User talk:Fram

Danger City Rebels

Hello I have updated the Nick Danger and the Danger City Rebels page and added sources and I was wondering if you could coach me a bit on this article as I am new to writing on Wikipedia. - Jamie

Deleted as wrong namespace

You deleted a proposed policy, Wikipedia:Project Leader, I was writing on the grounds that it was in the wrong namespace?? I'm sorry if I put it in the wrong place. What is the correct location for proposed policies? --Alecmconroy (talk) 05:51, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

haha--- my bad, I caught it. it was in Wikiedia:Project Leader.  :) oops. --Alecmconroy (talk) 05:53, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Could you please recover the deleted contents from Wikiedia:Project Leader and place them on my talk or on Wikipedia:Project Leader? thx --Alecmconroy (talk) 05:55, 4 November 2008 (UTC) no worries-- got it elsewhere. --Alecmconroy (talk) 06:14, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Deleting our page (Senario)

Hey Fram,

why did you delete our band page on Wikipedia? I was still editing it, it wasn't even remotely finished...

Could you be so kind and get it online again, so I can complete editing it?

Thanks in advance and best regards from Germany, Andy Beireran (talk) 16:00, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Please read [WP:NOTE]] and WP:MUSIC. It does not seem likely that the band meets our inclusion guidelines. Fram (talk) 16:01, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#BLP prod

I thought you'd be interested in and might like to comment on the above. RMHED (talk) 21:33, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Flemish, not Dutch

Thanks for your involvement in this discussion. My vantage point is as a Fleming living in the USA for 50+ years. We considered ourselves either Flemish or Belgian, but never Dutch. --Buster7 (talk) 12:41, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I can understand that. My experience in Flanders is that people identify as Flemish, Belgian, ... (taking often different identifications, being both Flemish and Belgian and so on), but never Dutch (excepting those of clearly recent Dutch ancestry, and someof those supporting the unification of the two countries). So I beleive that while an article on the Dutch as an athnic group should mention (at length) that while a number of people believe that Flemings are part of the group, many people disagree with this, both among the Flemish and among the independent researchers / literature. Fram (talk) 12:50, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

BTW...The recent archive (#6) doesnt work right when accessed from the User box....I think you have Capitalized some of the letters. I would fix but I don't know how.--Buster7 (talk) 13:35, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello Fram. I have an idea (see light bulb above my head). Instead of arguing with good faith editors at the Dutch (ethnic group) article, why not create a seperate Flemish (ethnic group) article. When a reader searches for Flemish in the Main list of Ethnic Groups the closest he/she can get is Dutch.

I don't mean to point an accusation but I think the Dutch have a difficult time understanding the position of the Flemish. It has to do with their self-proclaimed feelings of superiority, IMHO. I will copy this idea to SPQRobin for his thoughts.--Buster7 (talk) 20:45, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

A separate article about the Flemish group may be useful, but I don't like articles about ethnic groups in general, since these labels are becoming more and more meaningless. However, whether we ave that article or not, the article on the Dutch should contain correct and balanced info, not the one-sided view it has now (or had in a number of recent versions, I haven't checked the version of today yet). Fram (talk) 08:07, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Wallonia

I don't understand why you removed immediately the image of Tintin. Casterman in Tournai is very famous and there is a book of Hergé translated in the regional language of Tournai. I don't say that is the most important, but I edit this image in order to have images linked to some companies which have often no images. And I put this image before developping two or three lines about Casterman. But... What do you think of this page in general? Now? Sincerely, José Fontaine (talk) 16:17, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

We may not use fair use images outside aticles which deal directly with the subject at hand. To use it here would be an illustration, not a necessity to better understand the article. Of course Casterman and Tintin and Hergé are very famous, no need to convince me (hey, I wrote the "Le Petit Vingtième" article and many others on Belgian comics), but that is not sufficient to have such an image. (By the way, there are also Tintins in Ostends, Brussels, and Antwerps dialect).

As for the current state of the article: while it is a lot better than a few months ago, it is not very good still. Way too many images for starters, no really logical structure, Culture and History sections which aren't truly started yet... There is a lot more information than there was a while ago, but it is hard to digest in its current form. Fram (talk) 07:53, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Self-published material

Fram: You have bias against self-published (print-on-demand, or POD) books, and I think you are dead wrong.

My experience is different: I am a book reviewer for bookpleasures, and I have read many books. Most of the self-published books that I read are of high quality, they are simply published via a different channel. The authors for these books put in a lot of time and effort.

The traditional publishers are NOT better than self-published books, in fact, they are NOT sensitive to market demand, and take too long to produce books, and most of them do not sell anyway. The main purpose of a book is to provide good information to readers in a timely manner. What is the point to produce a lot of books by traditional publishers but cannot sell them?

Traditional publishers use off-set printing, i.e., they need to print a large quantity (for example, 2,000 to 5,000 copies) for each print run. The problem is 90% of the books published by traditional publishers. What are they going to do with all these books that they cannot sell? Throw them away or recycle? So, they killed a lot of trees for no good reason. POD books will be printed only after a reader orders it, sometimes, Amazon or the publishers may stock a small quantity of the books that sell well. So, POD books will have a much smaller environmental impact than the books published by traditional publishers.

I have dealt with both traditional publishers and "self-published" publisher. The traditional publishers only pay author one or two dollars per book, how can you attract talented writers if you only pay them that little?

Wikipedia is a self-published encyclopedia, does it mean it is not as good as the traditional encyclopedia? You are an editor for Wikipedia, does it mean you are not as good as an editor for traditional encyclopedia? Think about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Plantingdesign (talk • contribs)

I moved this from your userpage, hope that's not a problem. --Cameron Scott (talk) 00:57, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a self published encyclopedia, and Wikipedia is not considered a reliable source by Wikipedia itself. Furthermore, my position on self published sources is the standard Wikipedia policy, as established in WP:V#Self-published sources. If you want to change that policy, you will have to take it up at the talk page of that policy.

I have no objection to the existence of self-publishers, and can see why people use it. That does not mean that we should accept such sources as reliable sources though, since the risk of unreliable information in such sources is much higher. If I find evidence that a self-published source has received mainstream attention or is used as a reference by reliable sources or publications, then we have established that said self-published source is of sufficient quality or importance to be included. This is however the execption to the default position of excluding them.

Finally, please check WP:COI. You should not add links to your own books. Fram (talk) 08:00, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Any thoughts?

I need your advice. Please refer to the Dutch (ethnic group) article/Modern Era section and one of my edits of Nov 7th . Would it not be factual that those Belgians that fled into The Netherlands spoke various Flemish dialects rather than Dutch. Am I wrong to think that at the time of the First World War, the fleeing Belgians spoke Flemish, not Dutch. This is the kind of pretentiuosness of Dutch-oriented editors that prevent a simple mention of anything remotely Flemish. Months ago, I had a very lengthy and uncomfortable confrontation with the editor that reverted my attempt at clarity. I don't want to start another if I am off-base (wrong). Thank You. --Buster7 (talk) 22:59, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Robbie Green

Hi, I see you reverted my edits regarding Robbie Green and his failed drugs test and sponsorship. They were provided in an external link which I have turned into a reference. I hope this is helpful to you and the article itself. I would advise you to please read through the article carefully which fully explains his failed drugs test, his fine and suspension and his loss of sponsorship.

Thanks! Raphie (talk) 02:37, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

See User talk:Raphie#Robbie Green. The edits do appear verifiable, but newspaper sources (of which there are plenty) would be more credible than the website of a darts company. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 05:18, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Done :) I just took one from the BBC. The other one regarding sponsorship I just deleted it. Cheers! Raphie (talk) 14:40, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

DYK for Mark Canton

On 10 November, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Mark Canton, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 10:39, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Accusations of misleading Edit Summaries

I did not mislead anyone. The edit summary notes that "as explained in article" the Flemish are more than a mere related people, whereas the Frisians were removed (why?) and I'm reinstating them.HP1740-B (talk) 14:55, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

The edit summary does not mention either "Flemish" or "removal". I have no idea who removed the Frisians or why, and have no objections to reinserting them, but your summary was clearly misleading. Fram (talk) 14:57, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

No it wasn't. I think this largely depends on your prejudice when reading it.HP1740-B (talk) 15:07, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Believe whatever you want... Fram (talk) 15:09, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

That was my point. HP1740-B (talk) 15:12, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

3RR

I agree, I will continue to make a number of changes, but I will not revert you any longer.HP1740-B (talk) 15:12, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

212.68.199.178

Ik heb gezien dat je ook overhoop ligt met 212.68.199.178, kunnen we die niet ergens aangeven voor permanente blokkering? Die werkt mij zodanig op de zenuwen dat ik er grijs haar van krijg. --Hooiwind (talk) 19:23, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

(I'll reply in English :-) ) I'll try to keep an eye on him. If he (or she) would only try to discuss the edits, we might get somewhere... As for blocking: the edits are not bad enough (or frequent), and he is using a number of other IP's anyway, so a block may be a nuisance to him but won't stop him. Fram (talk) 20:54, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Mark Turner's birth date

You removed the reference to NationMaster claiming it is a copy of Wikipedia. Obviously it can't be an exact copy of Wikipedia since it has additional information on some topics that Wikipedia doesn't have. Even the Wikipedia article on NationMaster says they take data from many sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NationMaster I'm putting it back for the time being. --Andreic777 (talk) 21:53, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

You may be right though... I found an old version of this page on Wikipedia that is identical to the one on NationMaster. So the NationMaster page may be a copy of this older version of the page. --Andreic777 (talk) 22:07, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Nationmaster is a copy of an old Wikipedia version (often from 2005). I have not checked the origin of this Natinamster article, but all these articles are straight Wikipedia copies. Fram (talk) 07:54, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Latino sandbox

Yeah, I suspected that. But I didn't want to make it a subpage of mine lest the other editor think it somehow belonged to me. Thanks. SamEV (talk) 14:15, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

If you prefer, I can move it to his userspace, or project space. Fram (talk) 14:16, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, please move it to the project space, which is neutral. SamEV (talk) 14:21, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Wolfberry again

It's late here, and I'm working full-time for the next few days, but I think the referencing/linking needs serious cleanup too. I'm not strictly clear on image link policy, but I'm fairly sure it's not considered good practice to hyperlink out to lots of photos on random websites just so we know (in case we've weak powers of imagination) what wolfberries look like in a bowl of rice or a cup of hot water. Also, too many links to commercial sites ... HTML hyperlinks for internal Wikipedia text ... and news stories in External links that aren't actually used as references. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 03:01, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, they need much more work and cleaning. Way too much emphasis on the superfood angle anyway, they are plants first and potential health foods second. Fram (talk) 08:23, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Lex Wotton

Hi Fram, don't know if you were watching the AfD but you have a message from the re-creator. StarM 13:05, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I have discussed it on his talk page. Fram (talk) 13:10, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Saw that a few minutes after I left this, was chasing the discussion all over the wiki, it seemed. Glad you found it. StarM 01:57, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Sascha Luyckx

Hi! I noticed that you speak Dutch. If you get a chance, could you take a look at this article? I'm not sure which language it is in, or if the subject is notable enough for an article. Thanks! TN‑X-Man 16:54, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. Barely notable, but just passes IMO. Translated, still unsourced, but has some articles in e.g. De Standaard. Is a member of the provincial council... Fram (talk) 19:46, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the translation! I've added the bio template to the talk page, but will leave for others to decide notability. Cheers! TN‑X-Man 19:50, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Dr. T.V. Rao

Hi! This article, which you deleted under G11 at 12:25 GMT today, is back already. What's the best appraoch here - to keep tagging for speedy, or to take it to AFD (and risk there'll be no consensus to delete), or what? Philip Trueman (talk) 17:58, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I think it is best to take it to AfD. The article has a number of sources and some claims to notability. If it is kept at AfD, so be it. It needs to be moved and cleaned of course. Fram (talk) 19:33, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikian

Not really. Pages are only marked that are taken under "the Empire's" wing. Look past the corny empire thing and please see the true potential of this project. Imagine a Wikipedia where every page has a guardian, and you will understand my project. The Empire bit is just to make it more enjoyable (like a game).

His.Wikian.Majesty,Emperor.Victor.of.Wikipedia

(For Royal Inquests, Click Here)

09:37, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

You are contradicting yourself. "Imagine a Wikipedia where every page has a guardian" => every article is tagged for this project... Fram (talk) 09:39, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

That is because of the bias that "advanced" users develop against these sort of new ideas. Why don't you tag the Wikipedia Fun Committee with deletion? Oh, because its an established idea. Give my idea a chance as well!

His.Wikian.Majesty,Emperor.Victor.of.Wikipedia

(For Royal Inquests, Click Here)

09:43, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

You are contradicting yourself because of the bias of advanced users? I'll continue this discussion when you have better arguments... Fram (talk) 09:44, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

No, I simply ignored that quip about contradicting myself because your statement failed to explain itself so that I could understand it. 09:47, 21 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emperor.of.Wikia (talk • contribs)

Talk:Languages of Belgium

Hello, Fram. Can you take a look at the above and my suggestion of today? I believe it is a better explanation and clearer Lead. I feel it is necessary to inform the reader of the subtle and yet important difference between Flemish and Dutch. The "Dutchification" of everything Belgian/Flemish is difficult to explain to the casual visitor.--Buster7 (talk) 14:41, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Bayan Knights article

The article I was currently working on for Bayan Knights has been deleted with the reason: "Bayan Knights" ‎ (A7 (web): No indication that the article may meet guidelines for inclusion)

Bayan Knights premiered Nov. 22 and is considered a milestone in Philippine Comics history as the first time a single comic involves creations of individual authors are joined as a team with individual rights retained. Admittedly the article is a work in progress, however the notability is unquestioned as it has been recognized notably in a major article of a National broadsheet. See here for the link to the story: http://showbizandstyle.inquirer.net/sim/sim/view/20081026-168534/In-Search-of-Real-life-Heroes

If I have to start the article over, that's fine. I would like a detailed explanation however as to why it would be deleted in the first place.

Borgy (talk) 10:34, 27 November 2008 (UTC)GeoffB

I'll restore the article. In the future, please try to make it clearer how the subject of an article is notable. Now all there was, was the link to a blog, without any claim to notability or any link to a reliable source. Fram (talk) 10:39, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Although I had contribued before to other articles, admittedly this is the first time I actually created one from scratch and left it a couple of days. For that I apologize. I have updated the article and I hope it meets the basic standards at least. If there is anything that needs to be improved on , your feedback would be most appreciated. Thank you.

Borgy (talk) 13:47, 27 November 2008 (UTC)GeoffB

It certainly is no longer speedyable, and it looks notable to me. Thanks for arguing against the deletion and improving the article! Fram (talk) 13:49, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Suspicion

Suggest you file a checkuser - what was the link to the older checkuser request? Cirt (talk) 16:47, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree

Thanks!

Nice of you to take the time and effort to respond! Best regards, --Tenebrae (talk) 20:46, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out the Nationmaster/Wikipedia "violation"!

I confirmed that those entries (Fasanenstrasse Synagogue} actually ARE identical, then found what I hope is a better reference - at least it is significantly more detailed! - http://www.bh.org.il/Communities/Synagogue/Fasanenstrasse.asp (I noticed that I could find no mention of WP on the Nationmaster page, but that is S[omeone] E[lse's] P[roblem] (SEP)!)

I love this process…putting the article up (though I still want to do more on it) has led to quite a number of small, helpful changes — yours, and others! — Martha (talk) 00:26, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! The source you give there is at first glance a very good one, a Museum website should be reliable and relevant for the subject. As for Nationmaster Encyclopedia, normally they reference Wikipedia at the very bottom of the page, in small grey print, so I think that is nominally allright (although a mention at the top would be more visible and obvious). And every editor willing to look for good sources and taking civil criticism so positively is a benefit for Wikipedia, so welcome! By the way, I don't know if you noticed the page yet, but an admin has created a page with pageview statistics. Ilse Stanley has received over 5,000 viewers the day it was on the main page![1]. Fram (talk) 07:27, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Fram

Sorry, Fram, comments were addressed to you because I thought yours were addressed at me. My recent wiki-experience is dominated by nutcase users and negativity, and I'm seeing things like that too quickly. I'll remove the whole correspondence, if you don't mind, as it's a distraction. :) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 09:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Fine by me, and no problem! Fram (talk) 09:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Done. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 09:40, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Selective deletion

Hello, I am new to Wikipedia, but was researching an article recently about a new opera house which mentioned the key firms involved in its design, development and building. Each one had a link describing the company concerned, but one link for a company I knew well was empty with an invitation to add details, which I did. I then found it had been removed with the aggressive comment of 'blatant advertising'. So why weren't the other similar entries from similar companies within the same article faced with the same rejection and abuse? My entry was simple straightforward explanation of what the company did. There was no soliciting for business. I had been impressed with Wikipedia in the past, but this is sad. It was the first and the last time I try to contribute. I can only guess the selective nature of this administration was based on commercial preferences. RegardsADCollier (talk) 18:06, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I was going through the new pages. Since the other companies did not have new pages, I never looked at them. We have 2.5 million articles, I can harly check them all. As for the article: the company is not notable, and the text you wrote was a near-copy of their own commercial listing at e.g. [2]. The company has never been in the news[3]. And a sentence like "they deliver a tailored service to ensure well-functioning stages, practical backstage facilities, comfortable auditoria and excellent audience circulation areas." is pure advertising. I'm sorry if this will mean that you will stop contributing, but we are an encyclopedia, not a list of all companies, and the article contained no encyclopedic information whatsoever (History? Achievements?). Please also check WP:COI: if you have a link to the company (writing press releases for them or so), it is best if you don't write articles on them on Wikipedia... Fram (talk) 20:47, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi

Sorry, I created the page : List of people from Lahijan and added names of some people who had lived in this city to it , but you said they are "unsourced", I wanted to say that if you go to pages related to each of those people in wikipedia , you could see that they are from Lahijan. so Why should I give more refrences ? If I cite the wiki pages of them , would it be enough to verify ? Sicaspi (talk) 20:49, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

In general, every page needs to have their own sources. Other Wikipedia pages canget changed, people can get added to your list where the corresponding Wiki page is not adequately sourced, ... The list can stay without sources, it will not get deleted for that reason, butit would be better if it was sourced anyway. Fram (talk) 07:44, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

---

Concerning Michel Coiffard

Before I wrote and referenced this article, I inquired about using Wikipedias in other languages. I am quoting you the guidance I was given:

"Anything on other language Wikipedias is just as free to use as anything here, so feel free to translate and use at will. It definitely won't get deleted for any copyright reasons, and the question of notability is helped by having articles in other languages. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 14:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)"

It is obviously illogical for an administrator to say I can use a source, , and actually encourage it, and then say I can't cite it. I do believe you erred when you deleted my citation to French Wikipedia. There is no question of faulty or ambiguous translation in a date.

Would you care to correct yourself?

Georgejdorner (talk) 08:53, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

You are free to translate articles (or parts of them) from other Wikipedias, as long as you indicate that you have done so. However, that does not mean that Wikipedia (or any wiki) is a reliable source. WP:V, our main policy on this, states (in "Self-published and other questionable sources") that "[...]self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, knols, forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable to cite in Wikipedia." Wikipedia is an open wiki, so it is not acceptable to cite Wikipedia (or a copy of it) as a source for another Wikipedia article. Fram (talk) 09:08, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Vandal

I just read this... so you think I am a sockpuppetteer, how nice is that! Why did you not tell me, I mean - you made those comments on me over a week ago. How am I linked to vandals - all I do is promoting some articles of a Native American figure, is that such a terrible thing to do? This seems like overreacting to me. Jouke Bersma _{Contributions} 10:53, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

We'll see... And as I have pointed out on your user page, you have repeatedly vandalized articles. Fram (talk) 10:59, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

As I've tried to tell you, Fram, I have never intentionally vandalised anything! All I have ever done has been done in good faith. I came to this website to edit seriously. I have removed a citation template because I saw the statement made in the article already was covered by the given references - the one that put it there in the first place has not thoroughly read those and is to blame. And I made a redirect which I considered appropriate - so what? That does not sound like any serious vandalism in my eyes! I've even made an article here recently, William Gentles which was well referenced and has been greatly expanded by user Ephriam with whom I have worked on Touch the Clouds. Please go ahead and check user me whatever that may be and let me edit as I've always done - with an edit summary that is right in 99.9% of the cases and a clean record over all. I mean - I gave a false edit summary once and of course that is no good thing but my edit summary gives options of my older edit summaries every time a type a word and so I could have accidently put in a wrong one. Jouke Bersma _{Contributions} 11:40, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

This whole thing is seriously disturbing! Jouke Bersma _{Contributions} 12:10, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Belgian?

You Belgian? Cool... I am Dutch. We could just talk in our native language. :) Jouke Bersma _{Contributions} 12:21, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

List of archaeological sites in Thurrock

You recently tagged this article as requiring a cleanup. I'm happy to attempt this (for example I have expanded the lead para to include definition and order), but it would be helpful if you could let me know what aspects particularly need cleaning up. Rjm at sleepers (talk) 11:16, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

It was (and is) mainly the intro. It has significantly improvedn but needs some expansion and wikification. The list is also an orphan (meaning that no other articles link to it) and almost a dead end (meaning that it has no bluelinks, you can't go from this page to other Wikipedia pages by links except for the Thurrock link (added since) and the Mucking excavation link (already there when I tagged it). Linking to things like East Tilbury would help, but certainly when you hace words like "tessarae" or "kiln", a link is useful (even if it is a redlink, then at least we know that it needs an article :-) ). Don't get me wrong, it is an interesting article, and very well sourced, but it could use a lot of work, and can still use some basic work. Fram (talk) 12:09, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the tag following expansion of the lead and increasing the links to other articles. Have a look and see whether it needs more. Rjm at sleepers (talk) 14:22, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that will do. Normally, something should be bolded at the start of the intro, but with lists, this is sometimes harder to achieve in a natural way. Thanks for all the work on this! Fram (talk) 14:25, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Shaun Costello

It appears the deletion of that article as "personal attack page" was for the wrong reason. There is currently a discussion about this at WT:P*#Shaun Costello. Do you see any objection to undeleting this page so that people there can discuss it properly? — Sebastian 04:13, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Replied there, thanks for the notification. Fram (talk) 07:47, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Greeting from Bali

Taken by Davenbelle.

Hi. I've noted your comments a few weeks ago and earlier today. I recall agreeing with you on some issues previously and posting replies to that effect. I'd like to assure you that I'm a reasonable fellow and that I'm back with a sincere interest in doing what's right for the project; this has always been my intent. Perhaps we could chat a bit? Email's fine, if you prefer. I've had quite a bit of dialogue with a great many folks prior to my return; talk does wonders. Cheers, Jack Merridew 10:06, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

No thanks, I'm not interested. If you behave reasonably, I'll leave you well alone. Your behaviour (pre-block I mean) was appalling, even if we agreed on some aspects of the fiction discussions. I don't like White Cat at all (as an editor here, I have no idea what kind of person he is and it is utterly irrelevant), but how you treated him was despicable. You are unblocked, you can edit productively now, but that does not mean that I'll change my opinion of you or have any interest whatsoever to chat with you. Fram (talk) 10:11, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Deletions

Hi Fram,

I am disappointed to see you speedily deleting articles because of BLP. Though I know this is the policy, you should have looked for sources. I am positive you would have found at least enough to keep the articles you just deleted, if only in a seriously paired down state. Now, it is unlikely those biographies will be rewritten, when they could have been saved with a simple google search.--Thomas.macmillan (talk) 12:52, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Let's see. The article Pierre-Célestin Rwigema: I deleted it today, you tagged it as a stub in May 2007. Perhaps you could have done that simple google and source in those year and a half inbetween? Another? André Ntagerura was deleted today, and edited by you in October 2006. You had two years to do something about this blatant BLP violation, but you blame me? You can be disappointed as much as you like, but don't blame me for acting according to one of our most funcamental policies while you pointedly ignored it for at least two years. Fram (talk) 13:06, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Allow me to chime in, as one of the people who helped shape our speedy deletion criteria several years ago. WP:CSD G10 is for articles that "serve no purpose but to disparage or threaten their subject". This clearly is not the case for either of the articles. Naturally, they contained some critical statements, but what do you expect?! Pierre-Célestin Rwigema was the prime minister of Rwanda for five difficult years. André Ntagerura was a minister during the Rwandan Genocide. These facts were not disputed. I have seen many articles regarding ethnic conflicts, and when they're as fair as these two articles, then we can consider ourselves lucky! Deleting such articles does Wikipedia no good.

Since our policy currently says that G10 deleted articles "should not be restored or recreated by any editor until [they meet] biographical article standards.", and since we don't agree on this yet, I will not restore them. But I urge you to reconsider your decision. Also, I urge you to be more careful with speedy deletions in the future. — Sebastian 20:29, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

(Disclosure: I was informed of this discussion because of a recent essay I wrote on CSD.) One of the things I've been looking at lately are the way in which our CSD system is being abused and misused. I've already looked at G1 abuse and A1 abuse but haven't looked at G10 yet. The deletion of these two articles IMO are further examples of over eager deleters, which is what gives CSD a bad name. Both of these articles are worthy of keeping... yes, the BLP concerns could, no should be deleted, until sourced. In an ideal world, the person performing the CSD should do this before deleting, but I know that's what should be done. If you aren't going to do the search yourself, then simply remove the contentious content. G10 is not a blanket exception allowing for the deletion of valid articles that have BLP concerns. BLP does not call for deletion of articles of otherwise notable individuals with BLP concerns.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 21:06, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Funny how everyone now is so concerned about these articles, but couldn't be bothered to do anything about them in the years they were unsourced BLP violations. I will not be more careful with deletions in the future, articles that start with "He is chiefly known for his alleged role in the Rwandan Genocide." without any source in the four years of their existence are a disgrace. "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion". If this material is the bulk of the article, the article should just go. G10 is quite clear about this: "a biography of a living person that is entirely negative in tone and unsourced, where there is no neutral version in the page history to revert to. Administrators deleting such pages should not quote the content of the page in the deletion summary, and if the page is an article about a living person it should not be restored or recreated by any editor until it meets biographical article standards." If you don't like the deletions, either recreate it as a decent, well sourced article (it is not as if I deleted a long page for one line of negative unsourced claims: the articles were stubs where the negative material was the essence), or take it to DRV. I will continue my scanning of as many BLPs as I can find, tagging the thousands of unsourced BLPs, and I will continue the deletion of all unsourced articles about supposed war criminals, nazi camp guards, porn artists, priests involved in sex scandals, and so on. All of you are welcome to write well-sourced articles about these persons, but I find it utterly amazing that all of you care so much about these articles now, but didn't bother to remove the BLP violations in the past. I suppose shooting the messenger is always the easiest solution... Fram (talk) 08:12, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't care about the articles, I care about the people who go around deleting articles that shouldn't be deleted. Speedy Deleters can be as big of a bain to the project as the vandals they are trying to protect the project from. Careless/hasty speedy deleters (and I am not saying that you are one, I've not looked at your other deletions) need to be curbed. (There are a few admins that I know of who speedy just about everything regardless of whether or not it fits the proper criteria---take a look at the reviews I did on A1 and G1 deletions.)---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 14:45, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Obviously speedy deletions can be misapplied and misused. I have tagged over 2,000 articles as unsourced BLPs in the last few weeks, and a few hundred or so more as simply unsourced. I have deleted only a big handful of those. It is better to lack a few correct but unsourced articles, than to have a few incorrect negative BLPs. My speedies were not "hasty", the articles had existed for years without anyone bothering to add even one source to them. They were not "works in progress" that were deleted before the editor(s) had a chance to finish them. Take e.g. this article on a supposed Al Qaeda member: created in 2005, it was tagged as needing references since 2006: it should have been deleted long ago, but no one could be bothered. We have a two-year backlog on articles tagged as "unsourced": about one in twelve of those are BLPs. We have many more articles that have been unsourced for years without being tagged. For the limited number of those that make serious negative allegations which are the major part of the article, the best solution is to delete them until someone comes along who wants to recreate it from scratch as a well-sourced article. You and everyone who has complained is free to be the creator of these acceptable articles: but I will not undelete any serious BLP violations. Fram (talk) 14:59, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

That article, which is about a real person and events, probably should be deleted as it is solely about the incident, he has zero notability outside the allegation of being involved in a terrorist organization. The two cited above, could have been tweaked with minimal effort. Eg delete the most of the third paragraph on the prime minister of Rwanda and you have stub worthy of keeping---heads of state are worth keeping. Delete the second sentence in the other article, and move the allegation to just before his acquital, and you remove the BLP concern on an otherwise notable individual---Minister of Transport and Communications of Rwanda. Very little effort and both articles are salvagable. An existing stub on notable individuals is better than no article.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 15:23, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

A new stub without a history full of BLP violations is better than keeping the history. Compare it to an article with extensive copyright violations throughout the history: we don't trim it down to a copyright free version, we delete it completely, even if it is about a notable subject. Why would we try to "salvage" an article with serious BLP violations when we can much easier delete it, and someone with real interest in it and knowledge of it can then create a good stub from scratch? What is lost by not having an article for a while? We didn't have the article for years, we still have glaring holes in our coverage of all kinds of everything, but these few articles, who no one could be bothered to clean in four years time, are so important that we cannot miss them for a few hours, days or weeks? The logic escapes me. Fram (talk) 19:29, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

FYI, this is being discussed at WT:CSD. My advice is to take a couple of the disputed stubs to DRV and get more opinions. And Fram, I agree with you on some of these, but when a stub has been around for years, and no one else has complained about it, sometimes it's better to do a Prod instead of a speedy. That way the article still gets deleted, but with far less drama. --Elonka 07:19, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

My apologies. I did not originally mean to write my post at WT:CSD#Blitz deletions about you, but I have to admit it went that way. I replied to your post at #Pesonal attacks in more detail. — Sebastian 18:20, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll move over there and have a look. Fram (talk) 07:43, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

User_talk:193.172.170.26

Given this diff [4] it's fairly clear how useful a user this guy would have been. Thanks for your help. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:24, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

left

okay man, i've had it with you and wikipedia - i left, don't bother banning me but if you can't resist, then go ahead and bring it on! you guys gave me a hard time, i'm done with this shit. see ya! Jouke Bersma _{Contributions} 11:25, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I posted a note about this at WP:ANI. Feel free to follow up if you want to. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:35, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

And just like that, Poof!, he's gone (except on his user page). Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:45, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, finally!! Now just to keep an eye on new socks, but these I can safely WP:RBI... Fram (talk) 12:40, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

The IP address' user page is now semi-protected, so that should choke this guy off. I'm a little annoyed, since I gave the guy a chance to demonstrate some good faith and he stomped on it. To put it another way, he threw his shoes at us. However, it should have been expected. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:54, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

It does make our life easier. The final edits of Jouke and the IP were so similar that anyone who wold wonder if it couldn't have been truly a school admin will have no doubts left about the validity of either block. Fram (talk) 13:56, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Chuvash State University Faculty Working with Foreign Students

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Chuvash State University Faculty Working with Foreign Students, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

a non-notable list of faculty, in a NN department; written as an essay

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Bearian (talk) 22:24, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Sorry about the template. Bearian (talk) 22:26, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Protect Belgium

Ive been noticing a high level of vandalism at Belgium. The most recent history page is filled with reverts of IP's. (BTW..The Sarah Palin article gets protected at the drop of an off-color hat. Right now it is protected for a month!). While I may have at one time been against protection, in general, I'm sure that you would agree how tedious and annoying it can be. Also, vandalism threatens Wikipedia's reputation as a quality professional site. What can be done to "treat" this dangerous condition.--Buster7 (talk) 00:17, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank You.--Buster7 (talk) 13:45, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Harvest Partners

Fram -

I am working on creating articles on notable private equity firms as part of the Private Equity Task Force. I noticed you deleted an article started for Harvest Partners in May 2007. Although the article may have failed to express it, this is a notable firm. I am not sure what condition the article was in when it was deleted. It would be great if you could restore the text as a subpage in my user space User:Urbanrenewal/Harvest Partners and I will get it in shape. Thanks |► ϋrbanяenewaℓ • TALK ◄| 16:05, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I have userfied it. Article was prodded long ago (and could frankly have been speedy deleted as a A7 no assertion of notability). Good luck! Fram (talk) 07:23, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Guido den Broeder

Required notice to all parties involved with the Guido den Broeder ban/block/discussion: I have appealed the ban on his behalf at WP:RFAR. Cosmic Latte (talk) 19:16, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Your tagging of South African cricketers

I intend to remove most of them, because in most cases, the article is a one-line stub, and the single sentence is a prosification of the infobox, which does have a reference attached at the bottom. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 23:59, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Wow, I didn't see that . While you are right, I have to say that that is a very hard to spot reference. Clearly reliable obviously, part of ESPN so no problem there. No objection to my tags being removed when the infobox is sourced, but could you find a way to make that ref easier to find (a notes section in the article or so)? Fram (talk) 08:26, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Mylon LeFevre Article

I fixed the cite you tagged in the Mylon LeFevre article. Thanks for catching it. Doctorfun (talk) 19:27, 6 January 2009 (UTC)(cleanup volunteer)

Merry Christmas

Ecoleetage (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. 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. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Image

Hello Fram, happy new year ! Can you restore Image:Panoramix.png, I will add a FUR to use it in Characters in Asterix#Getafix (or can you do it yourself). Thanks. Pah777 (talk) 17:08, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I have restored it. Fram (talk) 07:52, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Request

Hello, User:Fram. I have noticed from your user page that you are a fan of or have an interest in The Smurfs series. There is currently a discussion concerning the merging of all individual articles on Smurf video games into one bigger article. I do not believe that any of the editors involved in the discussion (myself included) know much about the games and I was hoping you could provide us with the benefit of your opinion as an editor knowledgeable about the subject. If you are not interested in helping or if you believe yourself incapable at this time then please disregard this message. The discussion is currently under way here. Thanks for your time. -Thibbs (talk) 22:12, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Moving ECW Tag Team Championship list

All lists have the "C" in Champions capitalized because the "Champion" is apart of the name of the Championship. ECW Tag Team Championship is the name and the holders were ECW Tag Team Champions. --Truco 22:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

For many championships, the name is the X Championships but the winners are the X champions. But you are free to revert my moves per WP:BRD. Fram (talk) 22:23, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this is how the respective companies spell the name of the holders of the championship. Like the World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE) Champion(ship)--Truco 22:25, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

On the other hand, you have ECW Tag Team competitors, ECW Tag Team referees, ECW Tag Team runner-ups, etcetera. Why make an exception for the actual champions? Fram (talk) 22:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Because there is no such thing as those terms you explained above. Professional wrestling is a complex thing to understand, and this is one of them, organizations list the holders of the titles as "Champion" because they reflect the name of the actual championship. You wouldn't say List of WWE Championship champions would you? No, because Champions does the same job.--Truco 22:31, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I will not contest it, I guess arguments can be made for both, so keeping the situation as it is is not problem. On the other hand, I have started a move discussion for List of earls at the talk page there (and at WP:RM). Fram (talk) 21:14, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

BLPunsourced

Do you know, is there a similar template for missing people? Or should missing people just be {{References}}'d? Evidently, this template's not quite right, as it adds them to Living people, where they should not really be. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 19:17, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea of a similar template for missing people, no. Tagging it is unreferenced is certainly allright. Perhaps something to discuss at WP:BLPN? Fram (talk) 19:48, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I posted a request here. -- Suntag ☼ 21:34, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

List of hotels of the London, Midland and Scottish Railway

Hi, you recently renamed the page to have a lower case "h" for hotels instead of a capital "h". Clicking on a link to the upper case version does not automatically redirect you to the renamed page but instead you get an intermediate page with the link to the lower case version. Is there any way you can correct this so that the redirection happens automatically please? Thanks in advance. ColourSarge (talk) 15:36, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

That's bizarre: there is no double redirect as far as I can see, and when I access the older page from e.g. London, Midland and Scottish Railway, it automatically gets me to the new page. Can you tell me what link you are using to access the old page? Fram (talk) 15:39, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Eye of Tyr

As well as the automatic notification I've told him his behaviour is being discussed on the AfD. In fact, I am just wondering when it should be brought up at ANI. What do you think? dougweller (talk) 09:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The only thing I can imagine that would excuse it (apart from being a true story after all, which is very doubtful) is that he created the page from a request on "request for article creation" (I don't know the exact name, so can't link it, butwe do have something like that floating around). If that's the case, then he just AGF too much and didn't check enough, which is slightly careless but not a serious mistake. I hope this is the case, otherwise I would indeed raise it at ANI. Fram (talk) 09:52, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Now I am really confused. I looked at the 2 deleted edits (which I should have done). The article was created in October last year by Parakinetics (talk · contribs) and you moved it because Tyr wasn't capitalized. Those 2 edits are deleted, the first non-deleted edit is from Lifebak and the edit summary says 'starting article'. Can you make sense of that? dougweller (talk) 10:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

And the new article is significantly similar to the old one, so we may have a GFDL problem as well, and a copyright violation problem. The article was deleted (by me) as a copyright violation from [5] (go to Museum Gallery, and then to Eye of Tyr). I did not compare the earlier article with the new one until now, so I had not noticed this problem yet. We really need an explanation from Lifebaka... Fram (talk) 10:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Broke-ass Stuart, et. al.

Hi. I just shot you an e-mail re. your concerns. The Broke-ass Stuart page came up on my machine on two different occasions as a cut-and-paste of the sandbox page under a bizarre title. The text that's currently up on the article was not what I'd deleted. Might have been a computer glitch on my end, but all I know is what I saw and that's what I based my decision on. You were correct in restoring the article to its current version, however, I would never have deleted this had I seen what I'm seeing now.--PMDrive1061 (talk) 18:48, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

To follow up: I wasn't the first to have deleted the "Shannon Marie" entry. NawlinWiki had done so just before I did. I remember deleting something regading "crudo," but the link you sent wasn't what I deleted, or even would have. I do admit that I may have been a little trigger-happy on that company stub. I hope this addresses your concerns. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 18:55, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Almost forgot: The total original content of the Conficker computer virus entry was: Conficker is a computer virus that surfaced in January, 2009. It was speediable for lack of content; it was, IMO, up to the poster to have done the bit of extra work necessary to properly describe this in the first place. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 19:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

You deleted Broke-ass Stuart, the author recreated it as Broke-ass stuart, and you deleted that as well. The version you deleted is this one[6]. Everything that needed to be done was removing the sandbox header. It may have been a glitch, but the current text is the text you deleted. And deleted as G3 vandalism as well...

You weren't the first one to delete Shannon Marie, but the first to delete it as vandalism, when it was just an A7 from an editor who hasn't gotten a clue about Wikipedia

About Conficker: you deleted it as A1, not enough context. You could have deleted it as A3 (lack of content) or A7 (webcontent), but the context was there, Conficker is a computer virus. And somewhat notable, with 300 pageviews a day[7] and lots of Google News hits.

Crudo: you deleted it as Crudo band at 03:38 the 16th. It was at that time only one minute old, and did not contain any wikilinks. The names included in it were pretty well known and easily wiki-searchable (or googlable). For attack pages and truly non notable A7s (X is the greatest girl alive!) and so on, instant speedying is the best solution: for many other A7s and A3s, a very simple search is often a better solution.

Of course it would be much, much better if people created better articles, but how can you expect people to learn this if their first honest effort gets instantly deleted, in some cases as vandalism with a warning to never do such thing again?

As for your email: I prefer discussing things in the open, the good with the bad (apart from privacy issues). We should not hide our disagreements, errors, ... from other editors. Fram (talk) 21:24, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

heheh

sucked into the dark abyss of the indonesia project i see - well there will be no rush from eds to fix all that - good luck SatuSuro 14:55, 20 January 2009 (UTC) I have followed your contribs and will try - but it will take ages - the issue is that in many cases english deprived eds add stubs with nothing to support them as a copy from the id project. There seems no acknowledgement in that project to utilise anything that resembes a RS - oh well thanks fo uncovering them anyways - cheers SatuSuro 15:02, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

No worries, the current backlog for unsourced articles is nearly two and a half years, so there's no rush :-) I'm going through all the stubs, country by country, and afer having pfinished India I am now at Indonesia. It is, in all honesty, just drive-by tagging, I'm not even watchlisting the pages, so apart from highlighting some problems I will not be of much use. If you would want some assistance for any particular problems, I am always willing to help, but I will not make a serious effort to source all these articles. If I ever get finished with the tagging, I may take on the sourcing of a few categories of articles closer to my heart (like comics-related articles).

By the way, I have only tagged those with no sources, all those with only unreliable sources (like personal webpages) will still be untagged. We can't do it all at once... Fram (talk) 15:26, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Spelling errors in Image files names

BTW, while you are there, how does one correct the spelling in the name of an Image file, such as Tarantula (DC Comics) such as

250px|frame|Squadron 66 (misspelled Squadon)? Image:Febuary 21 Lunar Eclipse.jpg|Eclipse observed from Washington, DC, USA at 02:57:51 UTC. Lunar north is left. (February misspelled Febuary)

Picture files do not seem to have a "move" button that allow renaming.

Tabletop (talk) 23:01, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that the same image needs to be re-uploaded with a different name, but I'm not really very familiar with the whole file namespace. Fram (talk) 07:51, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

ANI: User:Tabletop unnecessary white-space changes

Hello, Fram. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Tabletop unnecessary white-space changes regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. —Sladen (talk) 01:55, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank You

Just wanted to stop in and thank you for your Blocking of Siltsalt, before they could cause serious damage to Wikipdia. Good work. Sephiroth storm (talk) 06:18, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

List of Great Lakes Hockey League Teams

I would suggest going ahead with changing List of Great Lakes Hockey League teams into a redirect. 199.125.109.126 (talk) 05:23, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Moses

Just wanted your advise: Should the see also list be alphabetized? Galoubet (talk) 08:30, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I would not alphabetize it, e.g. the last two entries should stay at the end. Similarly, I would not alphabetize the categories, although I would put the category "Moses" first (and probably remove it from the "see also" section). The "further reading" section is an example of an alphabetized list with a new entry tagged on at the bottom: this entry should either be removed (and it does look like a not very scientific book anyway), or if kept included at the correct spot in that list. Fram (talk) 11:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Mark Libbery/Libbeter

I need these pages unprotected. thanks 194.81.151.145 (talk) 11:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

You better discuss this with the admin that closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Libbery, User:MacGyverMagic. Fram (talk) 11:34, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Dutch conversation at User talk:Daveneijsen

As a non-Nederlands-speaking American, I can only say, "Dank je"! --Orange Mike | Talk 15:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

;-)

sock of banned

Fram thanks for helping at CFS, IP 88.97.5.228 now editing article also, controversial and non medrs without discussing, is also London, same as the 87 IPs probably same person. I agree about semiprotect. Thx, RetroS1mone talk 13:20, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Nederlandse babbel

You may wish to respond here.—Kww(talk) 15:07, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Sky Tate

Hello! The various posts for deletion are largely factually inaccurate. I found a source on Google News (a review, so not first party) that verifies some of the article's information, which means the nomination claim of "no" reliable third party sourcing to verify the subject is not true. The first delete says it is "completely" in-universe, which is again not accurate as citing the actor who portrays the character is out of universe information. The next delete asks what makes these ones so special, which is clearly evident in the article, i.e. the leader of the Power Rangers for a time. Next is another claim of unverifiable (I don't see how if I can find sources others can't). Then you get a textbook WP:JNN and WP:ITSCRUFT. The next one seems to call for a character list, i.e. a merge perhaps? The next one is a bit more compelling, but it is note "entirely" in-universe and what it calls for is really improvement that can and should happen. Then, yet another false claim about "no" out of universe information and given the notability of the series, of course reviews and interviews exist (perhaps there's Power Ranger magazine interviews not necessarily found on Google News? Finally, you have an incivil delete with the very last delete being more of a critique of another editor than being about the article. Thus, a fair and objective read of the discussion would have to discount most of the deletes and even though there's only three keeps, the most correct read of the discussion would be that the topic can at worst be redirected with the edit history intact per WP:PRESERVE; however, a merge is also a possibility and perhaps improvement of the article in question. Thus, I respectfully request that the edit history be undeleted so that I can at least merge the source I added during the discussion. Thank you for your time and help! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:31, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The source you added is this: <ref>Aaron Wallace, "[http://www.ultimatedisney.com/powerrangers-spd-vol1.html Review of ''Power Rangers S.P.D.: Volume 1 - Joining Forces'']," ''UltimateDisney.com'' (June 13, 2005).</ref>

As for your other arguments, I disagree. I know that you are fond of using JNN and ITSCRUFT, but these are only essays. Preserve is currently seriously disputed. The delete opinion which said "Entirely plot summary without real-world development, context, analysis, or critical commentary for a non-notable fictional topic which has not received significant coverage in reliable sources." encapsulates it best: the only "real world info" is the name of the actor who portrayed him, which is clearly insufficient for most people. Apart from that, the incivil deletes even out the incivil keeps, so that part can be ignored in closing the debate. So I see no reason to undelete the history, and you can merge the "source" (hardly worth the name) I've reposted above. Fram (talk) 20:18, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I've merged the source; however, I still see no reason to keep the history deleted as it is NOT original research, duplication or redundancy (maybe to the article where merged to, but there might be material here that can be used), irrelevancy, patent nonsense, copyright violations, inaccuracy, or unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons per WP:PRESERVE. By contrast, I don't think it's out of the question that someone can add material on development from say DVDs commentaries per WP:FICT given time and find reviews in magazines that don't necessarily show up on Google News for the critical commentrary. What constitutes "significant" is a very disputed term as seen on the WP:FICT talk page. Calling the leader of a Power Rangers group "non-notale" is not really accurate either. Thus, I believe the article has potential and it's good to have that basis in the edit history if/when new sources do turn up. In any event, have a nice afternoon! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 20:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

consensus?

Hi there,

I see you wrote that editing guideline should be demoted. Don't you think there should be a wider consensus?

212.200.243.116 (talk) 22:42, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Umm, that's what the discussion is trying to gauge. If I had simply demoted it, you would have a point. However, I just gave my opinion that it should be demoted. If consensus turns out to be the same, it will happen. If not, then it won't. Fram (talk) 07:52, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Re;Genetics

FYI, there was a similar discussion at Talk:Germanic peoples over the last few days. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 08:21, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I see that the discussions we have at Dutch people are pretty lame compared to those :-) I don't agree that a genetics section has no place on a page about an ethnicity (no matter how dubious the concept of an ethnicity in itself often is), but the poor sourcing and interpretation of those sources by many editors is a big problem. We'll see how people react at Dutch people... Fram (talk) 08:34, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

It's a topic that wiki editors can be trusted not to handle properly and its presence tends to attract certain types, if you know what I mean (racists, supremacists and nationalists crazies). Between you and me, that is the reason why it should go from most articles. Responsible editors need to think about the relationship between content and editor demographics as much as just content! ;) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 08:59, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Exporting trouble from nl-wiki

Hello Fram, last year you blocked an anonymous user with IP 86.83.155.44 for an indefinite ‎period for 'Disruptive editing'. Today he was blocked on the nl-wiki and I just found he is copying his slander of me and another sysop on the nl-wiki, from his nl-talk page to his talk page here [8]. In it, he wrote "Van een steeds weer door Robotje en U uitgeroepen nonsense over zgn. "editwar" is hier al helemaal geen sprake, ... " which means freely translated: "A so called editwar of which you and Robotje over and over talk nonsense is absolutely not applicable here ..." I feel the urge to reply on his talk page here as well since he is the one who is quite often violating the 3RR (in the last few weeks this is his 3rd editwar related block [9]) and at the same time he blames I'm editwarring although he cannot prove there are enough reverts on my side to make such statements. Anyway, I don't want to export problems of the nl-wiki so for now I won't write my reply on his en-talk page. However, I do think he should be stopped from abusing his limited remaining edit rights on this Wikipedia. As a last step you might consider blocking his talk page on the English Wikipedia since he doesn't use it anyway for purposes these talk pages are made for. If you have a better way to stop him slandering me and another sysop of the nl-wiki, that's OK with me too. - Robotje (talk) 15:52, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

This is which hunting from Robotje. Also please see that the block on nl:wiki was done after being provoked by a.o. Robotje: He was blocked for altering a heading with only 2 signs (adding asterixes to a subheading for readability!) on his own talk page! Therefor please ignore these low remarks made by Robotje, who seems to have only 1 goal: to hold a pogrom against this user 86.83.155.44! DTBone (talk) 02:00, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

User Dutch T-bone was himself also involved in this same editwar but with a user name different from the one he is using here (see this edit which I could only find after digging in the archive of his talk page). Hiding that fact in the above edit doesn't show his good faith. The official reason for the block was not an edit war but repeatedly editing on comments written and signed by others and he has been warned and blocked many times for that behavior (in total he was blocked for about 5 month last year; mainly for that kind of edits). But let's not export dutch problems (or dutch blocking policies) to this English Wikipedia; that is exactly the reason I didn't react on the talk page of this anonymous user with IP 86.83.155.44 but made my request here. And DTBone, please don't make silly remarks about my only goal being "to hold a pogrom against this user 86.83.155.44". In English a pogrom is used for a riot mainly against Jewish people. How can a wikipedian start a riot against another user? If you knew more about my background you certainly wouldn't even consider using that word which has to do with racial violence and killing in relation to me. This is highly offensive to me, and an apology would be the least you can do. - Robotje (talk) 11:07, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Talk page blanked, editing of talk page disabled. The only reason to edit a talk page of a blocked user is to ask for an unblock (or to discuss said request). As long as his editing of the talk page was minimal and harmless, I ignored it, but when he is bringing external conflicts here, where he is alrzazdy blocked, then it has to stop. Fram (talk) 09:16, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Request

Hi Fram,

Small question: I saw that User:86.83.155.44 still is being blocked. Due to the nature of this block i wondered if being blocked from october 2008 until now is not already long enough for the definition of an "indefinite" block. (His previous (last) block lasted only 7 days, so 'indefinite' is quite long already I think, in terms of acceptable duration of a protective block).

I therefore would like to kindly request to you - being the 'blocker'- to let this user come back to Wikipedia in order to enable him to contribute again.

The person behind this IP is known by me for his erudite contributions on many articles in many language versions of Wiki's, although some users here on 'en:' maybe think his style of contributing is disputable and blockworthy.

My main argument for unblocking is that this person's 'style' should not be a reason for blocking at all, as he does not disrupt or harm the wiki by his 'style', and beside that this man is able to constructively contribute in several fields of his expertises.

Looking forward to your comments, and hoping that you share the reasonability of my request,

With highest regards, DTBone (talk) 01:59, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The contributions of this anonymous user on this Wikipedia are almost neglectable and several times the promises he made to get a block lifted were broken soon after the block was lifted. DTBone either doesn't know enough about the edits user 86.83.155.44 made here or he knowingly tries to make them look nicer than they are. Blocking or unblocking on this Wikipedia should be based on his edits here. DTBone states that this user made "erudite contributions on many articles in many language versions of Wiki's". Even if you would consider edits elsewhere, then please also mention that those edits on Wikipedia's in other language versions were mainly for selfpromotion and that he has been blocked for long periods (several months, year, indefinite) for most of them for editwars to keep that selfpromotion in the articles on those Wikipedia's. But once again, his edits somewhere else shouldn't play a roll for blocking or unblocking him here. - Robotje (talk) 11:09, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

• FYI: on Dutch Wikipedia the user we're talking about has been unblocked today due to lack of support for a long block. I think here on en:wiki the same should happen. Sincerely, DTBone (talk) 16:15, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Whether he is blocked or unblocked on other Wikipedias is irrelevant. He is blocked here for his behaviour here, has not requested an unblock, and has shown by his recent talk page edits that he continues to engage in unproductive editing here. I will not unblock this user. Fram (talk) 09:17, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Apparently you are not able to see that in matters of 'behaviour' it takes more to cause conflicts? I think you should really rethink this block, now this user is totally cut off from means of communication. As this is a static IP address there was no need at all to erase his talk page and his user page. Please revert and unblock on arguments provided earlier. I think when the wiki becomes even more of a 'censored site' where esteemed contributors are being shut off the future is predictably dark... Regards, DTBone (talk) 01:16, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

His contributions have been regarded at length during his previous blocks and unblock discussions. They are (on the English Wikipedia) very limited and almost exclusively used for self-promotion, and do not outweigh in any way his disruption. As for the blanking of his talk page: the same happens to accounts who use their talk page for unrelated things after they are blocked. Since this is a static IP, I have treated it like a normal account. If he wants to be unblocked, he can email the arbitration committee. He has no need for other means of communication on Wikipedia at all. I have seen not one good argument to unblock this user here (the situation on the Dutch Wikipedia is not relevant), and his latest edits on his talk page (before the blanking and protection) were only further arguments to keep the indefinite block, not to lift it. Fram (talk) 07:29, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Terminology of KO One

I noticed this reapperaing, and you deleted it as G4 speedy a few weeks back. I only have this on my watchlist from the AfD, so i tagged it, but didn't see which others i the same family might be recreated. You also speedied others from this same creator? Should it be salted? Just wondering (i already noticed you'd gotten to this, but had msg written.)Yobmod (talk) 10:07, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

There was one other (Terminology of The X-Family): I have deleted and salted both now, and removed all links to them from article space. I hope this will be sufficient. Fram (talk) 10:24, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

RE: Signature

I noticed that - it only has that bug when it's in a transcluded page (like RFA). I've turn it into this one, so hopefully this works :)  GARDEN  13:25, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

No problemo - not intentional as I say, looks like a bug. If you look at the coding you'll see the text should have been white. No idea why Wikipedia hates it :P  GARDEN  13:38, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

User:President bahij Bey el-khatib

While I also agree that it's unlikely that the spirit of President bahij Bey el-khatib has reached through the ether from the netherworld to edit Wikipedia, is there a specific user page policy you feel User:President bahij Bey el-khatib has violated? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 15:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

From WP:UP:

Copies of other pages

While userpages and subpages can be used as a development ground for generating new content, this space is not intended to indefinitely archive your preferred version of disputed or previously deleted content or indefinitely archive permanent content that is meant to be part of the encyclopedia. In other words, Wikipedia is not a free web host. Private copies of pages that are being used solely for long-term archival purposes may be subject to deletion.

Similarly, pages kept in userspace should not be designed to functionally substitute for articles or Wikipedia space pages. If you find that your user subpage has become as useful as a normal article or project page, consider moving it into the appropriate namespace or merging it with other similar pages already existing there. One should never create links from a mainspace article to any userpage, nor should a userspace essay be used as the primary documentation for any Wikipedia policy, guideline, practice, or concept.

The user had created the same page four times, at the article, article talk, user page, and user talk page. All four were GFDL violations of Bahij al-Khatib. The pages have not been edited for noearly three months now. If the user has a purpose with the pages, he can still get them from his history (they have not been deleted, only blanked!). Fram (talk) 15:46, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Fair 'nuff, thanks! - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:57, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Expert

Thanks, rolled-back for now. Rich Farmbrough, 13:58 18 February 2009 (UTC).

Continued use of "Sir" in main title headers

Since you took part in the Sir Ernest de Silva/Ernest de Silva main title move, a related discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles)#Use of prefix "Sir" as a disambiguation aid may be of interest.—Roman Spinner (talk) 22:17, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

speedy

You recently deleted Chen You-hao; I see from the Google news archive [10] there are sources. [11] includig BBC: [12] DGG (talk) 00:01, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Then it won't be a problem to recreate it with good sources. It was a serious WP:BLP violation, and unsourced for 4 1/2 years. I have no problem undeleting it if it will soon after be well-sourced, of course, but I'm not planning on working on it myself. Fram (talk) 08:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Anthem without a title

I thought you might have an opinion on this dispute. My take is pretty simple: it's the "anthem without a title" because it's an anthem, and it hasn't got a title. Being written in English, by a person that lives on an English-speaking island, and subsequently translated into Papiamentu by someone living on a Papiamentu-speaking island, and being discussed in English-speaking Wikipedia, outweighs some Dutch educational website calling it the "Volkslied zonder titel". Of course, if someone can find a Dutch site with some hint of authority over the song that says that it really has a name, and that name is "Volkslied zonder titel", I'll yield.—Kww(talk) 19:18, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

See Talk:Volkslied zonder titel#Requested move.—Kww(talk) 15:56, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Consensus Discussion over Jim Steranko photo

Hi. Could you offer your opinion on the consensus discussion here? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 05:23, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you just add a source yourself?

If you are going around looking for unsourced blp, why don't you just add a source yourself? The vast majority of articles which you've placed the BLP tag on have references easily available through your favorite search engine, so why not actually improve wikipedia when it can be easily done instead of just asking others to do so?--TM 13:21, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Because it takes a much longer time to actually find the source and add it than to detect the problem. I have tagged over 8,000 BLP articles lacking sources thus far (plus a few thousand other articles lacking sources, plus articles where I made the references visible, plus ...). But thanks for shooting at the messenger, it is much appreciated. Why don't you ask the creators of articles to actually source them instead of complaining here? I know you do when you create an article, I know I do when I create an article. But I'm not going to source some twenty- or thirty thousand articles on my own, or to see for each article if it is easily sourceable or not (since e.g. my second-to-last tagging, Nurilla Zakirov, is not such an easy to source article, even though Google confirms that he was a real composer). My time is limited, and I consider the tagging of all unsourced BLPs to be more important than the sourcing of some of them. You may disagree, but please don't come around complaining anymore. Fram (talk) 13:49, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I get this whine as well occasionally - keep up the good work. --Cameron Scott (talk) 17:43, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Creatures in The Sword of Truth

The discussion was relisted on the 22nd, don't we let it go until the 27th? Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:28, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

No, a relisting runs until sufficient extra opinions are heard. The total time was more than five days (clearly), which is the only limit. A relisting does not restart the five days. It had been tagged for rescue since the 18th as well. The last new opinion and the last comment were both over a day old as well. Fram (talk) 18:56, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Do we have a policy page on relisting? That was one thing I was never really clear on, which is why I assumed it was like a restart of the five day deal, which I still find overall to not make much sense on something with no deadline as we have articles that might not go improved for months only to have someone come along and do what's necessary whereas if they had to start from scratch they might not do so. Obviously, I would have argued to keep in any event as we are beginning in the fict debates to see the lists as a means of compromise. Anyway, if there's actually a policy or guideline on relisting, please indicate as a reply to this message. Thanks! Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:01, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

From WP:RELIST: "with the understanding that it may be subject to being closed once consensus can be determined, without necessarily waiting a further five days." Emphasis added by me. Fram (talk) 19:05, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I'll check it out. Take care. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 21:32, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

List of populist parties

I come here to warn you that the List of populist parties articles is being argued for discussion, so I come here to request you to argue for its mantainace and development at here. Lususromulus (talk) 19:36, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

The Motley Moose

I understand you're the admin who deleted this article. I am somewhat dismayed that nobody actually listened or responded to any of the points that were made about the Motley Moose article being kept, and it was yanked without even a chance being given to save any of that information. Is it gone forever? I certainly hope I can get that information back. Furthermore, I would like to propose the article for a deletion review; I think action was taken too hastily. I understand one is not required to contact any of the editing staff of an article before posting it for deletion, but the first I became aware of it was two days ago. Furthermore, the standards of Wikipedia:There_is_no_deadline, Wikipedia:Potential,_not_just_current_state, and Wikipedia:Give_an_article_a_chance were ignored by the reviewing editors. I see now, pouring back over the discussion, there were many points of misunderstanding that should be corrected before this article is simply deleted. I notated several times I was more than happy to justify it's existence and make the article better- there are more references of notability to be had, and there are caveats and explanations to the ones that were listed, that will make everything fall nicely in line with Wikipedian standards. I'm confused why we were expected to have everything perfect from the get-go, instead of being given a chance to work on the article. Not just that, but consider Wikipedia:The_Heymann_Standard by comparing the article when it was placed into the deletion discussion versus it's final form. I would appreciate it if you un-deleted the article, rather than submitting the effort to a deletion review. Even if you want to place it under watch for a specific amount of time until another deletion review is done, that would be fine with me. Ks64q2 (talk) 20:54, 27 February 2009 (UTC)