User talk:Fram

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

If I have deleted a page you contributed as a copyright violation, but you are also the copyright holder for the original text, you can find more info on how to resolve this at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials#Granting us permission to copy material already online.

GA delistings[edit]

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[edit]

Updated DYK query.svg 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[edit]

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/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[edit]

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[edit]

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,, 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 put his evidence in the section for (whose evidence was deleted repeatedly (not by me) and the IP blocked by Drmies). See the block log for, 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)


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[edit]

Padlock-blue.svg 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[edit]

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)


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[edit]

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[edit]

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 NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 21:54, 10 October 2016 (UTC)


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)


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)


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[edit]

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[edit]

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)


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[edit]

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)


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[edit]

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[edit]

Gnome globe current event.svg 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[edit]

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, 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[edit]


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[edit]

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[edit]

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![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg 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[edit]

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[edit]

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)


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)


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)[edit]

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[edit]

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)


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

Request pull deleted article[edit]

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[edit]


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[edit]


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[edit]

Gnome globe current event.svg 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)