User talk:Fram/Archive 17

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 [1]. 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 [2]) 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 [3] there are sources. [4] includig BBC: [5] 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)

Apparently the article has since been userfied after a deletion review which concluded that the AfD was closed correctly. I consider this as resolved for the time being. Fram (talk) 08:37, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Bob Woodward

Hi, I've noticed that you've made a few edits to the Bob Woodward biographical page lately. I just wanted to let you know that a rewrite is currently under way, being lead by one of Mr. Woodward's research assistants and on his behalf. Barring any COI issues that may de-rail the whole thing (an admin has volunteered to monitor), we would love to have your input. Woodward's assistant, Evelyn, is new to wiki and I'm no veteran, so the re-write still needs some significant work and I am concerned about some content issues that we haven't discussed in depth yet, but we could use some formatting and style input, as well as any content thoughts you may have. Please feel free to drop us a line here. Cheers. (Morethan3words (talk) 15:56, 3 March 2009 (UTC))

You have mail

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

Randy Richards

Sorry to bother you, I am clueless when it comes to speedy delete but the article in regards to Randy Richards and Dreadmire have both returned and in about the same detail as before.

Regards Ken M. Quode (talk) 05:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, both are speedy deleted and protected from recreation (at those titles), and I have strongly warned the author against further recreations of these articles. We'll see how it goes... Fram (talk) 07:49, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

The author is now notable, thanks to his interview in a printed magazine article of a major periodical, and his third appearance in a major newspapaer. I was informed last time this is what was required for notability, and that when notability occurred I could put the article back. If this requirement has changed since the last time, I was not notified. References are noted in the article, but they are: http://www.inregister.com:8080/rrserver/browser?title=/InRegister/InRegisterFeb09 and http://www.2theadvocate.com/news/38438679.html?index=1&c=y respectively. Thank you. Malakai Joe (talk) 14:45, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

The first one leads me to a commercial website (realread), not to an article. The second one I had checked in your recreated article; he is mentioned in the caption of a picture, not even in the actual article. These kind of mentions do not indicate any notability. I owuld urge you to post a review at WP:DRV when you think that the article(s) is (are) finally ready for republication, but I think that you'll need (much) more than a mention in a caption... Fram (talk) 14:49, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Allright, the magazine loaded on the second try. It does not look like a "major periodical" at all, but like a local magazine with loads of ads and little editorial interest. However, it is indeed a full-page interview, so it may persuade some people in a DRV. I doubt it, but you are free to try. Fram (talk) 14:54, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

As you instructed:

Deletion review for Wikipedia:DRV#Randy_Rasputin_Richards

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Wikipedia:DRV#Randy_Rasputin_Richards. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedy-deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Malakai Joe (talk) 19:14, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Useless stubs

You may be happy to ignore the thousands of decent articles on other wikipedias which could massively benefit english wikipedia in the long term but I'm not. Articles like this should be translated into English and the first step towards making it happening is actually setting the article up and highlighting it for instant translation. If you can't see the overall goals of these stubs then I am very sorry. What bugs me when people complain about me is when people are completely blind to the massive amount of wotk I do on wikipedia cleaning up and expanding existing articles, more than my fair share let alone creating new stubs. I fully developed several thousand articles on wikipedia myself so the claims that I "leave the work to others" a mistaken claim. Yes I strongly encourage collaboration and anybody visiting these stubs to put in their bit to helping wikipedia and building it with us, but that certianly doesn't mean that I leave all the work up to others. You can see a small sample of the articles I have bothered to translate myself at ANI. Aside from this a significant amount have already been translated by others visiting articles in the various languages and the net result, a more resourceful wikipedia with greater coverage. The fact that thousands of stubs I've created to date alone have been expanded by the many thousands who use and want to nurture wikipedia into fuller articles gives me enough confidence to believe that creating these stubs is very beneficial to the project even if not in the short term. Anyway the amount of traffic we get one wikipedia by millions of people means that no one editor will feel compelled to translate every one of them, the workload in expanding the articles in languages I am not fluent in will be shared by the many who use wikipedia and want to develop it. I think of it as sort of an investment. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 11:50, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

In those stubs, you leave the work mainly to others. We try to educate new users that every new article should be sourced, but that is hard to do when one of our most prolific article creators is setting a bad example. I am not saying that you don't do any good work on Wikipedia, on the contrary, you haev contributed a great deal, but that does not mean that I appreciate everything you do here, and the benefit of such one line unsourced stubs does not outweigh the disadvantages in my opinion. E.g. the last article you created, Carlos Solórzano, is an unsourced WP:BLP translated from another unsourced article. From teh speed you create these, I doubt that you are checking anything before translating these articles, so if one of the articles you translate is a fabrication, a hoax, you will introduce that here as well. And if you do check first, then why not add the source you used for the check? Fram (talk) 13:48, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Thats a possibility but I always find it odd how so many on English wikipedia think nobody else on other wikipedias also has the capability of deleting hoax articles and maintaining some articles to a decent standard. I've just started Architecture in Stockholm. Are you telling me you wouldn't want to see the article translated from Swedish? The funny thing is guys like you think I only create stubs. I am acknowledged by many as one of the best writers on English wikipedia and recently won 1st place for the Core Contest on here for writing the best article in the time frame, ahead of the thousands of others who entered, but because so much needs doing on here most of my time is spent creating stubs to try to vastly improve wikipedia in the long term. I have still created many more high quality articles than most of the people on here, with a number of FAs and GAs, something I rarely get credit for because people like you think I create no actual content and just generate sub stubs. Articles like Fishing industry in the Maldives, recently, we would not have this article now if it wasn't for me as the guy who expanded on what I had started wouldn't have started it initially. What you don't seem to understand is the thousands of articles I've already created on here whether they began as stubs or not have developed into fuller well referenced articles, so what I have achieved on wikipedia is far more than most people can claim on here, but think what you like. Why though is it so unreasonable for me to share the workload a bit and try to encourage others to write wikipedia?

And BTW. When I come to translate an article I always google search for sources first. Solorzano can and will be expanded using the Guatemala literature site as a reference. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 10:33, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I have not argued that you don't know how to write an article or that you haven't contributed a lot to Wikipedia, so spare me the rethoric. Being brilliant at one thing does not mean that someone can't suck at something else, or that we should take the good with the bad. I am discussing whether those unsourced microstubs you create are as a whole beneficial or should be discouraged (or done differently). I am not arguing whether you are a good or a bad editor, nor am I suggesting that nothing good has ever come from any of those stubs. Some have been expanded and turned into great articles, others have only seen bot edits in two years time. Whether these articles would have been created without your initial start is an open question, and there are equally editors looking to write articles on redlinks, but who will ignore bluelinks. If all articles in a list (the painters of one country, or something similar) are bluelinked, the redlink encouragement is missing.

The fact that other Wikipedia have quality standards and that most articles there will be reliable is not the argument; some will not be reliable, just like we have on the English Wikipedia a lot of hoaxes and much more puff pieces on non notable persons. The problems from one Wikipedia should not be spread to other Wikipedias.

As for your source-checking: then why don't you add those sources? Fram (talk) 10:50, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Expanded in 9 minutes flat. One can only imagine how the articles could be expanded if books are obtained. Look I'll be the first to admit that the sub stubs I create suck. I know this and it is certianly not a reflection of what I can write or do. They are not intended to be even remotely good to start off with, it is more a set of red links I have to blue link and to bridge the gap in missing content with other wikipedias. The "articles" however shabby are still about notable subjects which can be expanded within minutes. Perhaps I will have to compromise and at least at one or two details other than ... is a ...poet etc. Believe however bad it may seem to you I only want to see wikipedia improve in the long term which is why I bother to start such articles enmasse in such a way and indeed get a lot of heartache from people in doing so. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 11:06, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Next I will add to what we have by this source. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 11:17, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I hope I have not stated anywhere that I believe that your intentions are bad, as I don't believe that at all. If I did give that impression, I apologize. Partly misguided, with some bad results, or similar descriptions would be more inline with my opinion. I am not asking you to write full-fledged articles immediately (I know that that usually takes a lot of time), but slightly more expanded articles, with two or three lines and a precise source, would be much better than the current microstubs (not all of them are like that, e.g. for villages you usually add a bit more facts). Occasional mistakes will stillhappen, that is unavoidable, but the stubs will be more useful for readers, and will be in general more reliable. E.g. when someone is listed in the original article as a scenographer and painter, and then goes on to discuss all his scenographies and ignores the painting for the rest of the article, it is a bit bizarre and one-sided to get a translation which only states that he is a painter. It is not incorrect, but it is not really useful or balanced, and strongly suggests automated unchecked stub creation, even if it is just the result of checked but too hasty work. E.g. a numberof your recent Spanish articles had interwikilinks to the Czech Wikipedia as well, but these were incorrect. I know that you simply copied them from the Spanish Wikipedia, but it is a small example of importing errors which could be avoided by taking a bit more time. The argument that there is no deadline works in both directions; there is nodeadline to have perfect articles, stubs are acceptable, but there is also no deadline to have stubs on every notable subject. Fram (talk) 11:17, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes there is a fault with the Czech interwiki thing, thats not my fault, that is automatic. I;ve expanded Carlos Solórzano which in my view every single one of the articles I created could be expanded in the same way. It is just a tall order to expect me to write every one of them, if one editor added a bit to every one they would be looking good within minutes. Articles like this really should be started on here, I just don't know what to do about this missing article problem. The amount missing is staggering which can't be ignored but the articles started really should have some decent facts. Its kind of a dilemma. I can make an effort to at least add some facts to the transwiki stubs I create, sure the process will be slower but maybe people would think that better? I don't know. I agree it would be better for me to reduce the rate in which they are generated by half and add a little to start with. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 11:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I would certainly support such slightly slower but more content-orientated creations, but I have no idea if I (and the other critics) are a small minority or not. I will not try to stop you if you continue to make stubs like you used to do, but it is not the way I like it (which was probably obvious by now :-) ). There is way too much work to be done still on Wikipedia (creation, expansion, sourcing, cleaning, ...) to get all the basics in order, and all of us have limited time, so I know that I should be grateful for any help any dedicated editor gives to the encyclopedia, but sometimes it seems as if a different approach would give much better results. Of course, ifI had communicate dthat in a less confrontational manner, it would have been more useful... Fram (talk) 11:46, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah sometimes I can go overboard with generating new articles. My mind was basically on the task of blue linking and bridging the gap, for example ensuring spanish category matches english category etc and in doing so compromising any actual content in the articles started. Its just sometimes it is not always apparent to other editors what my intentions are, I am not "happy" in having to create articles in this way either but honestly we need to consider bridging the gaps between other wikipedias were seriously as a project if we are to improve. I know there are a lot of unsuitable articles on other wikis which should not be translated and of course we should stick to finding reliable sources to writing articles but there are many thousands of good articles on other wikis in which we could benefit which are also well referenced. For instance pick any municipality of Switzerland at random, virtually all sub stub one liners, every single one on German wikipedia is a full article and an example of what should be happneing in regards to transwikiying content. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 11:53, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Funny how the Swedish guy slagging me off kept on about "now we do need" an article on Charles Rufus Morey but could not be bothered to start it. Now we have Charles Rufus Morey and once again I will not be thanked for it. I feel quite hurt actually when he said "oh yeah ... was an art historian." There is amajor difference between stubbing articles to be translated and starting articles straight off independly which I often do on a regular basis using solid sources but seems to get swamped by the stubs I create. Thats what I find the most hurtful is when guys like Hegwald go mouthing off at me at village pump as if I never actually create any decent new content. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 13:17, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I have just corrected the template:sculptor-stub, since that was the culprit (or one of them) for including the incorrect Czech interwikilink in those articles.Fram (talk) 13:32, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Ahah, thats what it was! Good catch Mr. Sherlock. I've expanded a number of the stubs Virgilio Rodríguez Macal is unreferenced but at least better to have it than not. Hopefully reliable sources can be found to develop it. I'll continue to expand a few I started yesterday I just wish we had a major translation project going on here and people working at expanding these stubs straight off. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 15:18, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, and good work as well. I am currently (since November or December) mostly busy tagging unsourced BLPs( and other unsoiurced articles along the way), which has made me oversesnsitive to new unsourced articles. Just like translation, a sourcing project with a horde of sourcers would be most welcome. Fram (talk) 15:27, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I do a lot of that myself, adding population data to our artiles particularly on places in Africa. Later I have the Template:Departments of Cameroon to start and as normal I at least have some figures and a reference, the transwiki ones were different in this respect. I'm sure you know I normally start articles like Djérem rather than the ones I started yesterday. I've just expanded Pablo Atchugarry too, a Uruguayan sculptor although I haven't translated the place names yet. FInding sources should be no problem, its just whether people can see beyond the sub stubs to the content that is link in the ugly tags. But for sure I will try to a sentence or two to the one liners to at least give it something to start with in regards to starting the articles. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 16:09, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

your assistance please...

You were the closing administrator for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abdullah Gulam Rasoul. If I understand the deletion policies you can authorize the restoration of this article.

The DoD announced yesterday that this individual has emerged as a Taliban leader. [6] Geo Swan (talk) 07:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Geo Swan (talk) 08:08, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

No problem!

3RR

Would you please review ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! edit war and WP:3RR edits to Talk:Republic of Ireland‎. Thanks ww2censor (talk) 16:11, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I found the 3RR report page and hope I added the report properly, so someone will do something about this editor who is continuing to edit war the same page. ww2censor (talk) 16:27, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry

I was not trying to do and copyright violations i had through i had changed the wording enough to be allowed. Kyle1278 (talk) 16:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Take a look at this one i just created there is no way that this one is in violation of anything.Kyle1278 (talk) 23:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Boban Simsic article

Hi, I noticed that you deleted the Boban Simsic article. I don't understand why, it was based on sources from the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Thus, it was based on judicial facts. Thanks, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hicmet (talk • contribs) 22:04, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

The page Boban Šimšić was created by you on July 21 2008. It was severely reduced on July 23 becaues the original was apparently a copyright violation. Since July 29, it was tagged as unreferenced. However, a negative unsourced WP:BLP should be deleted, and you (and anyone else) had over six months to add sources. Since no one could be bothered, I deleted it. Fram (talk) 08:35, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Editing comments

Hey, Fram, my bad. I was trying to streamline the conversation. I see what you mean, obviously; I'll fully own up to that mistake. I'll fix it if you haven't already. Ks64q2 (talk) 15:40, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

The Motley Moose

Hello. I saw that you deleted the previous iteration of this article, Motley Moose, not too long ago. As far as I can see, the current iteration of this article that is currently up for AfD (The Motley Moose) is practically the same thing. Think this is an applicable G4? — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 04:33, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

No, because a discussion is underway in which several editors have argued to keep. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 04:34, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

My question was to Fram, not you. I don't particularly care what the hell you think. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 04:39, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, you don't own her talk page and if others wish to comment, they are welcome to do so. You are of course welcome to ignore them or re-read WP:CIVILITY. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 04:42, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I tried putting the article up for speedy deletion but the rescue clique removed the tag and mister Nobody here even put me up at 3rr. I think it's superfluous of doing two afd's on the same article in less than a month time, when nothing has changed. Especially when nobody at deletion review had any problems with the original deletion.--Sloane (talk) 04:49, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

"Rescue clique"? Usually, I agree that two AfDs on the same article in less than a month is inappropriate and you will find in such renominations I am apt to call for a speedy close; however, in this particular case, the discussion does have a number of editors who seem to see merits in the article and because of that, it seems wisest to just let the discussion play out. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 04:53, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The article should have been speedy deleted as a G4. However, now that an AfD is running, it may be best to let it just run its course, no matter how clear it is that the author of the article is trying to take an endrun around AFD / DRV in this way. Fram (talk) 07:31, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Fram, I must say that I am appalled at your attitude. Sir, have some respect, please. I understand, if disagree, with your reasoning on this article, but truly, you're blatantly accusing me of acting in bad faith, despite repeatedly evidence to the contrary; not only that, but your statement of dissent can be shaped however you please, but "(by people involved with the blog, whether they were already writing for it or were just asked to do so)" is entirely factually incorrect. While I was content to let the AfD play out, I will be correcting this statement. Sir, you are an administrator, and as such, are looked up to by people like me as behavior to emulate whilst on Wikipedia. What kind of example are you setting in this regard? I'm very disappointed. Perhaps, considering your status in the last AfD, you should recuse yourself from this one. Thank you. Ks64q2 (talk) 09:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

You are mixing two things: first, you have recreated an article that was deleted at AfD and where the deletion was upheld at DRV, but where it was suggested that it might be userfied to post it on another site. Normally, the recreated article (at a different name, for some reason) should have been speedy deleted, but a previously involved editor (IP address) removed the speedy request. The reason why you acted like this is speculation, but I have seen no evidence to contradict that this was done to make an endrun around an AFD/DRV that did not go as you like it. Second, the "by people involved" and so on has nothing to do with the people in the AfD discussion or the article creation, but is a comment on the sources in the article, as was quite clear from my comment on the AfD. There is nothig factually incorrect about that statement. Fram (talk) 11:39, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Sir, if you have seen no evidence to contradict this idea of yours, it's because you've gone out of your way to ignore it. I am sorry, I really want to be civil here, but there's simply no other way to describe this. As an administrator, it's the height of intellectual dishonesty that you are purposefully ignoring information inconvenient to your point- you are supposed to provide an example to the community! And yes, it was factually incorrect, the comment you made! Come back here and tell me that Prospect Magazine is a blog- and then tell me with a straight face you didn't make a factual error. Sir, your behavior has clearly gone over into a personal grudge, and I steadfastly denounce that. You should be ashamed of yourself, sir. Good day. Ks64q2 (talk) 16:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I am not ashamed of myself. I mixed up the clear COI in the article in Prospect, and the links it gave to its blog, so yes, it was not a blog article, just a clear COI article. This doesn't change my original comment on the AfD at all, only my unnecessary clarification. As for your evidence, I have read the AfD (1 and 2) and the DRV, and I still don't see it. Fram (talk) 19:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Winnie Winkle

Hey there,

I am short on time at the moment, but the review began a few days ago. If you're not sure what can be done to fix some of the concerns, raise some noise on the WP comics talk page; if some effort isn't made soon, the reviewer is likely to close the review as a fail. BOZ (talk) 13:00, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Happy Saint Patrick’s Day!

On behalf of the Wikipedia:Kindness Campaign, we just want to spread Wikipedia:WikiLove by wishing you a Happy Saint Patrick’s Day! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 16:12, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Link War at RAM Clinic

Fram, I went ahead and undid your linky thing on the RAM clinic site because, sadly, that link it not only from a site notable enough to be referenced on a variety of Wikipedia pages, but I double-checked with Stan Brock, the founder of RAM, and he said it absolutely represented that clinic and what they do. I notice I can contact you via email- I'd be happy to forward you the requisite information. Plus, the research in it is well sourced and noted. I feel perhaps you should take a look at the content of the link before deleting something- but of course, I am WP:AGF on your part, which is why I wanted to leave you this note. I know you're an admin, and you certainly wouldn't do anything out of malice or hold a grudge; that would be beneath you. Cheers, mate!Ks64q2 (talk) 13:34, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

The site is notable for political info from a variety of known bloggers. This does not mean that everything posted there becomes automatically a WP:RS. I have looked at the blog text, and fail to see where it is "well sourced and noted". I'll give it another look and if needed discuss it an appropriate notice board (reliable sources or something similar). I'll drop you a note if that happens. Fram (talk) 13:46, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Similar link attempts as those made by Kage are also being made by brand new Snarktastic (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) (who has excellent formatting skills for a brand new user) for instance here [7] here [8] and here [9]. As to the substantive question, anonymous blog posts can never be used. Certain named, highly notable individual bloggers discussing their area of expertise, are sometimes used, but that's a different kettle of fish than quoting unknown nobody "moo means hello".Bali ultimate (talk) 13:57, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I added my comments on the RAM talk page, the blog post is unreliable and based on a highly dubious page itself. It may all be factually correct, but that does notmean we should incldue such links. Fram (talk) 14:05, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Tsk, tsk, tsk, gentlemen! WP:AGF, please! Oh, and Fram, you might want to check the edit made on the "Nursing" page, as well, as that link was similarly well sourced. Do feel free to verify that, and I'll come around later to make sure it's rectified. Of course, for either link, if you find another equally well-sourced article that fits the place for that citation, add it instead. But, I mean, saying these things shouldn't be included because it's a collaborative project that anyone can add to... well, that's like saying you can't cite Wikipedia as a source because it's unreliable- right? Thanks! Ks64q2 (talk) 14:26, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

For a guy who received a civility barnstar from his ARS friends, you are incredibly patronizing on a subject where you are wrong to boot. An unreliable link is not safe from removal until a better source is found, it gets removed and the section it references gets either removed as well or tagged as citation needed. Replacing it with an equally poor source would be useless. The rest of your comments is incomprehensible, since I have never claimed that "things shouldn't be included because it's a collaborative project that anyone can add to", and Wikipedia should indeed never be used as a reference for another Wikipeia article (unless it is about a Wikipedia-reltade subject obviously). The link on nursing is by the same anonymous blog poster: it does not matter if his sources are the best available, we should not use such posts as sources for articles unrelated to the blog or its author ever. You can rectify whatever you wnat, that doesn't make you correct. Fram (talk) 14:40, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Kage - assuming good faith doesn't mean overlooking poorly sourced content. Or not discussing the reasons i and a few other editors (not speaking for Fram here) are having our potential faith in you eroded by your deceptive editing style and apparent conflict of interest with that blog, which you appear to be trying to promote. Or the fact that you just won't listen. Anonymous blogger "moo means hello" will never be considered a reliable source for anything on wikipedia. There are very sound reasons for this (as are the reasons we don't allow original research or novel synthesis by our editors, even when the OR and SYNTH is "true"). Don't make some convuluted lawyerly argument that ignores this fact. It's not helpful, and raises doubts that you want to improve as an editor (an editor who asserts anonymous blog posts are reliable sources is going to have a lot of editors overwatching him). Finally, you don't seem to be getting the way things work here - i.e. "that's like saying you can't cite Wikipedia as a source because it's unreliable." Bingo! Wikipedia is most definitely not a reliable source for building wikipedia content, and if you find articles that are discursively sourced in this fashion, remove the content. Please, if you want to become a better contributor here, with fewer conflicts with other editors, read and believ WP:V WP:NOTE and WP:RS.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:43, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

A clarification. When you write above "the edit made on the "Nursing" page, as well, as that link was similarly well sourced. Do feel free to verify that, and I'll come around later to make sure it's rectified" do you mean this edit was made by your or at your behest? [10]. After all, you don't appear to have ever edited that nursing page. Do you have any explanation for why a brand new user is making precisely the same edits as you, in precisely the same format, and seeking to use anonymous blog poster "moo means hello" on a page you've never edited? Just some bizarre coincidence? Bali ultimate (talk) 14:59, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Replies

Wow, i hadn't looked at the time overlap stuff for the IP [11]. If that's not an accidentally logged out edit, i'm a monkey's uncle, and he was astroturfing with it. I know that the closing admin was trying to be nice, but this guys deception and false apologies are getting stale and are poising the atmosphere, at least for me.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:12, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

The IP you referenced

Traces back to Corpus Christi, Texas; and I'm sure you can find my IP, sir, or I can provide it for you. Feel free to check it for yourself, sir, I certainly don't have anything to hide. I am sorry things turned out this way, with the animosity and such. I will consider this matter solved. Thank you for your input, and please have a very wonderful day! Ks64q2 (talk) 15:23, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Transwiki request

Hello! Could you please transwiki Creatures in The Sword of Truth to wikia:annex:Creatures in The Sword of Truth? Thanks! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 01:37, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I have userfied it to User:A Nobody/Creatures in The Sword of Truth. You are free to transwiki it of course. Fram (talk) 07:53, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I do not know how to transwiki (I am not the best with the technical stuff).  :( Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 15:40, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah, neither am I. I'll try to think of a better location to post this request. Fram (talk) 15:46, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 15:50, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Comics

Hey, Fram. I know we haven't spoke yet - I'm A, or Sami. I'd like your opinion on this; did you notice the change to the project participation list? While going through the list, I've noticed there are several users that "haven't been created"; but due to the discussion a while back (regarding removing users) I haven't removed them from the list. Should I bring this up at the project talk page? It seems minor, but then again I'm not entirely sure. -- A ^talk/_contribs 23:46, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

It is minor, but then again, what is the purpose of an entry like Andrew Stuart, a user without any contributions whatsoever? I suppose that it is a user who has mistyped his name or so, but it serves no purpose to keep them around. Perhaps a reshuffling with removal of those without contributions (should be exceptions), and lasting of inactive for everyone who hasn't contributed in 2008 or 2009? Fram (talk) 07:57, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

IP vandalism to your talk page

An IP has tried to edit my and another editor's comments on your talk page and I have reported it at a board. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 15:40, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Fram (talk) 15:46, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 15:51, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Le Journal de Mickey

On March 26, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Le Journal de Mickey, 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.

--Dravecky (talk) 00:22, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the blocks

This one fits pretty nicely as well. [12]Bali ultimate (talk) 20:41, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

BLPs

With bjweeks' help, I've generated a list of BLPs that contain only "en.wikipedia.org" external links. (Sample data: Richard_Colburn, Michalis_Michael, Mark_Foley_(Cork_hurler), etc.) The list is quite large; due to the potential negative impact on morale that such a large list could possibly have, I've been asked to hold-off for a week before releasing it. I thought I'd give you a heads-up as you were the inspiration to generate such a list. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 01:33, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Great, I'm getting rather tired of manually tagging all unsourced BLPs :-) Any indication how large the list actually is? Fram (talk) 07:33, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, there are two different numbers to look at. If you look at just articles in Category:Living people that contain only "en.wikipedia.org" external links, you get 34,956 pages.

If you take that set and exclude all pages from it that already are tagged with Template:BLP unsourced, the number drops to 26,501.

However, as you and I both know, Category:Living people isn't populated properly (it's likely missing at least 20,000 pages), which means that the numbers presented here are likely lower than their true values.

It's all rather depressing. --MZMcBride (talk) 08:09, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Depressing indeed. I'll continue looking and tagging for the moment (since I also come across articles not in the cat:living people, or simply unsourced articles, and some vandalism and deletabele articles as well), but a bot going through these (with the unavoidable false positives) wuld be great, bth to help me and to make people more aware of the size of the problem (you obviously are, and so are some others, but many people seem to think that unsourced articles are a) a small group and b) get quickly resolved, even though the backlog stretches to August 2006). Fram (talk) 08:13, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Those tagging might like to consider a liberal use of PROD. I've been working through all the BLP orphans which also contain the {unreferenced} template. (There are about 3,000 of them.) A high number of these are not only unrefernced, they also fail the notability criteria. I've been selectively prodding those without clear notability and have prodded several dozen of them. I'm please to say that, despite the fact reasonable editors with more inclusionist tendencies than me have been reviewing my work, I've had no complaints and very few prods contested. Without trying to raise the notability threshholds, it seems to me we have many biographies that clearly fail the existing ones. Removing these rather than just tagging them is a better solution.--Scott Mac (Doc) 12:55, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Correct. I have prodded only a handful, because I'm trying to tag as many as possible, and am not taking the time to consider each article wrt notability (nor am I reading them completely, only diagonally at most, so much vandalism and so on will remain as well). But lookign through my deleted edits, there are quite a few I tagged as unsourced which have since been deleted. If that was (partly) a result of the tagging, then at least one objective is reached. Fram (talk) 13:14, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Starting a New Wiki

Fram, I do not know what I am doing wrong. I am trying to write a page for non-profit call Walking with Africans Foundation, but it has been removed twice. What am I doing wrong? I am trying to use an impartial style of writing and trying to list references. Is there a formal way to write it? I was told that wikipedia is a living document, an Encyclopedia for the internet. One request, if it is not perfect, then can you please revise the wiki instead of deleting it? thanks, Dave--Act5016 (talk) 22:35, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

We are an encyclopedia, and a pretty broad one, but we still have inclusion guidelines like WP:N (the general one) and WP:ORG (specifically for organisations). In general, what you need is significant coverage in reliable, independent sources, e.g. newspaper reports, magazine articles, ... People, books, organisations, bands, ... that have not received such attention should not have an article on Wikipedia, even if it is written in a neutral and factual way (which is good, don't get me wrong). There are many, many foundations, charities, ..., but most of them are not notable at all (in the Wikipedia sense of the word), which does not mean that they are not worthy of attention or that what they are doing isn't necessary. If you can provide evidence that the Foundation has been the focus of articles in reliable newspapers, then an article on it shouldn't be a problem. Fram (talk) 07:37, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Biography sections

Just to say I only just stumbled across that discussion [13] looking for an opinion one way or the other (when it appears there isn't one) and have thrown in my thoughts - what you say tends to parallel my thinking and that quick bit of research you did was useful - showing that it is quite common. (Emperor (talk) 15:09, 29 March 2009 (UTC))

Thanks, I've added more comments, and some outside examples like allmusic. Fram (talk) 07:52, 30 March 2009 (UTC)