User talk:Fram/Archive 29

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Fram. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 25

←

Archive 27

→

HDL-BUS (Protocol)

Hello, Fram. You edited something in my article about HDL here http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/HDL-BUS_(Protocol) So, I appreciate that, but I can't understand why this article hasn't been published yet. Maybe it's just my mistake, or maybe it is waiting for review... for about 3 weeks so far. Sorry, I'm new here and if you give me some advise that would be just nice. The main thing I can't get: I see the big text block at the top of the article and it says "Article not currently submitted for review". But at the bottom it says "Review waiting". I need to say, that I hit a button "submit your draft when you are ready for it to be reviewed" once on 22nd of September. And 3 weeks after that, this text at the top is still there "Article not currently submitted for review"... But the article is absolutely ready to be published on wiki. So, dear Fram, please help if possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vadim.Sorokin.Wiki (talk • contribs) 16:44, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

I've copied you question to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/2013 6#HDL-BUS (Protocol), where it has a better chance of getting a swift and correct reply. Fram (talk) 07:39, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of Francisco Tropa page

Hello. I think Francisco Tropa as a portuguese artist has enough international interest and recognition to be in the Wikipedia. Sorry for not adding basic data. There is information on http://aajpress.wordpress.com/2011/07/09/francisco-tropa-scenario-portuguese-pavilion-54th-venice-biennale/ and http://franciscotropa.com/files/franciscotropa_cv.pdf, and if you re-create the article, or let me do it, I will add some basic data to give the article a proper start. Thanks. Caravasar (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:32, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I have undeleted it. Please note that, apart from indocating notability, articles on living people need to have at least one source (prefera bly a good one of course) or will be deleted anyway. But it seems that you have some sources available at least, and being the National artist for the Venice Biannual is a clear claim to notability as well, so this article shouldn't have any problems. Thanks for contributing, and for discussing the deletion of your article in such a positive way (as it is never pleasant to have your article deleted). Fram (talk) 10:06, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Afc article Johan Bollen

Thanks for the edit on the categories. I'm new and it's my first article. Hope the article will become notable enough as I continue work on it. Any hints are welcome, trying to digest as much of the documentation and recommendations as possible. Bluyten (talk) 13:59, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Novotel Citygate Hong Kong

Hi Fram, i come back to you for this (09:15, 24 June 2013‎ Fram (talk | contribs)‎ . . (2,233 bytes) (-3,920)‎ . . (Rv to version of October 2012, before it again became a tourist brochure. Please respect WP:NPOV and WP:NOT) (undo | thank)).

We must have not the same meaning of tourist brochure, i have made an outside observation of this hotel by add some unknown information about his design and adding some references. I picked the hotel information from the official website and all around internet to complete this Oct 2012 version. Please explain your point of view thx. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wongkarwai88 (talk • contribs) 07:06, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

"Well-equipped meeting facilities? A spacious timber sundeck? An open-sided cube of passion? "Being surrounded by passion fruit on the walls of the Lover’s Cube is intended to be beneficial to lovers and will add to their wellbeing."? 440 stylish rooms? The gallery of (literally) hotel brochure pictures? By the way, do you really own the copyright to these pictures? Fram (talk) 07:56, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Fram, thank for your reply. If these terms are too "commercial" for Wikipedia i will arrange to rewrite the content. I based my writing on others hotel's pages to be sure to do not infringe the Wikipedia regulation, it appears that i need change a little bit my wording sorry for that. Anyway for the pics i have the copyright i can give you the mail contact of the person in charge in this hotel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wongkarwai88 (talk • contribs) 08:48, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

deleted wiki page

I am on the APSE marketing committee and last night I posted our wiki page APSE: Association of People Supporting Employment First. Today I saw it was deleted due to my user name. I have since switched to a new account. Can I get my previous posting put back up under my new user name. Thanks.Nholz99 (talk) 14:00, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

It wasn't deleted because of your user name, but becaues it was written from a non neutral, promotional point of view. Wikipedia articles should be written from the point of view of an outside observer, with reliable, independent sources to support it. It should also be newly written, not copying text from other sources (while I don't know which source you copied, if any, the text looked suspiciously like the kind one would find in a brochure issued by the organisation or some such). You are free to recreate an article on APSE as long as you keep these things in mind. Please also check our WP:COI page which has more information about editing pages about subjects you are affiliated with. While not forbidden, it is in general strongly discouraged. Fram (talk) 14:04, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

There was no copied text. I am on the APSE Marketing committee. I interviewed several people who were instrumental in the formation of our organization and its continued success. I cited the two outside sources that I used in the article (Supported Employment wiki and the Dept. of Labor). The page was just a step by step history of our organization. I hope this is ok to repost as it was. Thank you.Nholz99 (talk) 22:45, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Lilian Faithfull

On 1 June 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Lilian Faithfull, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Lilian Faithfull, the first women's hockey captain at Oxford University, was the first to suggest the Lady Blue for women competing in a game between Oxford and Cambridge? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Lilian Faithfull. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Orlady (talk) 08:03, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Category:Historical painters

The term Historical painters does not mean creators of History painting but those of historical scenes from the late 178th century on. The category should be merged with Category:History artists which has an ambiguous title with no regular meaning. It is pointless to try to create a category for all makers of history painting in its correct wider meaning, including religious and mythological scenes, as the vast majority of artists before 1800, except for thoses who only painted still-lives or portraits etc, fall into this group. It would be like Category:Painters in oils. Johnbod (talk) 11:01, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I have a hard time following your arguments. Genre painting, portraits, landscapes, or allegorical painting are usually not included; religious painting, if included, is a ditinct subset (few people, if any, would e.g. call Jeroen Bosch a historical or history painter). Many art dictionaries / biographies specifically mention that painter X or Y was specialized in historical painting (like they do for portraits, landscapes, marines, animals, ...). On the other hand, very few will indicate that Xor Y was especially a "painter in oils". Can you provide some good sources for your distinction between "history painting" and "historical painting"? I haven't found them, but there are of course many, many relevant books out there. Fram (talk) 11:21, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

With a good source, I mean an indication that this is currently a typical distinction, not that an eminent 1854 source defined it thus (and still didn't make the distinction, he only gave a definition of what historical painting is for him, but no indication that he separated it from "history painting".)

I have an even harder time following yours, especially just above - this is nonsense - is it supposed to represent my views? It doesn't. Your current note on the category admits the name you have chosen, as you define it, is highly ambiguous - far too ambiguous to remain. Ruskin specifically says you not me - it is a very clear general definition, as isd that of the NG. Johnbod (talk) 13:04, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

There are two interchangeable terms, I use the most common one. You insist that the two are not interchangeable, without providing any serious evidence for this (someone defined one 150 years ago, without discussing the other; someone else defines the other, but doesn't discuss the former; nothing indicates that either of them makes the distinction you are making). For the moment, your position is WP:OR. Mine isn't, and isn't ambiguous either; using one of two synonyms isn't ambiguous. Fram (talk) 13:17, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

You've probably seen I've started Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_June_6#Categories:_History_artists_and_Historical_painters Johnbod (talk) 01:22, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

The Adventures of Tintin

There's talk of delisting The Adventures of Tintin as a FA, but there's a group working on it to try and salvage it. I remember you working with me on it all those years ago so thought I'd point you along to the discussion at Talk:The Adventures of Tintin. All the best, Hiding T 13:23, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm keeping an eye on it (and the discussion at Tintin Soviets), but haven't found the time to help yet. Fram (talk) 13:25, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Category:1936 in Guinea-Bissau

Category:1936 in Guinea-Bissau, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Tim! (talk) 05:54, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Artifact (EA)

Fair enough, looked like a cut-and-paste job to me, but that's suspicion rather than fact, so you're right Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:48, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

KW

Hi Fram, many thanks for your message. I do intend to steer clear of any interaction with KW for the forseeable future; he knows that I am sorry and wish to work better with him in future, so I hope it's just a matter of time before we can get all back to normal. Regards, Giant Snowman 08:07, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Road Wage PROD

Thanks! Yes, normally I notify editors of articles I prod, since it doesn't get the attention an AfD would generate. I forgot it this time. Fram (talk) 10:01, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks. -- Trevj (talk) 13:56, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	You are awarded the Defender of the Wiki Barnstar for your outstanding investigation at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Colby in which you identified two seemingly hoax articles that now rank 3rd at the Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia. Mkdw ^talk 20:43, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Dual cats

I think that everything in Category:Establishments in the Moldavian Soviet Socialist Republic by year‎ can probably be categorized within the corresponding Moldovan year as well, at least nominally. Beware of anything that's now in Transnistria (Tiraspol in particular); editors from there might not like it. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 21:15, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Oddly enough they come together for soccer, e.g. FC Tighina is listed as playing in Moldova despite their home town being in Transnistria. Most if not all Moldovian SSR establishments turn out to be soccer clubs, so it shouldn't be that controversial. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 21:24, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Please stop following me around to different discussions

Fram, as much bad history as we have please stop following me around and attempting to derail and sidetrack discussions. Its inappropriate and irritating. I know that WP:harassment and WP:Involved doesn't apply to administrators but please, please stop harassing me and following me around. Kumioko (talk) 14:51, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

WP:harassment and Wikipedia:Administrators#UNINVOLVED don't apply to administrators? That's a new one on me... -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 16:14, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
- It has been said in many discussions unfortunately and even if it did apply its never enforced. Kumioko (talk) 16:21, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
  - Kumioko, you have followed me around to many more discussions and articles than I have ever followed you around. You turned up at AN with your usual complaints (plus an added problem where you couldn't even follow basic user talk page guidelines at Hasteur's page), so I took a look to see what this was all about. I noticed that you were bringing up the same page on another user's talk page, so I wondered what you had to say, bearing in mind that usually you go around complaining about me. For once, that wasn't the case, but since your comments there were clearly wrong, I thought I'ld help out and indicate what was the problem. Apparently this is now considered "derailing" and "sidetracking"? All my comments were to the point, factual, and civil, unlike many of your remarks. And Ohconfucius, what are you going on about? Care to point out what "uninvolved" hsa to do with this? I know that Kumioko has clear misconceptions about that shortcut, but it is sad if others only reinforce those misguided ideas. Fram (talk) 06:35, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
    - I was expressing my surprise at the assertion that WP:INVOLVED and WP:HARASS did not apply to Administrators. Unless you have an observation or knowledge to the contrary... -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 07:15, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
      - Ah, my apologies. I read it as if you were agreeing with Kumioko in claiming that I had violated "harassment" and "uninvolved". I misread your comment, and didn't understand why anyone would give more fuel to Kumioko's misconceptions. I've struck that part of my reply now. Fram (talk) 07:23, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
        No problem. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 07:25, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Category:1920s in Saudi Arabia

Category:1920s in Saudi Arabia, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:10, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Category:1891 establishments in Finland

Category:1891 establishments in Finland, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:03, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Simple move request

Hi. Could you please move Royal Castle of Laeken to Royal Palace of Laeken? This is because it's not a castle. See Talk:List of castles in Belgium (which is a mess, but the only thing that everyone agreed on is that whenever possible, the word 'palace' should be used). I've already taken the liberty of changing the text to match the new title. Any questions or concerns, just let me know. Thanks! Oreo Priest ^talk 03:21, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

You're right, done. A simple Google Books search showed that the new title is clearly more common as well. Fram (talk) 06:35, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Gib

Feel free to delete some of the more dubious cave articles which haven't been touched too. I'm not convinced they're all notable and in all honesty I'm not sure that the Gib members should have really red linked some of them in the first place, but credit to them for expanding those which could be expanded. Remove them from the cave template once deleted.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 18:12, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

P.S, I hope you don't mind but I've put your source warning section on here.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 19:36, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh no, I don't mind at all. I'll take a look at the cave articles, no idea yet when I'll do that though. Thanks for the note! Fram (talk) 06:26, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Did you delete any after?♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 09:26, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Jimmy Wales protection

The attacker may have switched to Jimmy Wales, so please have a look and protect if needed. I saw you protected User:Jimbo Wales, and I just reverted junk at Talk:Jimmy Wales. Johnuniq (talk) 11:21, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

June 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Edin Murga may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s and 1 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 09:35, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

ANI notice

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:24, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Note that the entire discussion in question (in which I mentioned you half-way through) is now hatted/collapsed as having been started by a troll. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:07, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed the backhanded way in which you suggested that I had done something terrible against Jimbo's wishes. It seems that even Kumioko didn't fall for it though. I can understand that that thread has been hatted as trolling. Fram (talk) 06:43, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Nothing "backhanded" about it. I don't think I'd describe your behaviour there as "terrible", either; but I certainly don't see it as constructive. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:07, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Was there anything problematic or wrong about the semi-protection? Had my squabble with Jimbo Wales anything, at all, to do with the topic at AN? Or was it just an extremely cheap shot, a way to get some petty revenge? I think the answer is pretty clear for outside observers. Fram (talk) 07:35, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Jimbo has said on his talk page that he is OK with the semi-protection, so it is fine. Whether it was appropriate for you to be the person to do it, is another matter. The posting at ANI was related to something Jimbo has talked about widely in the past and taken an interest in (including multiple reports by media sources about him doing so), thus was relevant. Your repeatedly posting on Jimbo's talk page after being asked not to, across multiple occasions (including within minutes of him asking you not to) tends to lead me to BWilkins' conclusions about your behaviour, and to Jimbo's conclusions about your motives.

It would be a good idea for you to respect Jimbo's wishes and stay off his talkpage in future. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:47, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Wow, an unbiased reviewer giving his opinion! I'll sure give this every attention it deserves. Your explanation of why your posting at ANI was relevant is a prime example of grasping at straws. I think that you are probably the last one that should lecture anyone about motives. Fram (talk) 06:37, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I'll refrain from issuing a templated warning here - but just a polite reminder, you seem to have lost sight of WP:AGF somewhere along the way. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 06:53, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh no, feel free to give me a templated warning! I'm wondering which one you'll use though. Template:Don't reply to baiting or Template:DFTT? Fram (talk) 06:57, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Saving those two for Jimbo. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:41, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit from 2006

Hi Fram, good to talk with you again and we definitely appreciate your expert contribution whenever possible, as you have a long history with the article. As you may know, I am currently tracking down a source for every statement still in the current version of the article, otherwise it's going to be deleted. I tracked down one assertion made by the article and it led me, happily, to you! Can you please provide references for this edit. [1] Cheers. —Prhartcom (talk) 01:40, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

That a stamp was issued in 1979 is easy to verify, e.g. in the New York Times in 1991. That it was the first of many comics stamps in the Youth Philately series is correct but harder to verify (it can be seen in stamp catalogues of course). Perhaps the second part can be left out and only the "a stamp was issued" can be kept? Fram (talk) 06:40, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid the only phrase in the edit you made that day that I can verify is "Belgian Post issued a Tintin stamp in 1979". (I do not believe it celebrated a "day of philately".) The source you provide above does not verify the existence of this stamp. Others that I found do, however; I have deleted the edit and added verifiable information about this stamp. Cheers. —Prhartcom (talk) 16:15, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

" In 1979, Tintin even appeared, like royalty, on a Belgian stamp." comes from that source I provided. You have to scroll down beneath the ads though. Fram (talk) 06:44, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Good call, Fram

Your post on ANI regarding Jimbo was a good call. Thanks for bringing that to the attention of other admins, looks like they agree with you KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ... 11:40, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. AS could be expected, some editors use it to settle some personal scores, but that is business as usual of course. Shoot the messenger! Fram (talk) 11:42, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Salted page

You salted Alloy Digital after an overzealous user tried to create the page four times in a single day. That user's article was inappropriate, but I certainly feel the subject deserves an article, and have created a draft at User:WikiDan61/Alloy Digital. Unfortunately, I am unable to move this article into main space while the article is protected. Can you please remove the page protection so that my version of the article can be published? (Or review the version I have created and move it into mainspace yourself? That would work too!). Thanks! WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:25, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I've unprotected it (it was going to expire today anyway); you are free to move your page there (I haven't checked it, we need to trust our fellow ezditors a bit!). Fram (talk) 06:39, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Page is published now. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 10:52, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Jimbo's talk protection

Hi Fram,

I do non believe Jimbo's talk should be protected for weeks. A vandal will find the ways around the protection anyway and will be right back, when the protection expires. There should be other ways to deal with vandals. 76.126.142.59 (talk) 16:41, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

There should be other ways to deal with banned editors, too, but if wishes were ponies... --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:04, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I see you read my recent posts. It is great you agree with me! Actually dealing with banned editors is easy: banned editors should be treated as human beings. Wikipedians should learn how to let banned editors go. Banning should not be humiliation. Banning should not be punishment. I believe Wikipedia will be better off if banning is banned. In the most situations blocks are enough. Here's an interesting reading on the subject. Remember there are human beings listed in the banned users list, human beings many of whom are much better persons than some Wikipedians who supported their bans.76.126.142.59 (talk) 21:51, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm... WP:BANNEDEDITORSAREPEOPLETOO is still a redlink, unlike the one about IP addresses and the one about arbitrators. (Two much-maligned sub-classes of editors!) Maybe you should work on that. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:23, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

There's no need in a new Wikipedia policy. There's a need in a kind and reasonable person who knows Wikipedia inside out, maybe somebody as you. Why don't you start with nominating this list for deletion? Remember to deal with banned editors means letting them go. Deletion of the list will be a step in the right direction, and you will kill two birds with one stone: helping Wikipedia to deal with banned editors, and helping banned editors by letting them go. Or you could start with removing Peter from this list. His close family member is very ill, and it is my understanding Peter is not going to edit Wikipedia anyway. Try to do something kind and you will be treated kindly in return.76.126.142.59 (talk) 00:12, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, killing is not really my style. I think all of us would be happy to let banned editors go... but the reality is that banned editors sometimes don't want to go.

In the link you gave, someone claiming to be Peter talks at length about how he's in all sorts of discussions with arbcom and WMF and lawyers and such about Wikipedia, and how he has edited Wikipedia again in order to move things along. And other people there are busy advising him about retaining a lawyer or mounting a complaint against someone else's lawyer or being his own lawyer or various similar things. None of this sounds like "letting go" or wanting to be let go.

You may wish to comment on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:The best way to avoid ever being blocked (2nd nomination). --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:30, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

The thing is that has nobody ever tried to treat Peter as a human being, nobody has ever tried to really let him go. He might have edited Wikipedia in order to move things along, but only because nobody has responded his emails. I believe I read somewhere a story about Jimbo and a vandal. This particular vandal was a really bad case, and then Jimbo contacted him somehow and very nicely asked him to leave Wikipedia alone. Guess what, the vandal did! He simply wanted to be asked nicely. Peter is not a vandal, he should be treated with dignity. There's no need to keep him in the list. There's no need to have this list on Wikipedia. There's no need to ban users. Blocks are enough.

Thanks for pointing out this funny essay, although I do not see how it is connected to our conversation, except maybe that the language used in the nomination by user Roscelese does not speak in her favor at all. She's probably not a very nice person that user Roscelese because in the nomination she's discussing the contributor and not the contributions, but I believe user Ched covered this matter well enough, and there's no need for me to add anything to it. 76.126.142.59 (talk) 02:04, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I might have to give Fram their talk page back sometime, and this seems like that time ;) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:30, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Help moving

Can you move Elisiva Fusipala Tauki'onetuku to ʻElisiva Fusipala Taukiʻonetuku for me?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 22:23, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Done! Note, as usual, that I know nothing of the subject or the language, so my move is not a support for the new name. If someone opposes the move, I'll revert it and a WP:RM discussions will be needed. Not that I expect any problems, but on Wikipedia, you never know... Fram (talk) 06:41, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Category:1820 in Colombia, Category:1823 in Colombia and Category:1823 establishments in Colombia

Category:1820 in Colombia, Category:1823 in Colombia and Category:1823 establishments in Colombia, which you created, have been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:18, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Deleted page

Hi there - Our page was deleted before we could get content up and forward people to add their own. Can this be re-added? It is http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/The_Cooperative_Trust; the reason for deleting was 'No explanation of significance (real person/animal/organization/web content/organized event'. How quickly and how many users need to add content before it's removed? Thanks!

Are there any independent reliable sources (newspapers, magazines, ... not affiliated with the group) that have given significant attention to the trust? WP:N and WP:ORG give more information on what type of groups warrant articles on this encyclopedia, and what groups don't. The article as it was written didn't give any indication at all that the trust is in any way "notable" (in the Wikipedia sense). Fram (talk) 06:33, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes - a few are listed below. http://www.cuna.org/Stay-Informed/News-Now/CU-System/Crash-Network-now-Cooperative-Trust-with-CUNA-Mutual-support/?CollectionId=8 http://filene.org/community/cooperative-trust http://www.cuna.org/Stay-Informed/News-Now/CU-System/Marshall-To-Lead-The-Cooperative-Trust-For-Young-Adults/ https://www.mcua.org/node/322 http://www.creditunionmagazine.com/ext/resources/Dailies/MONDAY2013.pdf http://www.cutimes.com/search?search=cooperative+trust&cmd=Search

Filene, CUNA and MCUA are sponsors or partners of the trust, not independent sources. Creditunion magazine is primarily payed for by CUNA, so agian not an independent source at all. CUTimes seems to be the kind of website that reprints press releases word-for-word, not independent reporting on a subject. It still is only a single source, while the other five are clearly not independent sources. Fram (talk) 11:38, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Qin (surname)

Hello, you deleted Qin (surname) to allow a move requested by db-move, but at talk:Qin (surname), an open requested move existed at that time. Shouldn't the requested move discussion have been able to be let run, instead of moving the article through a db-move? -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 00:30, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

No, the db-move was undoing a recent move, back to the standard, stable situation. If a new name is wanted for the page, a move discussion can be had, but when there is doubt about the correctness of the recent undiscussed move, then a revert of that move is normal practice (even more so here, when the original mover was the one that wanted to move it back). Feel free to have a move discussion, my move back doesn't mean that I support or oppose any particular name a priori. Fram (talk) 06:30, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your response -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 06:55, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

AWB and Articles tagged for deletion

Hi there! I tagged Li Tianyi for A7 and I see you added tags to that pag, which is completely fine, but next time if there is a speedy tag on the article, please check it first so it can get deleted or the CSD gets rejected. Best Wishes Prabash.Akmeemana 12:07, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Sometimes I don't really know whether the article meets the CSD or not, and I prefer leaving that decision to others. Most ones I encounter I either delete ot remove the speedy, but when in doubt, I just let it stand for someone else to decide. Fram (talk) 12:09, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

NY Times article mentions you

Did you see this? Jane (talk) 06:59, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but thanks for dropping a note about it. I'm also mentioned in a few articles about the recent Jimmy Wales - Edward Snowden outing problems in some very prominent newspapers like Der Spiegel and the Neue Zurcher Zeitung. The result is that I'm banned from Wales' talk page and that some lone admin has promised to block me if I don't follow that rule. Apparently Jimbo only considers whistleblowers or critics "heroes" when the criticism isn't directed at him ;-) Fram (talk) 07:03, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Huh, that's interesting. As you can see I am not that in tune to "Wikipolitics", so thanks for the explanation! Looks like you're taking a lot of heat, so hang in there. Jane (talk) 07:54, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

No problem, I can use some heat after the long winter we had :-) But staying out of Wikipolitics and sticking to plain editing is often the best solution to keep enjoying this site. Fram (talk) 07:58, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I know! I totally agree, especially about the heat part - Happy Fourth of July, for what it's worth Jane (talk) 08:34, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Default sort revert

Hi Fram, if it is not necessary, why do we have? Yes VE puts all default sort additions under the cats.Egeymi (talk) 07:19, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Defaultsort is only necessary when it is different from the article title (e.g. the article Barack Obama is sorted as Obama, Barack). It is not case-sensitive, and should not contain accents and diacritics. For most articles, it is not necessary at all. And I thought that defaultsort should come in front of the categories, not after them, but I'll check on that before raising it as an error. Fram (talk) 07:23, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for informing me about it. You may try and you will see that VE puts all such additions under cats.Egeymi (talk) 07:28, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I checked, and according to the defaultsort docs, it may be placed beneath the categories. This violates the WP:APPENDIX style guide, where defaultsort comes in front of the categories, but visualeditor is clearly not written with any MOS in mind (note e.g. the way it removes spaces between stub tags or how it puts template parameters after each other instead of on a new line, and so on). Fram (talk) 07:33, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

This isn't going to go well...

Malleus is exceptionally rude when he flexes his muscles, but I fear blocking him for incivility, particularly for a month, is opening a major can of worms. Jus' sayin'... Doc talk 08:47, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think it would be worth placing a link in his current block log to the old one to record that he has a history of this behavior dating back as far as 2008. — Scott • talk 12:04, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

- It is already hard linked in the previous block log and the two accounts are clearly and obviously linked in many ways. I made sure of that when I did the final Malleus block.[2] There is no confusion that this would clear up by additional linking. The reason the block log wasn't moved over isn't Eric's fault as he did try to do a traditional move which would have moved the block log over, but it was denied by the Crat as the software won't allow moving accounts with over 50k edits. (I worked with WilliamH on this) I don't think anything else is needed and might seem a bit pointy if we did. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 12:33, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
  - Re the previous log, I know; but it's not connected in the other direction. Not everyone is aware of this user's name change. I suppose it is mentioned on his user page, but I can't imagine that every admin combs through a user's page before deciding what grade of block is appropriate. — Scott • talk 12:51, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
    - But making a larger deal of it when the current linkage is adequate for all admin is just likely to cause a lot of drama and debate with very little to be gained. Anyone that would have an opinion on anything he does already knows. Any admin that would consider a block already knows. Seriously, it isn't worth the drama and further block log links are going to be seen as pointy, whether they are or not. It will look like you are kicking him while he is down, again, even if that is not your intent. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 13:01, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
      - I've put a link to the block log of the earlier account in the AN discussion; hopefully this will inform any future commenters who weren't aware of it, and perhaps also most of the earlier commenters who may not have been aware of it. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:13, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I mentioned at ANI that 48 hours would be more reasonable. Eric normally doesn't comment on the person but on the behavior, and this seems like an isolated incident (at most a few hours in months of superlative editing). Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:19, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

It is no secret that Eric and I get along well, but I still think I can maintain a degree of objectivity here. I did mentioned that I understood the block, but the duration might be more than required to get the job done. Looking at the totality of the circumstances, I think a duration of 48 to 72 hours is adequate for the job. Looking at the lead up, it does seem that he had plenty of prodding, which doesn't excuse his behavior, but it does explain it. I won't labor the issue, but did want to offer my perspective here in a somewhat quieter venue. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 17:01, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Earlier short blocks or early unblocks haven't changed anything (at worst they have sent the message that he can do as he pleases, he will be unblocked anyway). He has been shown (understandably) much more leniency than most other editors in the past. But we have chosen for Wikipedia a model where collaboration and civility are central (as one of the 5 pillars), and not one where good content work trumps everything else; at some point, enough is enough, and a different approach ha to be tried. Short blocks don't send the message home, then perhaps longer ones, like they are being applied to everyone else, will finally make it clear that civility is not an option but a necessity. And I don't see where he had "plenty of prodding" for [3] or [4]. The only one of those 5 links I gave which can be reasonably attributed to excessive baiting or prodding seems to be this one. Fram (talk) 07:25, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

@Dennis: "Looking at the lead up, it does seem that he had plenty of prodding, which doesn't excuse his behavior, but it does explain it." I can only assume I'm who you are referring to. What "baiting" or "prodding" occurred when this happened? Seriously. Turning a blind eye to clearly unacceptable behavior is even worse than calling them on it. It implicitly supports it. If I can't challenge this editor's behavior: who can? I should keep silent while witnessing abuse? And it's my fault for "baiting" if I speak up? Doc talk 07:48, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

You know, I blocked him for these edits, so I don't see what your reply has to do with my actions or my post above yours. If you weren't replying to me, then please change your indentation or add a username at the front of your post. Fram (talk) 07:55, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Doc, it isn't about blaming you, I'm saying two people were escalating the heat in a discussion. It doesn't excuse the behavior, and I've support a block, but you also escalated the discussion and that it is a mitigating factor. I expect editors will bump heads from time to time, so it isn't a personal judgement against you or Eric. I get along with both of you just fine, although I've worked close enough with Eric to actually understand him a bit more than most do. I've also chosen to discuss here rather than at the discussion, not because I think I am too biased to be objective, but out of respect for Fram because others might think my affinity for Eric would bias me, and I don't want to start drama and side discussions on "involved". Again, Eric did push it too far and I understand the block, the reasonable and necessary questions are: Is a month too long? Is 24 hours too short? As always, my focus is only on solutions as there is no justice here. The real question is only "what is the least amount of time to effectively prevent disruption?". Because there is no consensus as to duration (and some contention as to the block in general), Fram is in a unique position in that he has carte blanche to reduce the block if he felt it served some larger goal here. Again, I won't bludgeon him here or at AN about it, but I do feel obligated to simply point that out. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 11:39, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I see no evidence at all that reducing the block length will increase the chance that we will have less such episodes in the future. If he wants to continue editing, then the message has to be clear that further similar comments will lead to longer and longer blocks. If he doesn't want to continue editing if it is no longer tolerated that he makes such comments, then that would be a loss, but it would be his choice. But I see no reason so far to lift the block or reduce the block length, and while there is opposition against both the block and the block length at AN (with some opposition going the other way and prefering a ban or longer block), to me it seems as if there is a clear consensus that the block was correct. Obviously, I'm not an unbiased reviewer of consensus here, so I'll not close (or unclose or reclose) the discussion there. Fram (talk) 11:48, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

A bit of "showing me the ropes" please.

Hi Fram. This is the first time I've ever "talked" on someone's page so if I'm doing it wrong please let me know on my talk page. Just wanted to as whether or not my status/ ability to edit/create pages is affected by an administrator like yourself reverting my edits and deleting my page. I'm new to this and don't know what being reverted a few times will mean to me. If so, could you maybe just edit it rather than revert :) I'll bear in mind who deserves an article next time hopefully, I just thought that he was relatively well-known and a page about a headteacher would be okay. Anyway, looks like you do great work on Wikipedia and I frankly, anyone who helps wikipedia has helped me. Any tips and advice if us newbies make mistakes would be appreciated. And out of curiousity, what is the disagreement between you and Jimmy Wales about? Thanks :) GiggsIsLegend (talk) 17:38, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Apologies about the Jimmy Wales thing, I've done a little digging and worked out what happened. But the answer about reverting would be appreciated :-) GiggsIsLegend (talk) 18:17, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

In general, people should have been the subject of significant attention in reliable independent sources (newspapers, magazines, TV, ...); this excludes passing mentions, or attention in sources that are close to the person (e.g. anything published by the school or other related institutions will not count towards his notability, although it can be used in his article otherwise). Local sources (the village newspaper and so on) are often discounted as well, as everything and everyone gets some attention there sometimes. WP:BIO explains this more thoroughly. Fram (talk) 06:32, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for that link. Give it a few years, I'll be almost as much of an expert as you are (hopefully). Anyway, thanks. GiggsIsLegend (talk) 13:25, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hej Fram!

I did not object to a block based on the insults on Wikipedia, but the "threat" accusation was untrue, as I tried to explain. The hour and the provocations did not help. Of course I regret the coarsity of my language, which reflected the hour and my "don't go to bed angry" policy.

I had wished that the predictions of a lack of interaction (made by WTT and Drmies independently) were more accurate than my assessment, which seemed to have been consistent with the ANI discussion of your proposal. 'Nuff said. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:01, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Unilateral unblocks

Please do not ever do that to a block I have placed again. If you are in a position to verify the IRC log and feel that Ironholds should have been blocked as a result of his commnents, that's fine: go ahead and block him, but that in no way excuses Kiefer.—Kww(talk) 14:50, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't think you've had support from a single administrator for the length of your block and for the charge of a "threat". Please re-read what Fram wrote, which did not "excuse" anything. Afterall, I was blocked for many hours. Kiefer.Wolfowitz

I'm with Fram on this. Three months was way overboard. AutomaticStrikeout ? 17:01, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Arbcom filing notification

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Offsite comments and personal attacks and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 23:27, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Another badly photoshopped image

See commons:File:Spamalot ensemble.jpg. I also mentioned it in the deletion discussion on commons. Hairy Dude (talk) 20:43, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Fram (talk) 07:31, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Bill Aliʻiloa Lincoln

Could you move Bill Ali'iloa Lincoln to Bill Aliʻiloa Lincoln?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 00:02, 7 July 2013 (UTC) And:

Aloha ʻAina to Aloha ʻĀina

Both done. Fram (talk) 07:31, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Category:1932 in Lesotho

Category:1932 in Lesotho, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Tim! (talk) 06:17, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Achinger coat of arms

You wrote: "I have currently tagged thos starting with A-C, I'll continue tagging the remainder tomorrow morning." Such massive changes usually require a community discussion in one place. Please wait for the outcome for whatever you already did and then proceed; This may save your and others time. I have posted a notice on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Poland. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:22, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Never mind. I didn't notice that you nominated all of them in a single AfD page. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:39, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kiefer.Wolfowitz and Ironholds opened

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kiefer.Wolfowitz and Ironholds. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kiefer.Wolfowitz and Ironholds/Evidence. Please add your evidence by July 26, 2013, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kiefer.Wolfowitz and Ironholds/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:56, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

nowiki tags

Filter 550 picks up the nowiki tags without relying on the Visual Editor tag.—Kww(talk) 15:59, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, I'll check it out. Fram (talk) 18:24, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Seems very useful! Fram (talk) 06:18, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Diligence

You deserve about a hundred of these. Fram, thank you for doing so much work in finding and reporting problems with VisualEditor. I wish I could do something more useful in a practical way, like make "Bug found by Fram" be a Bugzilla priority status that outranks all the others, but for now, thank you: thank you for your diligence, for your kindness about reporting irritating problems, for your clear reports, and for your patience while they get fixed. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 01:00, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Much appreciated. Fram (talk) 06:18, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Beware VE burning your time

I saw your note how VE has derailed your month, and similar with many veteran users. Let other people do the edit-fixes. I have counted the prior nowiki-tags by wikisearch (search: nowiki-the), as 2,054 on Thursday, and 2,059 on Friday. As long as other editors re-edit for "nowiki" then the nowiki-usage counts will remain low, or a Bot could be written next month to fix the nowiki-patterns. It is ironic how Jimbo took 3 weeks in July to work a totally new adventure, advising us to do likewise, and instead we get "babysitting the infant VE" as diaper duty. They want VE to show how only newcomers expand articles, how, by making veteran editors delay all new articles and resort to being menial glitch fixers. Don't let them derail important new work any longer. Other users can help with edit-fixes. An estimated 57 million children have limited access to education or books. -Wikid77 (talk) 06:17, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't see their motives as that extreme, but sometimes too much emphasis is indeed put on new editors, while neglecting to cater to existing ones as well. I'll not comment on Jimbo, let's just say that I don't mind him not editing Wikipedia for weeks or longer... Fram (talk) 06:18, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Devil's Gap Footpath

I don't know you and you don't know me but I take objection to your false allegations claiming I am someone who I am not, btw nice way of putting off new editors so stop trolling and get a life, thank you. Toromedia (talk) 07:43, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Please check our WP:COI guidelines before editing pages like Defenders of Gibraltar again. And read WP:CIVIL. Considering that you are a Tommy Finlayson of Gibraltar and had edited the Tommy Finlayson article, my apparent mistake wasn't that strange though. Finally, please don't intriduce copyright violations into Wikipedia, as you did with Shipping in Gibraltar, taken from [5]. Fram (talk) 07:53, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, well, well, here we are again after explaining to you that I am a newbie and I log on to find out that you have gone out of your way to deliberately delete the last 3 articles that I spent ages writing. How big of you! These bulling tactics of yours is what gives Wikipedia a bad name and puts people off from editing, Bully Bully Bully! You never considered contacting me or even helping me edit did you? Toromedia (talk) 21:48, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

How should one respond to getting slapped? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:14, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Files missing description details

Dear uploader: The media files you uploaded as:

are missing a description and/or other details on their image description pages. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the images, and they will be more informative to readers.

If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 16:10, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited John of Westphalia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Agricola (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:48, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Drive by tagging and unblock user

Any chance you could help reference some of the articles you've just tagged with AWB ?

I could also do with Eric being unblocked, as he was copyediting an article I'm trying to get to Featured Article status, could you sort that too.

Cheers, Nick (talk) 16:42, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I think an unblock would be appropriate, as Eric has now acknowledged that "There was some fault on my side admittedly, but only some, not all". He's also promised "fun" once the block is ended. What more could you wish for? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:03, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

It's important now that you don't unblock Eric. Each day your block (doubtless a source of pride to you) remains in force is another day that the project loses content and consequently you and your narrow minded supporters look progressively more ridiculous, spiteful and vindictive. Eric was goaded into losing his temper, the whole of Wikipedia knows that so leaving the block standing is the best way of highlighting the absurdities and abuses that you and your kind inflict daily on ordinary content editor here on Wikipedia. Giano 21:40, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) "Goaded into losing his temper". Read the diffs, presented above, which actually lead me to "goad" him. And one revert by him of any comment of mine, or one "Fuck off of my page", and the conversation would have been over before it was. You think I was going to AN/I with any of it? Not. I never sought any block of this editor. I was merely speaking my mind. Adults should be able to do that with each other. Whatever happened after our exchange has absolutely nothing to do with me. But the reason I went there affects editors both old and new. Doc talk 06:06, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Doc9871, please could you present evidence that you are an adult? I've checked your userpage and don't see any definitive proof. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:21, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Invitation

Hello, Fram: The following are WikiProject Today's articles for improvement's weekly selections. Diurnality Posted by: Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:21, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello Fram: This is an invitation to check out Wikiproject Today's articles for improvement and join if you're interested. Thank you for your consideration. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:21, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Settings in The Adventures of Tintin

An article that you have been involved in editing, Settings in The Adventures of Tintin, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. —Prhartcom (talk) 04:08, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Notice of discussion on Administrators notice board

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:24, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

As you've been away for a few days and I'm not sure when you'll return, it's entirely possible that the discussion referred to above will have been archived. The discussion refers to Eric Corbett, who was unblocked by administrator INeverCry. This led to the discussion at WP:AN concerning a possible against consensus unblock and administrator Prodego reinstated your original block whilst the discussion was ongoing. INeverCry reversed this block and again unblocked Eric. The discussion as it stands at present [6] resulted in consensus to support the unblock of Eric. Administrator Kww reported the incident to WP:AN initially after INeverCry's first unblock, after Prodego reblocked and INeverCry unblocked for a second time, the incident was then reported to the Arbitration Committee by Kww [7]. INeverCry resigned his administrator status whilst the Request for Arbitration was ongoing and has subsequently retired. His resignation is being considered as being under a cloud for the purposes of regaining his adminship. I hope this overview of the situation prevents you from returning and being left utterly befuddled by a strange few hours last night/this morning. Cheers, Nick (talk) 16:20, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Yhanks for your summary. Yes, I was away for a few weeks, back now, lots of catching up to do. Fram (talk) 06:34, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

What a thoughtful addition. I would add that there is a subtle but significant difference between "Eric should remain unblocked" (ex post facto, in a sense) and "support the unblock of Eric", and it was the former that gained community consensus (although by a fairly hefty margin), not the latter. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:55, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Amy Hanaialiʻi Gilliom

Could you move Amy Gilliom to Amy Hanaialiʻi Gilliom? Could you do something about this ban? I don't understand why I can't perform these moves.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 04:10, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

It's not about you, it's because of the "incorrect" (in most English terms) apostrophes. Usually, when people want to use them, they do so by mistake. The few correct ones that are prevented this way are considered to be collateral damage in preventing the more common incorrect ones that are prevented by this filter. I'll move it now. Fram (talk) 06:44, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks....How do you bypass the filter?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 07:01, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm an admin, and we are not restricted by such filters (which allows us to help other editors in cases like this). Fram (talk) 07:12, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Your abuse of DYK process

Please see Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Abuse of DYK review process by Fram. Prioryman (talk) 09:23, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Gibraltar footpaths revisited

Please check out Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Footpaths of Gibraltar. I, as the lone delete advocate now, am a bit peeved that there seems to be a group effort (I'm not saying sockpuppets) to keep the article without really addressing the issues fairly. Kitfoxxe (talk) 19:39, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Nanasipauʻu Tukuʻaho

Could you move Nanasipau'u Tuku'aho to Nanasipauʻu Tukuʻaho?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:16, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I'll do it, but seeing that you could create the redirect, I wonder why you couldn't have just moved it yourself. Strange... Fram (talk) 06:37, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I still can't I just create the redirect beforehand so I can link the category I created for her on wiki commons while I waited for you to move the wiki article to the correct form. The system is allowing me to create as much redirects with as much okina as I want, but it just won't let me move the articles from the commas to the okina. I think I told you before about the red letters that pop up each time I try to move something to its correct form with okina.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:02, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Colin Cheong

I'd like to ask you to reconsider the protection of this article. The only reason is because pending changes level 2, which is the option you chose, has been explicitly rejected by the community. Only pending changes level 1 is currently authorized by the community. See here for a curent discussion of this and several other PC2 protections. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:24, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, no idea why I chose PC2, I think it's the only time I applied PC anywhere, but I may be mistaken. Probably chose it because the vandalism was serious and from autoconfirmed users, but not very high frequency. I've now changed it to semi-protected, I'll try to keep an eye on it and see how it goes. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. Fram (talk) 06:33, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Just to clarify Beeblebrox's statement, PC2 may be accepted by the community at some point but the consensus is that people don't want to consider giving it the go ahead until there is a draft policy outlining appropriate uses of the protection. Such a draft policy doesn't exist at the moment. I am hopeful that we can come up with a draft if we put our heads together now, although others may think it is too soon. Yaris678 (talk) 10:00, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

ITN

I'm not going to raise a fuss about it and I'll leave it be, but just a note: given I had explained my analysis of the discussion and also declined to pull until I saw more opposition, I would have appreciated if you hadn't pulled the item without at least discussing further with me beforehand. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 08:59, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Your reasoning was highlyt unconvincing. It is not as if the opposes were for invalid reasons, just that some thougt it important enough, and some (a small majority even) didn't. How you could get a consensus out of that was not clear. Fram (talk) 09:07, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

My general checklist is this: 1) Is there consensus the item is in the news? 2) Is there consensus that the event is significant enough to post? 3) Is there consensus on any factors which would prevent posting? 4) Is the update sufficient? 1, 3, and 4 easily passed, and on 2 I judged there was (narrowly) consensus that it was significant due to the reasoning I had mentioned. None of the opposes (sans maybe the plain "absolutely not") were invalid, I just judged that it had met my general checklist and posted accordingly. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 09:26, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

If 2 isn't met, then 1, 3 and 4 are not important. I don't see how you can reason that 2 is met without ignoring some of the "oppose" votes, and yet you claim that you didn't do that. It seems that you simply gave more weight to the supports than to the opposes, which feels more like a supervote than a neutral closure. Any reason why the suggested 24 hours (from the ITN admin guide) can't be at least be allowed to pass before deciding if there is a consensus in debates with many (valid) opposes? 09:30, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I was about to post that I had seen your comment about the 24 hours, and actually that's quite a good point and I wouldn't mind letting that go by at all. I would have, except like I said, I thought about it for quite a while before posting and I just ended up deciding that it fell about 60/40 on my post/don't post (wait) scale. Either way, it's down now, I'm fine with that, and discussion can proceed further. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 09:40, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Elisabeth Ann

just an honest mistake. no harm done. polite conversation and resolutions is the one thing i miss here on wiki. Thank you kindly for being kind. you don't see that much around here anymore. Happy editing! 50.9.97.53 (talk) 14:42, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

FYI

FYI: [8] (Please wait for page to load.) 70.235.85.119 (talk) 14:55, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Does this mean anything? Is GiantSnowman my sock, or vice versa? Or are we somehow collaborating on lots of football articles? Any chance the IP will explain the FYI?! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:05, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Shit, we've been rumbled! Giant Snowman 19:16, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Nice to know that, whoever this IP is, they didn't care to notify me... Go ahead, make my day, get someone to run a CU, and we'll see how fucking stupid you look, whichever blocked/banned user you are. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:26, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks IP. I've immediately blocked these three editors as sockpuppets of each other. How stupid of us to never have noticed this. Please reveal your actual user name so that I can nominate you for adminship. Fram (talk) 06:29, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Bless your heart. 71.139.153.14 (talk) 14:38, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

And your point was....? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:01, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Lilian Faithfull

Hi, I nommed this for GA. There's not that much to go on with her and it's technically a sound article, short and sweet in my opinion.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 15:20, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, much appreciated. I have probably very little time the next two weeks, so if you hear or see little from me, it's not because I'm not interested :-) Fram (talk) 09:45, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

For deleting my mistakes in "16th-century indigenous people of the Americas." Cheers! -Uyvsdi (talk) 17:23, 9 August 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi

DYK for Charles Vilain XIIII

On 11 August 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Charles Vilain XIIII, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Belgian politician Charles Vilain XIIII read the new Constitution of Belgium at the inauguration of King Leopold I? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Charles Vilain XIIII. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Alex Shih ^Talk 13:48, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

GA Thanks

This user helped promote Tintin in America to good article status.

On behalf of WP:CHICAGO, thanks for your editorial contributions to Tintin in America, which has recently become a WP:GA.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:42, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Spam

You did an edit to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/David Adam Kess. I thought I would bring it up with you instead of the boards. I came across this issue at commons http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems#Widespread_spamming_by_a_photographer They claim that this photographer's images have been added to many articles here. It seems most edits are done by IPs. Feel free to ignore this or suggest which board it should be brought up at. I haven't got a clue myself how to deal with it. There is also at least one red link category in the AfC that could probably use routine maintenance deletion.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:13, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Notification

Please see WT:DYK#Proposal to ban Fram from future Gibraltar-related reviews. Prioryman (talk) 12:35, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Fram. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard.
Message added 12:47, 29 August 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Mat ty.007 12:47, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks and More

Hi Fram, thanks for helping out my page I am working on. I was wondering if you could look at it, and if deemed acceptable, deem it right for publishing. The subject is Noam Bramson and the url is http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Noam_Bramson I'd really appreciate the help. Let me know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Concretebeachri (talk • contribs) 19:42, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Article Feedback Tool update

Hey Fram. I'm contacting you because you're involved in the Article Feedback Tool in some way, either as a previous newsletter recipient or as an active user of the system. As you might have heard, a user recently anonymously disabled the feedback tool on 2,000 pages. We were unable to track or prevent this due to the lack of logging feature in AFT5. We're deeply sorry for this, as we know that quite a few users found the software very useful, and were using it on their articles.

We've now re-released the software, with the addition of a logging feature and restrictions on the ability to disable. Obviously, we're not going to automatically re-enable it on each article—we don't want to create a situation where it was enabled by users who have now moved on, and feedback would sit there unattended—but if you're interested in enabling it for your articles, it's pretty simple to do. Just go to the article you want to enable it on, click the "request feedback" link in the toolbox in the sidebar, and AFT5 will be enabled for that article.

Again, we're very sorry about this issue; hopefully it'll be smooth sailing after this :). If you have any questions, just drop them at the talkpage. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) 21:43, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Don't be sorry, AFT (version 5 or otherwise) is a waste of time, that would better be abandoned completely. While the anon probably shouldn't have done this like this, I can only support the initial outcome (and the umpteenth problematic issue with AfT5 it highlights). Please use developer's time (and foundation money?) on better things. Fram (talk) 07:39, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Deletion from my talk page.

I presume the comment that you deleted from my talk page was inflammatory, threatening, or offensive. If so thanks, if not, could you let me know why it was deleted. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:07, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it was "go * yourself **" (with some offensive terms instead of the stars), and has apparently to do with the moon hoax page. Fram (talk) 12:09, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks then. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:17, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Volleyball AFD's

I'm beginning to think that your suspicion of a hoax is likely. The 2013 FIVB Girls Cup International of School was supposedly held in Bracknell Forest, England. Google searches can't find anything even remotely close and even searching with the MVP's name turns up nothing. Ravensfire (talk) 15:40, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Check e-mail from S. Wacom

Reply here if you received the e-mail. - 70.192.128.216 (talk) 12:41, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your mail. However, I prefer to discuss things on-wiki only. If your information is of a sensitive nature, you can always contact ArbCom (see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee#Contacting the Committee; you can always mail an individual member of the committee, e.g. if your information is about one of the members of their mailing list) or OTRS (the Wikipedia:Volunteer Response Team). If you want your information to be dealt with on-wiki, you can always post it to one of the noticeboards (WP:DR has more info on this). If you don't want to associate your IP address or regular user name (if any) with the information, you can create a new account for this reason, but it is best to state so clearly when posting (e.g. "This is a throwaway account of an established editor, created to avoid repercussions from the editor involved in my complaint" or some such). This will cause some people to dismiss your comments out of hand though. Fram (talk) 12:53, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Stanko Nižić

If the reason for the deletion is lack of sources, then undelete it and delete the "Related developments" section. The lead section is well documented; however, I did not list the sources, which I can do within a few days. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neven Lovrić (talk • contribs) 13:38, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

It contained very serious allegations about living persons without any sources; I will not undelete it. Fram (talk) 14:39, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

And how can I list the sources if the article is to remain deleted? -- Neven Lovrić (talk) 09:49, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

You can create the article with good sources from the start; make a neutral article with the sources, then add the well-sourced allegations to the text. MAke certainly that the article doesn't violate WP:BLP, WP:BLPCRIME, and WP:BIO. Fram (talk) 09:57, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Ok, so what you're saying is that you want me to recreate the article? If yes, where I can see what I already wrote as reference? What about "According to"-type claims i. e. claims that are not accepted by the opposing side and are listed starting the section or sentence with "According to"? You should also note that these are assassinations and actions by secret services. Almost everything will be "According to" (the victims). I suspect that Josip Perković actually participated in dozens of assassinations, but information on this is heavily censored due to threat of retaliation by these structures. -- Neven Lovrić (talk) 12:22, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I only want you to recreate the article if there are sufficient neutral, unbiased sources about the person. "According to" allegations should be avoided at all costs, unless they are a major part of his notability and are being repeated in neutral sources. If these things are not possible, then we shouldn't have an article on him. Fram (talk) 12:42, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Neutral can be done in regards of Stanko Nižić, personally. In regards of Josip Perković, neutral is theoretically possible as he was arrested by the Swiss Federal Police at the time. They are pretty neutral and even let him go as he provided identity papers, proof of employment, and proof of an official trip for his alleged employer, convincing the Swiss Federal Police that the false identity is true. There might be some Swiss news clip about it, but it's practically impossible to find for me. The only sources available to me on this part are secondary sources which are related to Stanko Nižićs' cause. However, there is little reason for them to implicate specifically Josip Perković instead of some other State Security Service operative, so I think they might qualify as secondary sources. What is your opinion on this? -- Neven Lovrić (talk) 17:17, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I can't possibly answer this without links to the actual sources. Further: is there any reason that this should be a separate article, and not part of the Josip Perković article? If all that will be discussed is the alleged murder by Perkovic, then it should be in Perkovic article, not in a separate article, assuming that there are good sources linking him to this case. Fram (talk) 21:47, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

DYK discussion

I'm sorry to say that we have lost this debate - the consensus seems to be that hooks about crimes are OK. St Anselm (talk) 20:23, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Until some more errors and very dubious hooks appear, probably... Thanks for trying! Fram (talk) 06:33, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Correct case for Christian de/De Metter

Hi, I'm just wondering how sure you are about the correct case for Christian De Metter. The links in the Notes, References, and External links sections are divided on the issue. But I would consider the following to be authoritative sources, and they all agree that "de" should be lower case: Library of Congress, Bibliothèque nationale de France, and IdRef (reference for Système universitaire de documentation). The last two, for the National Library of France and the French university libraries, seem especially pertinent since the subject is French. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 08:56, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I went with his publishers[9][10]. Worldcat also gives it with upper case[11]. If you look at you third link, at the bottom (list of works), half are uppercase De, half are lowercase de[12]. It seems that there is no clear preference, and he doesn't seem to have a personal website to check it... This cover[13] has it with Upper Case, as does this one and this one, but strangely this one has lower case, and this one as well; but another one from Casterman in French, [14], again uses upper case. It seems as if both are acceptable, or perhaps he has changed from one to the other at some point in time? Fram (talk) 09:18, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Such things are a little frustrating, but at least not so bad as when I find conflicting sources about information which is more important than the case of one letter. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 09:30, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, people will find the article, no matter what case we use... If you prefer the lower case, feel free to move it back of course. Fram (talk) 09:33, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, but since there appears to be no single "right" answer, I'll leave it as is. Just one final note: Worldcat, which does it both ways, came up with a unique solution to the problem: Christian de De Metter! MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 10:17, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, that's one solution we certainly shouldn't follow! Fram (talk) 10:29, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Assisting = attacking

Kudos for taking the trouble to help Miss B. In the real world, anyone who defined assistance as a form of attack would be written off as a (probably harmless) lunatic. But Jimboworld is, well, Jimboworld. Which I've heard described as the product of a little-known collaboration between Lewis Carroll, Franz Kafka, Flann O'Brien and Steinbeck's Lennie Small. Writegeist (talk) 17:10, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, such a collaboration could well produce a weird masterpiece :-) Fram (talk) 17:15, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

12 Peers Theater

Fram, more sources have been added to the 12 Peers Theater article since the last AfD discussion. It shouldn't be deleted again just because the conclusion of a previous AfD discussion of a different version of the article was "Redirect." Please reinstate my edit, and if you still think the article has issues with notability, start another AfD discussion. Thanks! Frankgorshin (talk) 14:31, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Can you indicate which sources are new? You already got a second chance, I'm not going to start a yearly AfD without some significantly better sources. You are free to take it to WP:DRV if you want other persons to check this instead. Fram (talk) 14:34, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

The new sources include two more reviews from Pittsburgh City Paper about recent productions. Reviews of productions by a theatre company in regional publications such as Pittsburgh City Paper are what establish notability. This isn't about giving me a "second chance"; it's about reconsidering the notability of an article based on a growing amount of legitimate sources. The state of the subject of this article is not static; much of the reasoning behind its deletion was the fact that it was a newer theatre company that did not have much coverage, and as the theatre company continues to have productions, its coverage increases. I wouldn't have created the article again if new sources weren't available.

Frankgorshin (talk) 15:13, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Deletion

Hi Fram. As a very occasional and inexpert contributor, I messed up trying to put my user page right, and you were right to delete it in its latest form. I created it very recently, and then noticed that a link to it from this page Wikipedia:WikiProject Scottish Islands‎ didn't work. So I fiddled around with it to try and remedy the problem, but I obviously made it worse! However, I have now worked out my elementary mistake, and resolved the issue. Regards Dhmellor (talk) 13:30, 20 September 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhmellor (talk • contribs)

No problem! It is easy to create a page in the wrong namespace. If you notice this, you can always tag the page with {{Db-g7}}, it will then automatically be added to our speedy deletion category (note that you may only do this for pages where yo uare the only contributor!). Fram (talk) 13:38, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Talkback message from Tito Dutta

Hello, Fram. You have new messages at Titodutta's talk page.
Message added 08:54, 21 September 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Tito☸Dutta 08:54, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	For blocking and bringing an IP to my attention. Bearian (talk) 20:25, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! I have never had so many barnstars as these last few months :-) Fram (talk) 06:38, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

List of multimedia franchises

Sorry about the mix-up. It should be all fixed now. Cheers! bd2412 T 14:33, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

No problem! For some reason I had both the multimedia page and your sandboxes on my watchlist :-) Fram (talk) 14:45, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Oh, you don't want to do that. It's quite an ugly sandbox. ;-) bd2412 T 15:18, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, wow, my watchlist just went insane. ;) BOZ (talk) 16:12, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Too lazy to use Twinkle, but I replied to your message at In the Media. Thanks for your feedback, Go Phightins! 10:34, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Deletion request

Hi Fram! I request to delete South Kanpur district & South Kanpur (Lok Sabha constituency) because

South Kanpur district does not any district in Indian state of Uttar Pradesh. look here
South Kanpur (Lok Sabha constituency) also does not exist look at Lok Sabha Official Website--Prateek Malviya (talk) 12:57, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
- You may be correct, but I'm not qualified enough to correctly judge this (I note that the second page indicates that this will only happen in 2014). The best thing you can do is either seek contact with Wikiproject India, or nominate the pages for deletion at WP:AFD. Fram (talk) 13:01, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Apologies

Hello Fram, I made a mistake here - you were right to correct me. I hadn't seen that MfD discussion, and was confusing it with the more parochial discussion about its use in one specific article here, to which I had contributed. FactController (talk) 18:30, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

No problem, thanks for taking the time to apologize. It's easy to make such a mistake, no harm done. Fram (talk) 18:35, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Leuven

Howdy. A remarkably persistent IP vandal has been disrupting Leuven for a week now. Do you think you could semi-protect it? Thanks, Oreo Priest ^talk 22:20, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Too late, another admin did already :-) I have now added it to my watchlist, perhaps next time I'll catch it earlier this way. Fram (talk) 06:51, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Great, thanks for your help. Oreo Priest ^talk 13:44, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Les Aventures des Schtroumpfs article

Hello, I'm Flyer22. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Les Aventures des Schtroumpfs because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, you can use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 23:52, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Oops. Hello, Fram. Sorry about templating you above. As you can see, I struck that out. I also removed the "October 2013" heading and replaced it with the one above.

Did you mean to add this back to that article? The "idiotic" part is what made me hit the test/vandalism button. Flyer22 (talk) 02:33, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I also cleared your name in the edit history. Flyer22 (talk) 02:49, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I readded it without the idiotic part. It was true though, but not necessary to understand the basic plot. Fram (talk) 06:30, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Okay. And I see. Thanks. Flyer22 (talk) 08:58, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Category restoration request

I would like to request that you restore a category you previously deleted because it was empty, Category:Teletoon original series. I plan to add pages to that category. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 14:15, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Done! It's best that you don't wait too long before populating it again, or some other admin might delete it again... Fram (talk) 14:25, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Schuylkill Navy Page

Hi Fram! I saw that you were one of the last users to edit the Fairmount Rowing Association page? I know it was a a while ago but please let me know if you have any other facts you'd want to share. I'm editing the Schuylkill Navy page and I'd love your help and support! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jyp25 (talk • contribs) 11:46, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Sadly, I know nothing about the subject, I was just going through a list of sporting clubs. Good luck with the navy page! Fram (talk) 11:51, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject volleyball - invitation to discussion

This is an special invitation for experienced editors to the discussion in WikiProject Volleyball about the proposal for Notability Guide for Volleyball Players. Your wise and kind participation will be highly appreciated. Osplace 20:27, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Opting in to VisualEditor

As you may know, VisualEditor ("Edit ^beta") is currently available on the English Wikipedia only for registered editors who choose to enable it. Since you have made 50 or more edits with VisualEditor this year, I want to make sure that you know that you can enable VisualEditor (if you haven't already done so) by going to your preferences and choosing the item, "MediaWiki:Visualeditor-preference-enable". This will give you the option of using VisualEditor on articles and userpages when you want to, and give you the opportunity to spot changes in the interface and suggest improvements. We value your feedback, whether positive or negative, about using VisualEditor, at Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback. Thank you, Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 20:19, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	My great thanks to you, Fram. I've got a feedback today and now its clear to me what to do. Vadim.Sorokin.Wiki (talk) 18:25, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Breeze Barton merge

As you participated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Breeze Barton, you may be interested to learn that I have opened a discussion to propose merging the article's contents to List of Marvel Comics characters: B. Feel free to comment. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 20:50, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Origins of the Snorks

Dear Fram, I know that you corrected my edition about the origins of the Snorks. I searched here on Wikipedia, and saw that the first basis year for the Snorks' creation really was 1977, when Freddy Monnickendam negotiated the rights of the Smurfs for the Dutch musician Father Abraham.

This negotiation would result in problems at the court between Peyo and Monnickendam, and these problems would result in the creation of the Snorks, by Nic Broca, as he worked on the same publishing house with Monnickendam.

Also, afterwards, still in 1982, was made an three-minute demo pilot, for NBC, but nobody saw this pilot. For you, this pilot really existed, my dear? I'll leave here my question. --186.203.232.79 (talk) 16:59, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Any evidence at all for all of this? That a pilot was made before the series seems normal, but I have no further knowledge of this. But At the time that the Snorks were created, Monnickendam worked for Dupuis (via SEPP), as did Peyo. Monnickendam was the executive producer of the Smurfs cartoons. The alleged reason he wanted a different series was that he didn't earn enough from the success of the Smurfs (to which he didn't own the rights), so he looked for another series where he could acquire the rights. It makes no sense that he would have created this in 1977, when there was no Smurfs animated series yet, and when he has never created a comics series before or since. I haven't found a single reliable source that claims that Monnickendam had anything to do with the initial creation of the Snorks, or that these were older than 1981. Fram (talk) 06:57, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Alright, but thanks anyway, dear Fram. I put 1977 as the Snorks' root year because I thought that initially Freddy Monnickendam decided to buy the rights of the Smurfs comics for Father Abraham. So, if he couldn't buy the Smurfs rights, he decided to compete with Smurfs' success. How? Buying the rights of an similar comics series as Smurfs, which were called The Snorks, in 1982. I know that he didn't created any comic series though.

But, about the Snorks' 1982 demo pilot, it really existed. It was used by Hanna-Barbera, but probably:

1- To promote the premiere of Snorks animated series, which would happen later, in 1984.

2- Probably Hanna-Barbera decided to premiere the Snorks series in 1982, but they had complications to do that very early, as they were newly created at the time.

3- Probably this pilot was used only for tests, as this generally occours with several TV series, whether animated or not.

So, hope you understood I said, dear Fram. Sorry if I was wrong about the Snorks' origins. And yes, I got an reference source about the Snorks' pilot. http://snorks.wikia.com/wiki/Snorks_Pilot --186.203.234.92 (talk) 16:28, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, Wikia is not a reliable source (and not worried about posting copyright violations apparently), but that promo is for the 1983-1984 season, so probably broadcasted mid 1983 or thereabouts? It would make more sense that the pilot was created in 1983 than in 1982. Fram (talk) 06:39, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Removal from a list

Just letting you know I have reverted your removal from List of people who escaped from prison. This is a list of other articles. In those articles, you shall found references. If it bothers you that there are no references in this list, it would be more productive for you to copy the references onto the list than to remove the listings altogether. Hellno2 (talk) 21:49, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

To avoid possible misconceptions caused by the ambiguity above, I should clarify that Hellno2 means that they have reverted Fram's removal of material from the list. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:24, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

History of Days in India

Hello Fram, Thanks for the information about your deletion appeal for articles on Category:Days of the year in India. But I don't find any page to put forward my thought on deletion discussion. However I would like to share my views. Similar to Category:Years in India, I think these pages should be valid. I believe contents in the respective pages are more specific and descriptive. Since not all the entries are qualified to add in respective days pages as per WP:DOY, I had created those entries into country title. is there any other suggestions for those entries to be listed as a date events? I would also love to here your suggestion to remove this deletion request template --Neechalkaran (talk) 00:50, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

You can join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/17 October in India. Fram (talk) 06:34, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

List of Team Argos-Shimano riders

Hello, I just saw you added the Unsourced tag in the List of Team Argos-Shimano riders I created. There are no references on the page itself but the page mainly consists of templates including the references. Is that a problem, or should I copy one reference from the templates into the article? Sander.v.Ginkel (talk) 10:19, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed that the page consisted mainly of templates (using AWB only shows the code, not the result, and I obviously didn't look close enough). The page as it stands is sourced and I have removed the tag accordingly. Thanks for coming here and explaining the situation! Fram (talk) 11:15, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Books and Bytes: The Wikipedia Library Newsletter

Books and Bytes

Volume 1, Issue 1, October 2013

by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs)

Greetings Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved...

New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian

Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted.

New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis??

New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges

News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY

Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions

New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration

Read the full newsletter

Thanks for reading! All future newsletters will be opt-in only. Have an item for the next issue? Leave a note for the editor on the Suggestions page. --The Interior 21:49, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Eric block

Can you point me to diffs supporting the three month block of Eric?--SPhilbrick (Talk) 15:26, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

See the explanation on his talk page a linked at ANI. Fram (talk) 15:30, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Fram, I'm a bit disappointed. If you're going to be doling out civility blocks, you should be more familiar with the policy. WP:Civility says,

"Civility blocks should be for obvious and uncontentious reasons, because an editor has stepped over the line in a manner nearly all editors can see. In cases where you have reason to suspect this would not be the case – cases where there is reason to believe that taking admin action against someone who was uncivil would not be an uncontentious (or nearly so) prospect – it is expected that discussion will be opened on the matter, via WP:ANI or WP:RFC/U, before any admin action is taken."

You knew a 3-month block would be incredibly contentious, evidenced by the fact that you've blocked Eric before and that you immediately opened an ANI thread. If you are enforcing policy, the right way of doing things would be to first open the AN/I thread, and then, after a consensus has been reached, block according to consensus. I urge you to undo your block and wait for a consensus at AN/I. If the consensus is to re-block, that's fine, but it will have been done properly. ~Adjwilley (talk) 15:43, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I didn't open an ANI thread, I noted the block at an older ANI thread where this was a sequel of. And I do believe that Eric Corbett has "stepped over the line in a manner nearly all editors can see". Fram (talk) 17:13, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you that he stepped over the line, but what about the "uncontentious" part? If I remember correctly we lost a few good admins the last time you made a controversial block of this user. I'm just asking you to consider the collateral damage, and saying that the proper way of doing things is to take it to AN/I first when you know it's going to be contentious. ~Adjwilley (talk) 18:48, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I found the links, sorry. Will read before commenting further.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 15:48, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

No problem, better to ask too often than not often enough. Fram (talk) 17:13, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm surprised that is true, ~Adjwilley, as I've seen Admins dole out indefinite blocks to Editors a) without any warning at all, b) without a shorter block first and c) without a community consensus. I'm not sure of the correct procedure with this particular block but it seems like the practice of Admins is more variable than what is listed under policy guidelines.

And if this is a contentious block, I'm sure that its time length will be "adjusted" by another Admin. It's happens. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:10, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Three months is the correct length for EC's block. Blocks are supposed to get longer, not shorter. The reason they don't work in his case is because the policy isn't being applied to him consistently. If he saw the community was serious about enforcement, he'd change his behavior, or leave. Eric's buddies think any block of him is contentious, because they think he's special, and exempt from the Civility pillar. I say: no exceptions. You did the right thing. Thank you! --96.231.113.61 (talk) 21:45, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Notification of Arbitration request

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Baiting and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:55, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the RfC

Would you accept moving it to User:Worm That Turned/Eric Corbett? I understand that an RfC might be necessary and would be progressing with it myself should some discussions with Eric fall through. I'm afraid that you may not be the best person to write it (though I doubt I am either). Creating it empty and filling it up like that is a rash move, which highlights the problem. An RfC is meant to actually work with the person and the community, they way you're using it will look like someone battering him over the head with it. I won't let the Eric situation drop until I see an acceptable solution, you'll have to trust me on that. Worm^TT(talk) 08:33, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

You appear to have missed the part where I said you may not be the best person to write it. I'll rephrase. You are definitely not the best person to write it. Indeed, you are one of the worst. A statement from you would be invaluable, but framing the entire thing is unacceptable. You ~~clearly~~ appear to have a certain point of view, that Eric is no good for the encyclopedia, which you've explained isn't accurate but doesn't change the perception ~~but you are unlikely to get people to agree to it. You may well be able to keep pushing until he's banned, but is that really the best solution?~~ Give me time, I won't drop this, I promise. Worm^TT(talk) 08:52, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

"You clearly have a certain point of view, that Eric is no good for the encyclopedia"? WTT, please keep your uninformed opinions out of this. Link to any statement of mine supporting your view, or strike it and drop it. Or just read what I wrote at the RfC so far. WP:AGF, remember? Fram (talk) 08:55, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Would you care to explain your point of view then? You've blocked Eric for draconian periods against consensus - that alone supports my understanding of your point of view. You're welcome to correct me. What you've written at the RfC would make sense for certain types of editor, but not for Eric. You focus on numerical data which is irrelevant given the quality of the work he produces. You are ignoring the points of view of a large segment of the community (namely baiting), which will lead to them simply repeating them and the RfC going nowhere. What exactly do you expect to achieve with an RfC that looks like that? Worm^TT(talk) 09:01, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Draconian periods against consensus? I used standard escalating blocks: the previous one, for one month, lasted 20 days, after lengthy discussion, so apparently it was not "against consensus". The current one was undone early, with something resembling consensus. Fine, so short blocks don't work, long blocks are not accepted, and a returning remark is that not even an RfC has been tried. But apparently when I do try one, I'm the bad guy, for, well, it is unclear why exactly.

My point of view? His content work is very good for the encyclopedia, his editor interactions are way too often very poor (whether provoked or not, and many of them were either unprovoked or his reaction was out of proportion). The former doesn't excuse the latter, but it is a very good reason to try to find a different solution. Rest assured, if I believe someone should be banned, I'll start a ban discussion, not an RfC/U.

"You focus on numerical data which is irrelevant given the quality of the work he produces." Where? You mean his block log? You want to have an RfC/U on malleus/Eric Corbett without mentioning his block log? You want an RfC/U about his blocks, the cause of them, and how to avoid them in the future, where the evidence of disputed behaviour is a link to his featured articles?

"You are ignoring the points of view of a large segment of the community (namely baiting)"? Have you even read the RfC/U as it stands? The things I want to focus on? The applicable policies? Why do you think I included Harassment and Gaming the System? WP:BAITING is an essay, that can't be included in a list of applicable policies, but those cover the same?

"What exactly do you expect to achieve with an RfC that looks like that?" Why do you think I invited everyone to contribute to it and help shape it? I am not the sole source of wisdom, even if you act as if I pretend to be. I'm trying to resolve this, but you only seem intent in obstructing any attempted resolution (which, given your comments at AN, is perhaps not surprising). Fram (talk) 09:18, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I want to have a chat with Eric, to see what sort of solutions are possible. If he's totally unwilling, then an RfC is necessary, which frames the problem (not the symptoms, such as the block log, or the drama), and accurately points out both sides of the debate - quite how strong a content contributor he is and quite how disruptive he is. From there we can look at real solutions. I intend to actually get data together, and create a proper RfC. It will take time at least a week or two. Another benefit is that things will have calmed down, people might actually be able to think about a solution, without going off the deep end. This issue has been going on for years, what's a week or two more? Worm^TT(talk) 09:41, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

The block log indicates the extent of the problem, and is a pointer to specific instances of the problem. And while an RfC/U can discuss all edits a user made, it usually focuses on those that are perceived as a problem by the filers or the community. That doesn't mean that his contributions should be ignored (if they had been ignored, he would have been a banned user a few years ago already). Trying to discuss solutions one-on-one may be a possibility, but trying to find a community-supported solution will IMO be more fruitful than one that may get yuor and Eric Corbett's support, but then needs to be renegotiated anyway (imagine that you had propsed one of your solutions at the AN discussion first at his talk page, and got his agreement; what would it have solved?). People have been requesting that an RfC/U should be done for years, but now that one is started, it is too soon? If your only reason to move the RfC/U to your talk page was to delay it, then I could better have moved it to my talk space instead. There is no point in moving it to someone who isn't interested in working on it anyway (and who also isn't perceived as being neutral here anyway). Fram (talk) 09:54, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I have every intention on working on it, in depth, should it be necessary, but if you're not willing to wait for a while, it would be better in your userspace until you are ready to put it live. I'm certainly not ready to contribute to it until I've tried some other things. Worm^TT(talk) 10:15, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Your initial objections gave a rather different impression. Fram (talk) 10:19, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Your desperation to create an RfC/U demonstrates precisely why YOU shouldn't be doing so. If you do persist in this charade, please let me know so I can take a long holiday and avoid the horrific fall out, bad blood and chaos it will inevitably generate. Thanks. Nick (talk) 10:49, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

What desperation? An RfC/U is created by editors who have noticed a problem, tried other solutions, and notice that these don't work. An RfC/U is normally not created by disinterested editors. But since I wanted to have different points of view in the RfC/U, to reach a braod consensus if possible, I explicitly invited everyone to contribute to it, add their evidence, desired outcomes, whatever... Your lack of WP:AGF is quite stunning. Feel free to not participate in the RfC/U, but please keep you unfounded accusations to yourself. It is rather cynical that it an a case where so much is said about baiting, provocation, and poking peopl eat their user talk page, people feel the need to post their bad faith accusations so openly. RfC/U is a process in dispute resolution. I hope we can all at least agree that there is a dispute, and that no other solution has so far reached anything resembling consensus or that there is any indication that this dispute won't reoccur in the near future. But trying to find a solution is "desperation"? Fram (talk) 10:56, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

RfC is a horrible process, it's more humiliating than the worst "gauntlet" of RfA but not a voluntary process - it's imposed upon you. Many editors have left during an RfC. It should be a step taken with caution, and framed in a manner that makes it clear that the person is valued, acknowledging their positives. If you think of it as an intervention, remember that an intervention is held by friends, people you trust and respect. No one would react well to an intervention by people who you perceive as plausible enemies. I've worked on RfCs in the past, they rarely go well. Indeed, the last one I wrote ended in the user having a very low opinion of me for many subsequent years, arguably leading to the downward spiral that resulted in his banishment. I've learnt from the mistakes I made there, I wouldn't be writing an RfC in the same way and I would try everything I could first. That's what I'm doing. That's why I'm asking for time. Worm^TT(talk) 11:15, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Best to give it a rest, perhaps. Eric understands exactly what level of support he can count on, and the recent finding of "consensus to unblock" at ANI (in defiance of what people actually said) shows that this level is very high. Eric himself said "as I've said several times before, I'll decide when it's time to leave, not the impotent **** **** like ****", and he was 100% correct in his prediction. You can't fight the Cabal. -- 101.119.14.29 (talk) 12:14, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Fram, I recognize that you may just be getting started, and that you may have headed a different direction with more editing, but that your initial step is to first reference his block log evidences that you might not get it, and that you certainly aren't the right person to frame an RFC in a way that might result in a productive or useful outcome. Framing anything in the context of Mally's block log is the largest possible example of missing the point. RFCs can work if they are framed correctly; your start shows that you are likely to head a direction that is going to continue the division between those who want admin abuse and the double standard addressed and those who are firmly convinced that Mally is an abusive editor who is protected because of his contributions and should be shown the door-- in other words, you are going to get more of same, and that, IMO, is because you still do not understand the underlying problem. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:30, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia in the recent WP:RM discussion you repeatedly implied that others breach the WP:CIVILITY as Eric Corbett does and I repeatedly asked you for diffs which you never supplied. In particular I highlighted this edit which was made by him to a section of an article talk page where he had not participated previously, in response to another editor pointing out to a third editor the guideline Wikipedia:No personal attacks. This was an unprovoked breach civility which I guess was an attempt to provoke the other editor. Do you have any example of the use of unprovoked incivility of this level used by anyone else to try to provoke another editor? Personally I think his last block should have been double the previous three weeks block for that unprovoked uncivil statement. You write here [some] "want admin abuse and the double standard addressed" to which admin abuses and double standards are you referring and can you please now supply the differences to back up these allegations so that others can weight them against behaviour like this. -- PBS (talk) 19:06, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

And, PBS, I repeatedly and steadfastly tried not to engage in your derailing a discussion you didn't seem to have read. Now, off of that page-- derail away. Start by reading my very first post in that discussion.[15] Dragging the offenses of other editors into a different discussion will not help the current discussion, and you seem to have been the only editor there who isn't aware of the extent of the global problem. If you have your head so far in the sand that you are unaware of the issues I am discussing, a) they are not that hard to find, b) they were discussed at length on the former arb case, and c) you probably shouldn't be weighing in at all on this if you are so unaware that this issue needs to be pointed out to you. For me to raise the other examples involving other editors and involving other admin abuse in this context would only muddy the waters: anyone who has been paying attention in here is well aware of them. Further, any other editors or admins who have misbehaved should be dealt with in the appropriate forum, an RFC on their conduct, and not dragged into discussion involving a third party, so no, I was not going to be baited into giving other examples. And anyone who thinks F'ing C's are more damaging to a collaborative endeavor than some of the diffs plainly and currently evidenced on my talk page is not someone who understands anything about building content or with whom I am likely to continue a dialogue. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:45, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

That was a comment made at 15:28, 29 October 2013 on a user talk page after the 14:57, 29 October 2013 posting to an the talk page of Guy Fawkes Night (an article). So who was provoking whom? Also there is a very big difference between where the placement of the wording and the content of the wording. If Gaijin42 had responded with "Serves you right you prick" then some sort of comparison would have been easy to make, but while Eric Corbett's wording was unprovoked comment on an article talk page and a clear breach of civility, it is less clear that Gaijin42's was a clear breach of civility, and I am surprised and rather disappointed that you draw a comparison.

But putting that aside blame and comparisons for the moment, the language that Eric Corbett frequently an presciently uses is not abuse that other should have to read in a collegiate atmosphere let alone be subject to. I have pointed out to you before\ that I think that levels of abuse that would get a glass in the face in a pub in cities in England should not be tolerated on the talk pages of Wikipedia (more so if the person is a resident in the UK because they must know better). Provocation is no defence as one can always ask someone politely do desist and escalate it from there through ANI etc, (it is not as if I do not practice what I preach, see for example: In 2011 I placed an comment on User talk:Malleus Fatuorum in a new section called Personal attacks in response to this). If provocation is an justifiable defence for profanity then we may as well junk civility as that can nearly always be used by everyone who breaches it.-- PBS (talk) 13:55, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Seeking a Policy-Based Unblock

Hi Fram, I'm blocked for socking but am looking for an unblock on the basis I didn't do it, or at least on the basis that my blockers never provided any evidence that I did. I come to you because I saw you unblock Kiefer Wolfowitz, who was provoked by some persons who made a lewd and violent reference to him on IRC. It is accurate that I've sought unblocks from others before, including Arbcom and Jimbo Wales, and that I was rejected by WP:AN/ANI. None has ever provided evidence of socking. I assert that I cleanstarted for privacy reasons. Jimbo Wales, having offered me confidentiality, has reviewed my single prior account and is aware that it was never warned, blocked, or sanctioned. He said after that, to my surprise, that he would not unblock me, but that I must now additionally disclose it to Arbcom.

If you elect to consider my case, there is a wealth of stuff that you would have to familiarize yourself with. Being well aware of the details of my own case, I can guide and inform you in this. I assert that I will not mislead you, and will be very open with you. I think the best way would be if you unblocked my talkpage so I don't have to further IP block evade. Fair warning: you will come under fire from administrators (and arbs) who have blocked me or who are annoyed with me. I will try to sign this under my username, but Kww wrote filter 546 to stop me from signing (dunno how this stops socking), so we'll see. They're making me cryptoquote it. No offense if you turn me down, respectfully.

C C
o o
l s
t m
o i
n c — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.9.3.126 (talk) 20:56, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Indian and Pakistani villages

Strongly considering proposing something which would see us nuke most of our articles on Indian and Pakistani villages until somebody can create a half decent article on them and strictly control growth on Indian villages. They're hugely problematic and magnets for all sort of crap. There's way too many to cleanup and given that most of them are unsourced I don't think it would be a problem to delete most of them. Would you support a mass nuke job on them? They're one of the poorest areas of wikipedia IMO.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:03, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

I say this in view of "articles" like Naya Lahore.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:53, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) That's "not the way we do things here", Dr. Blofeld, especially the "strictly control growth" part, but I agree with you that we sometimes should. The wiki way can lead to abysmally poor quality. I don't know enough about that part of Wikipedia to express a properly-based opinion of my own on your proposal, but I've caught some fairly scary glimpses of it. If you get User:Sitush on board, I'll definitely support. Bishonen | talk 15:10, 2 November 2013 (UTC).

FWIW, I would support this: the idea of inherent notability for minuscule places of population, whether in South Asia or elsewhere, has always seemed plain daft to me; the India/Pakistan ones, however, are often particularly egregious examples of saying something/creating an article just for the heck of it. A big batch of them has been nuked before, BTW. A now-retired admin (apparently, he was getting a lot of off-wiki threats and WMF couldn't help him) nuked maybe a thousand of them. I'll try to dig the username out of my thick skull. - Sitush (talk) 15:35, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

PMDrive1061 (talk · contribs) in 2011. - Sitush (talk) 16:08, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

This is the mild end of the sort of thing PMDrive deleted (his proposal was mentioned at ANI beforehand, IIRC): Accheja, Chakganj, Kotaha and Puralal. Such articles, while seemingly relatively harmless, are plain pointless. Villages such as these have not had an impact on anyone but their tiny populace in centuries and although I am aware that some people are still optimistic about the future of Wikipedia, WP:DEADLINE in situations such as this seems mad. If nothing else can be added then they should go - we are not a gazetteer and they can always be recreated in the remote circumstance that something significant does turn up. I suppose, however, that some would argue that at worst they should be redirected to the next-higher administrative level (usually, a district) rather than deleted outright. - Sitush (talk) 17:14, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

@Bishonen, do you think I don't know what the norm is? We normally try to expand and improve everything. But in India and Pakistan's case we're presented with a rare problem. High Internet access and poor English speaking editors who gradually degrade the articles with ugly lists and POV over time because we lack the editors to control, monitor and nurture them.The scale of the problem means that you can't even begin to start cleaning them up and hoping to make good progress. I ca't put them all on my watchlist, I already have over a 1000 articles and a lot of the changes even in those I'm not really monitoring. We have several thousand articles like this, here's a random

Naya Lahore :not referenced at all, poorly formatted, poorly written, not much information other than trivia.

Malyam cites one source that confirms existence and gives some minimal unsourced information
Moguluru gives no sources but some information
Munganda has produced talented individuals who have contributed significantly for the welfare of the society at large. There is also some information, some sources
Nunna has no information apart from an infobox and coordinates. The coordinates are wrong, belonging to Pamarru
Kakanur says next to nothing, but does say something.

Do you want thousands of articles like this, or would they be best nuked/incubated until somebody can write a clean sourced article and put it on their watchlist? I'm not disputing the notability of any of them, but we have a duty to provide an encyclopedia and thousands of articles like this are unacceptable and we need to eradicate the problem and start controlling an area vulnerable to extremely poor editing. Certainly stubs like Puralal are magnets for shoddy editing, but I'd rather they were useless stubs like that than hijacked articles with tons of POV about local "famous" taxi drivers and doctors.We're better off nuking the lot and keep only articles on major Indian/Pakistani cities and towns until somebody can write a half decent article. The cleanup should begin with blasting the thousands of stubs and bog standard articles on Indian villages and start with cleaning up the major cities of India and Pakistan and them put on watchlists. Then articles can gradually be restored once somebody can be bothered to write one properly and monitor it. Our exposure of these articles makes us a sort of shit magnet doesn't it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:26, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

For god's sake. Are you really talking to me, Dr Blofeld? Then I've not made myself understood at all. I won't speculate as to whether that's your fault or mine. I'm so sorry I said I'd support your proposal; I withdraw that; I'll have nothing to do with it. Well done. Bishonen | talk 17:48, 2 November 2013 (UTC).

I think we've both misunderstood each other, it was your "That's "not the way we do things here", Dr. Blofeld" which came across to me as patronizing as if I wasn't aware of what the norm is. If you didn't intend it that way I apologize but your response here is full of attitude. My whole message wasn't directed at you, only the first three sentences. I'm sure you wouldn't support having thousands of such articles either. No need to be like that Bishonen, I couldn't imagine you possibly being involved in the cleanup anyway.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:54, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Continuing the discussion Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:08, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Just 2c

Being a former fan of F1 racing, I remember it does make a big difference when an accident happens there since everybody wants to know exactly who/what to blame for that! --Elitre (talk) 13:41, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

True. But when all new Mercedesses crash the day after they switched from Michelin to Pirelli, then the problem may be with the tyres, but the responsability will be with Mercedes which should test the tyres they put under their cars... 13:45, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Clue Bot

Hi, I spotted your are an admin from recent changes. Can you check some of Clue Bot's recent edits to some IP talk pages - it is adding Today's Featured Article instead of a warning. Regards Denisarona (talk) 15:34, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm logging of for today, you can best try to contact another admin (or WP:AN. Indicating which user exactly helps, I couldn't find any problematic edits but theer are multiple ClueBots. Fram (talk) 15:38, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Template:Heraldry by country

Under heraldic law Cornwall constituted a separate heraldic nation, as is explained in the article, and that is why I added it. If it can't be put under the United Kingdom then where should it be placed??? Bodrugan (talk) 16:53, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

"Heraldic law" is not really generally accepted law. The "by country" templates refer to actual countries, not heraldic countries. I don't think court cases from the 14th century can be used to decide such things... Fram (talk) 21:43, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Block

I am usually an Editor arguing that blocks and bans are too harsh but I think you were a little easy on 98.159.65.251. Many (most?) of their edits have involved racial slurs and consist solely of vandalism. They only edit irregularly but the pattern is consistent so I don't think a block of a day or two will have much effect. Here is their block log. Just my 2 cents. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:49, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Looks to me like a school IP, so while it produces mostly or only vandalism, it isn't necessarily the same person each time. And the very slow editing would mean that if I don't go for 24 or 31 hours, I would need to go to 3 months to have any effect, which is a bit long for the infrequent vandalism it produces. If it would become more frequent, I would agree that a longer block was in order. Fram (talk) 12:09, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Norton and starts

He's certainly banned from unfettered starting of articles. He's not banned from editing articles. The purpose of the prohibition, I presume, is to prevent the creation of additional instances of copyright violation — running them through an intermediary would seem to prevent this. Certainly, these were not. Let's get a considered ruling on this at Arbitration Enforcement, shall we? Something that doesn't start and end with a Sandstein block... Carrite (talk) 16:12, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Early Netherlandish painting

Hi Fram. I've taken this to PR, wondering if you could take a look, remembering that your were helpful and informed before. Ceoil (talk) 18:50, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Maroof Peer

You deleted this as G11. I didn't read the entire article, but it did look promotional, so I don't question your decision. However, maybe you would also like to delete the almost identical pages User:Maroofpeer, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Maroof Peer and Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Maroof Peer for the same reason? --Stefan2 (talk) 14:51, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm a bit more lenient for G11 in userspace and AfC space, so I would prefer to let the MfD run its course and the AfC as well. I doubt the subject is notable, but if he is then perhaps AfC can turn this promo piece into a decent article before it hits the mainspace. Fram (talk) 14:53, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Zeon

Hi Fram,

I noticed that you deleted Zeon, while another admin redirected the similarly prodded Earth Federation (the other main faction in the original Gundam universe). After thinking about it, I think redirecting with history intact is better for these articles. I had thought the articles could possibly be saved with more sources, but didn't have time to look for sources right now (or really know where to look, since the best sources might be in Japanese). Since I still think the article could likely be improved to where it meets the notability guideline, I was hoping that the article could be restored but then redirected to Gundam. That way the previous content of the article will still be available if anyone wants to work on it. Calathan (talk) 15:22, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

No problem, done! Fram (talk) 15:27, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Calathan (talk) 15:34, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Unsourced tag

Any chance you could source the articles or delete the unsourced content rather than place a tag on them? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:56, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Take Sarfait for instance, it was tagged two years ago and nobody sourced it until I did. It doesn't make much sense to me to tag articles in the developing world as unsourced given that barely anybody decent is working on them. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:08, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

At least, it indicates to our readers that they should take the article with a grain of salt, as it is clearly unfinished (something many readers are unaware of). It also indicates the size of the unsourced articles problem. I have no plans to stop the tagging, I do plan to do more content work when I again have more (uninterrupted) time to focus on articles, but that is mostly lacking nowadays. Fram (talk) 07:52, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I can also hardly "delete the unsourced content" when the whole article is unsourced of course. I do try some minimal cleanup sometimes, e.g. [16], and quite a few of the most terrible articles get deleted instead of tagged. Fram (talk) 08:50, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

It does I suppose alert the reader that the info isn't to be trusted and places it on the cleanup pile, but in my experience it tends to be years before anybody will cleanup such an article from the developing world in the same way it will be years before anybody will expand stubs on village in Asia/Africa. I often apply a Bare URL tag or Ref fill tag to articles with link rot though as I know Derek and a few others actively go through them and fill them out using ref links.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:37, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Arbitration clarification request closed

Hi Fram, this is a courtesy message to inform you that a clarification request you submitted has been closed and archived. The arbitrators are in agreement that if a user moves articles created by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) to mainspace that user takes full responsibility for the content they moved, so should ensure that the content meets all Wikipedia policies and guidelines before moving it. The arbitrators are also in agreement that if Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) wishes to have any new articles in mainspace he appeal his ban to the Committee. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:37, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Fram. Well, "that's as clear as mud," as the saying goes... I guess it means that people are okay to proxy over created content on their own authority and at their own risk and that RAN needs to apply for a formal modification if he wants to start things himself. Is that your interpretation? best regards, —Tim /// Carrite (talk) 05:43, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Basically, you are free to move the articles to mainspace, but "on your head be it" if they contain copyvios and the like. Of course, it would still be on RANs head as well... And it also looks as if RAN hasn't done himself a favour with this action, if he ever decides to file a request for modification, as the Arbs don't seem to really appreciate this move, but can't technically fault it. Just my interpretation. The result, as far as I am concerned, is that I won't file any complaints (or AE filings) if you (or anyone else) moves his pages to the mainspace. I will file at AE if he violates his restrictions otherwise (copyvios, links, file uploads, etcetera), if I happen to notice it. Fram (talk) 07:56, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Flight 714

Hello Fram, good to be chatting with you again. Thank-you for catching that ill-advised move of article Flight 714 and for keeping a sharp eye (sharper than me) on the Tintin articles. FYI, there was a redirect to a section of that Flight 714 article that I had once created and that the user had amazingly updated to match his ill-advised move. A little drama there. User talk:Darkwind/Archive 9#Carreidas 160 Suggestion but it is taken care of now. Thanks again for catching that earlier move. Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 00:08, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Can't tolerate this

Hey, since you're the self-appointed mall cop type, I should probably inform you that I'm still editing all the time, and I'm currently involved in several discussions at once. Make sure to block all IPs and remove or at least tag my posts accordingly, otherwise someone might strip you of your shiny plastic badge. On the other hand, I'm glad to see you're using the Archive box collapsible template, which I created to prove my bad intentions for the project. Have an extra nice day. Bye. --85.197.57.70 (talk) 13:50, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Disruptive IP editor

Hello, could I please ask you to take a look here, specifically at the last vote on the second move request, which starts with a "Strong oppose" from an IP editor on November 24? It seems you're more familiar with this individual than I am; if his comments are in violation of a block/ban, perhaps they should be hidden entirely, as being made against the block policy. Thanks for your help. - Biruitorul ^Talk 20:49, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Important Notice: Your 2013 Arbitration Committee Election vote

Greetings. Because you have already cast a vote for the 2013 Arbitration Committee Elections, I regret to inform you that due to a misconfiguration of the SecurePoll we've been forced to strike all votes and reset voting. This notice is to inform you that you will need to vote again if you want to be counted in the poll. The new poll is located at this link. You do not have to perform any additional actions other than voting again. If you have any questions, please direct them at the election commissioners. --For the Election Commissioners, v/r, TParis

AFC Ajax in European Football

Hi Fram, I saw you added a non reference tag to an article I recently created. I am at work but I will add references when I get home, after I put the kiddies to bed, cheers! :) (Subzzee (talk) 19:40, 27 November 2013 (UTC))

No problem, it's nothing urgent, just a reminder. Thanks for creating the article! Fram (talk) 07:34, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

November 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Rumpelstiltskin may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

* In [[George Orwell]]'s novel ''[Nineteen Eighty-Four|1984]], ''a character of the [[Ingsoc]] party is described as being a "Rumpelstiltskin figure" (Ch.IX, p.&

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:42, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Merge discussion for List of saints by pope

An article that you have been involved in editing, List of saints by pope, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Jayarathina (talk) 17:05, 29 November 2013 (UTC)