equatorial Guinea starters in that match. News of the match If you click on "click image to enlarge and see the rest of the photographs", then go to the image 7 of 9 andyou will see Mariana Isabel Machado Silva in the typical 11 starter players photo (the third in the row below, number 7) and you will note seeing her face it's the same person with Mariana da Silva Machado.Extracted photo from Guinea Ecuatorial Press'

When I say "presenting neutrally", I mean something like Name (born date X (source 1, 2) or date Y (source 3, 4) is a Brazilian(source 5) naturalized EG(source6) player... (sources 1-6 don't need to be all different, including the source that links the two is of course best here). The same goes if you want to include the two names. Don't add any commentary (indications that date X or Y is correct, or that something is done to mislead or whatever), just present the facts side by side, even if you personally believe one to be true and the other to be false. Fram (talk) 17:11, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Okay. With whom in Wikipedia should I present all this to be analyzed?--MonFrontieres (talk) 17:25, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

No idea what you mean here. If you want to write the article, you either edit it directly, or suggest your changes on the talk page of the article. If you don't agree with my proposal and want your version to become the article, then you can contact WP:BLPN, the BLP noticeboard, to get further input. Fram (talk) 17:27, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Seasons' greetings

I received this message from a stranger "Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!"
This made me think about our relationship, and so I am wishing you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year! We seem often to be in disagreement but have a common objective - we both seek to improve Wikipedia, and it would be much better if we worked in harmony rather than enmity. So here's wishing you a peaceful and harmonious 2017, a year when perhaps we can all co-operate within the DYK project and Wikipedia more generally.
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:57, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry, merry!

From the icy Canajian north; to you and yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 04:21, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

SvG clean-up

See User:Aymatth2/SvG clean-up. I do not have the technical skills to write scripts, or the managerial skills to coordinate the task, but think it somehow must be done. Aymatth2 (talk) 23:39, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

And in relation to this, I put this note on ANI for more people to see the clean-up discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 08:00, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Betty Campbell

— Maile (talk) 00:02, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Reference errors on 10 January

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Paul Byttebier page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:19, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

In case you didn´t know

and find it interesting, you were mentioned here: [11]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:16, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Not sure what Captain Occam is trying to prove (In that quote, I'm discussing a talk page comment about someone, not what we should do in the main space), but I can't be bothered to enter that user talk page discussion. Why some people still try to discuss general principles on that page is beyond me. Fram (talk) 10:28, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) A fundamental misunderstanding add to the nature of power? O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 10:49, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

New Wikiproject!

Hello, Fram! I saw you recently edited a page related to the Green party and green politics. There is a new WikiProject that has been formed - WikiProject Green Politics and I thought this might be something you'd be interested in joining! So please head on over to the project page and take a look! Thanks for your time. Me-123567-Me (talk) 18:24, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Ways to improve Home Credit

Hi, I'm Gab4gab. Fram, thanks for creating Home Credit!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Current sources are not independent. Notability requires significant coverage by multiple sources that are completely independent of the subject. The sources used in the Czech article do seem to contain significant coverage that is independent.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Gab4gab (talk) 18:57, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Carltheo Zeitschel

I have put it back in as part of my fiddling with the template qualifiers, I have no real lasting opinion on it being there, so if you want to remove it I wont argue (actually I will go edit my link to be a perm diff anyway). But it does serve a useful example of the hoops to jump through to remove a single problematic word. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:32, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I saw it, and have already converted it to a purely enwiki template (since this has more information than the Wikidata one). Fram (talk) 16:33, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

January 2017

This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on others again, as you did at John S. Duncan, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. In this edit summary, you called me a 'vandal'. Do that again and I'll take you to ANI to ask for sanctions against you. RexxS (talk) 13:12, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

If you don't want to be called a vandal, then don't vandalize articles just to keep your precious Wikidata template in it, and don't make false edit summaries.

Furthermore, learn either to read or to report honestly on what you have read. I did not call you a vandal, I said that "your edit" was "vandalism", which is exactly what you want me to do according to your oh so scary only warning: "comment on content, not on contributors". Your edit vandalized the article, removing information under the false guise of "expansion" and adding a duplicate website to the article infobox at the same time.

Please start improving enwiki (if you edit enwiki) instead of using enwiki to promote Wikidata (rather ineffectively, but that's beside the point). Fram (talk) 13:18, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

At John S. Duncan, you claimed that you "expanded infobox even further", while in reality, in your zeal to have the Wikidata infobox, you actually removed information (the alma mater), while at the same time displaying the website twice in the infobox. Please leave articles where the infobox is working correctly alone instead of making them worse. Don't disrupt Wikipedia to make your point. Fram (talk) 05:33, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for showing yet again that you are not interested in improving enwiki, but just in promoting the Wikidata infobox. You removed information from the infobox which had been in the article long before this edit war, and which was easily sourceable. You also just happened to only remove information from the infobox but not from the article, as if the same information is more problematic in an infobox than in an article. Or as if you only care about getting your infobox on the article, and not about the actual article itself. Stop it. Leave the article alone and go do some actual work improving either enwiki (here) or Wikidata (there). Fram (talk) 13:29, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

My edit to John S. Duncan did not duplicate the website and both of us know that. I would have spotted such a glaring problem when previewing the page prior to saving. The issue arose because of an update to the template that I've since fixed.

The 'Alma mater' of John S. Duncan is completely unsourced and has no place in an infobox until a source is provided. It does go to show the hypocrisy of complaining about Wikidata being "unsourced and unreliable", when the Wikidata version of the infobox filters out the unsourced information, while you merrily added it without a thought of how anybody could verify that information. Really ironic. --RexxS (talk) 13:45, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Liar. (Yes, you may now take me to ANI for this terrible personal attack. Doesn't change the fact that you are a liar (and a terrible one at that). The update to the infobox happened hours before your change to the article. I have responded about your other points (and quite obvioius motivation) at your talk page and at the article talk page, no need to post it a third time here. If you are not interested in making enwiki better, find another place to play on. And if you are interested in improving enwiki, then perhaps start showing it again, as the last few days you seem more interested in making articles worse than better. Fram (talk) 13:53, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Restore article

• good afternoon! I ask you to restore article Andrey Smagin. Restore and I will edit the article and bring it to a normal state. No hoaxes will not--VikiLaikeR199 (talk) 16:16, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

I will not restore the article on this 16-year old member of the Duma. It was alreday deleted after an AfD a few months ago anyway. I note that some of your other articles, Alexey Kosmynin and The Green Elephant 2, are correctly up for deletion as well. Please don't write articles about non notable subjects, and certainly don't write articles which aren't factual. Fram (talk) 16:19, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

• Article Subject significant in any case. The article is the revelation of sources supporting its activities. Please restore--VikiLaikeR199 (talk) 16:23, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
  • No. Fram (talk) 16:24, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Your removal of wrongly--VikiLaikeR199 (talk) 16:30, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
      • the article was removed 2 months ago due to lack of sources. Currently, they have appeared and they are, therefore, requires recovery--VikiLaikeR199 (talk) 16:32, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
        • Still, your attempt to get this person in wikipedia is failing in Czech wikipedia as well[12]. Something like the Bolshoyvopros source is utterly unconvincing. Please estop your attempts to get this person in Wikipedia. Fram (talk) 17:46, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
          • Firstly, you have removed the article as a hoax. secondly you make a mistake in the removal. The hoax is not possible to make judging by his photographs in instagram - [13]. That is why the article you want to restore. The article is not a hoax. Pictures speak directly about his political activities--VikiLaikeR199 (talk) 19:57, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
            • The site also describes in detail its activities. I think with the restoration should not have any issues. - [14]--VikiLaikeR199 (talk) 20:00, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello, exist a problem in several articles and verbets of Wikipedia and Wiktionary in Portuguese, English and Spanish!

Was be saying that comic strip, charge and cartoon are synonymous, when, in really, are different things!

Below, the explanations of that are the comic strips, charges and cartoons:

• Comic strip: comics of short duration with the charts disposed and organized in form of a strip, how the proper name already implies. The comic strips may or may not be humoristic and contains strong critics for the social values. There are three types of comic strips: the daily strips, which are usually published in small quantities and in black and white because of the rhythm of publication (although there are still some in color), the Sunday boards, which are usually published in large quantities and always filling a page of a newspaper or magazine and in color (although there are still some in black and white) and the yonkomas, which are comic strips of Japanese origin and have four vertical vignettes. The term comes from the American English, comic strip and means comics strip.

• Charge: humoristic comics of short duration and that contains strong critics of the people and things of the contemporaneity. The term comes from the Franco Belgian French, charger and means load or exagere.

• Cartoon: humoristic comics of short duration and that contains strong critics of the daily to daily situations. Because of the similarities between the first animation short films and the cartoons printed and published in newspapers, magazines and books from the epoch, the animated drawing also is called of cartoon (or, unabbreviated, animated cartoon), be or not humoristic. The same thing happens in Italian and German, where they are called cartone animato and animierter Cartoon, respectively. The term comes from the British English, cartoon and this of the Italian, cartone and means large piece of paper, sketch, study, draft or anteproject.

Here they here the articles and verbets for be revised in the respective idioms: https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tira_de_banda_desenhada, https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/charge, https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartoon, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comic_strip, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Editorial_cartoon, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartoon, https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tira_de_prensa, https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exageraci%C3%B3n_burlesca, https://pt.wiktionary.org/wiki/tira_cômica, https://pt.wiktionary.org/wiki/charge, https://pt.wiktionary.org/wiki/cartum, https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/comic_strip, https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/charge, https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/cartoon, https://es.wiktionary.org/wiki/tira_cómica, https://es.wiktionary.org/wiki/charge and https://es.wiktionary.org/wiki/cartón!

Including and principally, the certain is that the Wikipedia articles (described soon above!) should receive the following names in each idiom: Tira de banda desenhada, Charge and Cartum (desenho humorístico) - in Portuguese, Comic strip, Charge (humoristic drawing) and Cartoon - in English and Tira de historieta, Charge (dibujo humorístico) and Cartón (dibujo humorístico) - in Spanish!

Remembering and highlighting that the caricature has nothing to do with the other three because isn't a form of comic: is, simply, a humoristic exaggerated drawing of something or someone, be real or not, does not even have texts!

And well, as you can see, the cartoon isn't a type of comic strip, neither the charge is a type of cartoon, if possible, please, warn to your fellow editors to make the changes, very thanks since now for all attention and interest and a hug!

Saviochristi (talk) Saviochristi (talk) 00:55, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

I can do little about the situtaion at Portuguese and Spanish Wikipedia, and in English I have never seen the term "charge" for a kind of comic. Do you have good reliable sources that this is used in English at all? Fram (talk) 08:19, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

I see you also added this to Wiktionary. Please undo your changes there, I can't find any evidence that "charge" has this meaning in English. Fram (talk) 08:22, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

A request

Howdy. Recommend you unblock Cassianto, as the post he's been blocked for restoring, wasn't his post at all. GoodDay (talk) 13:57, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

He explicitly restored a blatant personal attack (it's not as if it was hidden in some large revision). What does it matter if he restored his own personal attack or an attack originally made by someone else? If the only purpose of an edit is putting back a personal attack, then it is making a personal attack, and WP:NPA applies to that editor. Fram (talk) 14:04, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Fram, this was a poor block and I request that you undo it promptly. His last block was poor as well, and it's not appropriate for you to cite it as part of your rationale for blocking this time. You've chosen to make an example of Cassianto without considering the bigger picture and the other actors, as if his actions are isolated and not a byproduct of a large-scale disruption around infoboxes that involves lots of "civil incivility" and content creators being harangued all over the project. This is the same thing that happened with his last block, and why it was undone—it's akin to walking onto a battlefield and deciding to arrest a single person because they fired a shot at someone. --Laser brain (talk) 14:52, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Feel free to suggest who else to block. I have warned Davey2010 for his behaviour, and Giano's original PA was stale (too old to block for), certainly considering that he didn't attempt to reinsert his comment. His last block was undone as a "last chance saloon", not as a "nothing happened, bad block". Then, and now, Cassianto has made it quite clear that he has no problem with the block remaining in place and doesn't plan to appeal it. No indication that he understands which part of his conduct was problematic (more likely, he understands it but doesn't care, Cassianto isn't stupid) and more importantly that anything would change after the unblock. So no, I don't plan to unblock, despite all attempts from people who opposed the previous block as well to get this one swiftly overturned as well. Fram (talk) 15:06, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Very concerned about who (possibly logged out) inputed as 86.190.109.246 at the Infobox-discussion-question. GoodDay (talk) 18:26, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

If you have suspicions about who did this, and believe his edits were somehow problematic, you are free to open an WP:SPI. Not much I can or want to do about an IP who made two good edits and nothing else. Fram (talk) 19:01, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

If any administrator blocks Cassianto, then his fans will start harassing the blocking administrator. Marvellous Spider-Man 04:00, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Sushila Aggarwal

As administrator you can see the content of this page. If you can give the details about the content then I can understand the editor's interests in editing wikipedia. All his visible edits in last 4 years are linked to one party. --Marvellous Spider-Man 13:22, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

That was a page for an Indian candidate politician. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sushila Aggarwal is about the subject. Fram (talk) 13:29, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but can I know the content? Is it mentioned which party she belongs, her place of contesting election, any relatives? --Marvellous Spider-Man 13:32, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Party: Indian National Congress Ward No.256 Yamuna Vihar under Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) spouse = Ajay Aggarwal

Administrators' newsletter - February 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.

Administrator changes

NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67

Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13

Guideline and policy news

• A discussion to workshop proposals to amend the administrator inactivity policy at Wikipedia talk:Administrators has been in process since late December 2016.
• Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2016 closed with no consensus for implementing Pending changes level 2 with new criteria for use.
• Following an RfC, an activity requirement is now in place for bots and bot operators.

Technical news

• When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
• Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
• The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee released a response to the Wikimedia Foundation's statement on paid editing and outing.

Obituaries

• JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.

---

Discuss this newsletter • Subscribe • Archive

13:36, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:2017 establishments in the United Arab Emirates

A tag has been placed on Category:2017 establishments in the United Arab Emirates requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and it is not presently under discussion at Categories for discussion, or at disambiguation categories.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. AusLondonder (talk) 15:38, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Memphis Red Sox

Hello, Fram! I edit regularly from a dynamic IP but focus almost solely on Negro league baseball. I'm scratching my head right now over what to do about Memphis Red Sox. Where do I begin to see what happened if it was a copyright infringement and how do I go about to get it restored without the c/i? Even if it was a c/i, I'm sure I have edited it since its creation (it was created long before I came along), so I was wondering if I could see the parts that weren't c/i. How does this work at this point? Rgrds. --64.85.216.59 (talk) 15:52, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

The article had the copyvio right from the start, and the copied paragraph remained virtually unchanged. (In the article at the time of deletion, there were four lines of text, and two of those were striaght copies). Recreating it from scratch will be easier and safer than restoring it and trying to remove the copyvio.

If you want to create it but can't, as an IP, you can post a version here and I'll create it, crediting you in the edit summary. Fram (talk) 15:59, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

The references were

• Conrads, D.; Wulf, S.; Burns, K.; O'neil, B. (2010). I Was Right On Time. Simon & Schuster. p. 69. ISBN 9781439127469. Retrieved 2015-06-22.
• Mills, P. 'Memphis Red Sox', Negro League Baseball (2002) Retrieved July 25, 2005.
• Peterson, Robert W. Only The Ball Was White, (New York: Prentice-Hall Englewood-Cliffs, 1970)

Thanks for the quick reply! I can recreate through a draft article and then put it up at WP:RM (I've done it a few times as you can tell and can move it through pretty quick). The part I am worried about losing is the infobox (unless I never got around to this team), can you post that here so I can copy it? It may seem trivial, but it would save me some time. Thanks, --64.85.216.59 (talk) 16:14, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

No problem, the infobox can't be copyrighted in any case.

• Got it, Thank you very much. One last question and then I'll let you be. Other than wikiproject banners, I was curious if there was any talk page discussion worth saving? Rgrds. --64.85.216.59 (talk) 16:23, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

• • Not really, but we can always undelete it once the article is recreated. Last discussion was from 2010... Fram (talk) 16:39, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
    • Thank you very much, you've been very helpful. I'll ask for the talk to be restored after I have a good draft written. Rgrds. --64.85.216.59 (talk) 16:43, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

SVG - Pan American Games

Sources for the Pan American Games have been difficult to find so I've been removing those categories for most articles. Given the stringent sourcing expected for the SVG articles, what should I do in a case like Abel Driggs Santos? I didn't find a source to indicate that he won a medal, yet his name is included in the templates at the bottom of the article. The template doesn't have sources. I remember at least one other article like this that I edited, so it's not just a one-time instance. Thanks --Tbennert (talk) 17:15, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

If you really can't verify it, I would simply remove the templates. If you want to go the extra mile, you can add a section on the talk page indicating that you removed these and asking for help in sourcing this, but this isn't necessary. If this means that you would need to remove the only claim to notability, then leaving it in draft space to be deleted may be the better option. For Driggs, I note that this is not the case (he competed at the Olympics).

Specifically for this case, the problem is that his name is sometimes said to be Driggs, and sometimes Drigg. I can find some (reliable?) references for his Panam medal as Drigg[15], and perhaps more reliable here[16]. Fram (talk) 17:28, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Why?

Why this? Well you may ask, and the answer is Big Thumb Syndrome on iPad while lying in bed and scrolling down watchlists. Note the time -- 4.10 this morning. I think I can count on one had the number of edits I have made at that hour in 13 years. Blush. Cheers Moriori (talk) 19:45, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

:-D No worries, thanks for the explanation! Fram (talk) 21:10, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

@Moriori: FYI, I looked into this recently after a similar mishap and found an option to customise the watchlist to prevent this happening. Andrew D. (talk) 12:07, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Please stop moving back articles to draft space

Please stop moving SvG articles back to the draft space while they don't have SvG issues. As you have been in fight with him for a while, it would be better to let othters do the job. MFriedman (talk) 10:50, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

"While they don't have SvG issues". Have you checked? The one that moved them to mainspace clearly didn't, as explained at WP:AN (issues found in the articles after they were moved back to mainspace ranged from BLPs without a single source about the subject, to copyvios). "it would be better to let othters do the job. " Do you volunteer? Until then, I'll just continue with the moves. Fram (talk) 10:52, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

As you can see I'm already for a long time on the volunteer list. You did clearly did not check the articles when moving them back to the draft space. And yes I did check and moved some of them already back. MFriedman (talk) 10:57, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

"You did clearly did not check the articles when moving them back to the draft space. " No, I don't need to. The onus is on the people moving them to the mainspace to check the articles, not just "I move them to the mainspace without any checks and you need to check them before we can move them back". In that case they shouldn't have been moved to draftspace in the first place. You are free to move articles to the mainspace after you have checked and corrected them. I only move the articles back from editors who didn't do the necessary checks, not all articles no matter who moved them. Fram (talk) 10:59, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

I came here to make a similar point. You moved back to draft space Ryan Patterson, an article that I completely rewrote, heavily referenced and prepared for dyk months ago before it got moved to the draft space for the first time and bears virtually no resemblance to the SvG original article. - Basement12 (T.C) 14:45, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Such articles can be moved immediately back to mainspace by editors looking at articles individually. The problem was that we had editors moving SvG articles to the mainspace en masse, without the necessary checks; they have all been reversed, the good with the bad. Obviously yours was one of the good ones, the move to draft says nothing about the qualities of the articles. Some 16,000 articles have been moved to draft, and some 800 I think have been moved back to draft for being indiscriminately moved to the mainspace. Fram (talk) 14:48, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Understood, I hadn't seen the problem with the mass moves back to mainspace. Just somewhat frustrating that if I hadn't spotted it the clock may have run out an the draft article been deleted. I'm not aware that there is an easy way to see which of SvG's articles I may have developed and now are lingering in drafts - Basement12 (T.C) 15:45, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

If you would belatedly find some articles which have been deleted, you can always ask any admin to WP:REFUND them; if the reasons for the mass-deletion don't apply to the page, there shouldn't be any trouble to have it restored. Fram (talk) 15:56, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

@Basement12:: I think you can find all articles which you ever edited and which have now been moved to draftspace here. Hope this helps! Fram (talk) 16:17, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

• For what its worth, there was one I moved back to mainspace from draft when it had precisely 2 editors, SvG and me. And two diffs (although I think someone else has done it now). Being subsequently aware of the SvG issues I did give it the once over before moving it back (ironically due to a finger slip I put it in the WP space first) as I think the subject probably passes the threshold for notability - insofar as its not eligible for speedy deletion given they do have a claim of significance. The problem I have now is I cant remember who the hell is it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:54, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Tre Whyte? Fram (talk) 14:57, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
    • Thats the one. Its borderline, but its not a copyvio that I could see and he has a claim of notability (UK BMX national champ) so I moved it back. It was only after I moved it back I wondered why it had been moved in the first place and then found out the result of the 'what should we do?' discussion, but after bollixing the move once, I didnt want to do it again :D Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:32, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
• Just a comment after having seen the latest at ANI, and to say I think Fram is exactly right here. The onus is on editors moving these articles back into mainspace to check them properly. If an editor is seen to not be doing that and moving articles with exactly the same problems they had originally, then they're just recreating the same problems we had to start with and their moves can not be trusted - and they should all be reverted back to Draft again. If some good ones get moved back to draft in that process, those individual ones can again be moved back to mainspace by an editor who checks properly. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:56, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks. Fram (talk) 14:57, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

You may want to consider returning all of MFriedman's moves to draftspace. Jorn Winkelhorst (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and Frederique Janssen (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (two of his most recent moves) were not properly checked. — JJMC89 (T·C) 19:00, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Canada men's national volleyball team

what must be done to the pages of the players before they can be moved back to the mainspace?Theo649 (talk) 22:00, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

• Check whether the sources are about the subject of the article, and not about another person (or simply don't work)
• Check all facts given in the article, and either remove or source anything not correctly referenced yet
• Also check the infobox and categories, which often contain other information than the actual text
• If there is more text than just a very basic list of achievements, check it for copyright violations
• Be extra alert for BLP violations (accusation of drug abuse or other negative elements)
• Players of the national senior volleyball team will probably be notable, so an extra check for notability may be unnecessary; but for many SvG articles this is needed as well

If you want to, you can check and move some articles and ask me whether I see any remaining problems. This though is not necessary or obligatory of course. Fram (talk) 07:58, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Only so you know

You beat me to this. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:46, 7 February 2017 (UTC)