User talk:Fram/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Canvassing

Sorry, I didn't know that policy. How do you remember all these policies, or do you have a program that lists them for you? Thanks. Neovu79 (talk) 02:14, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

No, I read the administrator pages a lot, and then you come across most of the policies, including the less obvious ones. As for your canvassing, it's not a big deal since you obviously didn't know about it, such things only get problematic if they get repeated after warnings and explanations have been given. Fram (talk) 06:18, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Requested moves

Hi Fram, I have Wikipedia:Requested moves:requested moves for Lieutenant Colonel (United States), Brigadier General (United States), [[Major General (United States), Lieutenant General (United States), Lieutenant, Junior Grade, Lieutenant Commander (United States), and Vice Admiral (United States) to conform with Wiki:MOSCAPS. I would like your support if you can. Neovu79 (talk) 03:33, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Rank capitalizations

Okay, I'll bite. I will support this if we change all the rest of the ranks to correspond with this. Fram, if you set it up, I'll support it. :-) Neovu79 (talk) 03:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Guido den Broeder

Thanks for the link. I've posted here, and, for what it is worth, I think people are going overboard here. He may have a COI, but it is the reverting that is more problematic in my eyes. People with knowledge of a subject area should be mentored and educated on how to work with Wikipedia, not run out the door in this fashion. I had a perfectly satisfactory encounter with him at Talk:Melody Amber chess tournament#Books, and I consider that resolved. The first part of the discussion is interesting for the attitude of those who had followed him from the Dutch Wikipedia. After they left, things were fine. I realise he may have COI in some areas, but I find him OK to work with. Do you think there might be other reasons (ie. the other people involved) why the other disputes are not working out? Carcharoth (talk) 13:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, if this was a reasonably new user, I would agree, but we got the exact same problems around October 2007 as well, and he was well aware of COI and similar problems. I know that the following him here from the Dutch Wikipedia was a bad idea, and certainly done in a very bad way by some of them, and I have commented in those disputes to point out the errors of both sides. But where the Dutch seem to have gone back to their own problems, Guido still doesn't seem to understand what's going on (this is written as a first post after three days being gone, so he may have changed inbetween). You can check the discussion between Guido and WLU higher up this page to see the typical behaviour of Guido in all disputes I have seen (not only COI): he makes all kinds of claims, but he can't or won't back them up. He is a relentless wikilawyer and has a serious COI problem, and the fact that his books were relevant in the Melody Amber article does not mean that his Dutch website is particularly relevant in the Basic Income article, and COI means that he is definitely not the best judge of that. Fram (talk) 18:48, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Bernard Newman (judge)

A tag has been placed on Bernard Newman (judge) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. PoinDexta1 01:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Thanks

Hi thanks for answering my question on Jimbo's Page. Thanks :) 60.228.242.24 (talk) 23:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Atomic Potato Page

I created a page for the band Atomic Potato and for unknown reasons it was deleted by you. Countless bands have wikipedia pages about them, why pick on this one? It's extremely relevant to the state of punk and ska in current times and is an excellent example of an often overlooked demographic in Cincinnati, Ohio.

If you can give an actual reason as to why the page was deleted then please do so. But, since this is a free-to-edit encyclopedia which includes modern entertainment such as bands (widely known or obscure), I have every right to post an article about a very popular local band which has influenced me incredibly. I'd figure somebody who lives outside of the United States of Feudalism would understand Freedom a bit better than most, thanks.

Deletion of Atomic Potato Page Continued

I read that the significance of the band had to be mentioned. Can I at least see my article in order to save what I wrote so that the next time an article is written about them in the newspaper I could post? Also, I beg the differ on the note about obscure bands. I've seen plenty of pages on obscure bands. I dare to think I know a bit more about music and it's effect on people than you do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjaminidle (talk • contribs) 09:49, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Benji Hillman

Just thought of letting you know that I did some basic clean-up of the article to make it comply at least with biography article format using existing material. The author seems to have some conflict of interest though. I have left a note on his talk page regarding this. Hope he gets around to further improving the article. Thought of just letting you know. Thanks. Prashanthns (talk) 11:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the message! Fram (talk) 11:10, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Is it OK for me to close the AfD now, as the page has been moved anyway, and the Foundation article is being re-written. Was thinking of closing as delete with a note about the moving. Then I read about non-admin closure and the possible COI if I have voted myself. So, got second thoughts. Just wanted an opinion as to what you think if I had closed it. Thanks. Prashanthns (talk) 15:28, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it is better to let it run, the closing admin will take the move and new focus into account. Fram (talk) 20:10, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Thought as much myself. Good I asked your opinion then!Prashanthns (talk) 21:20, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Epicurean (band)

Fram, I haven't made a new page on Wikipedia in a year or so. I have re-made the Epicurean (band) page and I hope it is satisfactory now. I do not have much information on this band, but that is why I came to Wikipedia last night - to learn about the band. Then I found out there was no page, so I decided I had to make one and hope that other editors might have information about the band. Hopefully we will not have a speedy deletion this time. (The deletion was very speedy, I made the page before I went to bed and it was gone before I got up - I had no chance to modify the page per instructions on my talk page.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrendo (talk • contribs) 12:29, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeremy Castle (2nd nomination)

Even though this AfD got closed as delete, the page got re-created almost immediately afterward. Could you please speedy it per WP:CSD#G4 and maybe salt it too? (Oh, and plese nuke the image as well.) Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:12, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

• Never mind, Hersfold nuked it. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
• You might want to check out this diff as well. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

• P.S. Is the {{afd}} template showing up screwy for you too? For some reason, I'm not seeing the bottom half of the template, and some extra coding is showing up around the template. See Tirna Electronics as an example. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

No problems with the AfD template so far. Thanks for keeping an eye on that article, I'll try to make sure it isn't recreated under a different name. Fram (talk) 06:38, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Bibliography closure

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bibliography of Catwoman (2nd nomination)

Would you please explain your closure? - jc37 21:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I considered the deletion arguments reasonable, even though they used a loose interpretation of "directory". I did not see a convincing argument to keep them. There was no indication of notability for these lists, they contained no additional information, had only primary sources, could not be used for navigation or development... the only thing in favour could be "they contained information", but then you can keep everything: if it isn't sourced, explained, enlightening, then it is not really what we need here. An article on a character explains a lot for those unfamiliar with the character or the series (when you read that Batman battled the Penguin, and you can take a look and read who or what the Penguin was, then your understanding has improved). These bibliographies didn't help one bit in understanding anything.

Basically, strength of arguments coupled with strength of numbers (one comment, rest all deletes), made this a fairly obvious close in my opinion. Fram (talk) 06:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Did you take: Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondary.2C_and_tertiary_sources into account when closing? (It doesn't appear so to me from your comments above, and so am asking for clarification.) - jc37 00:12, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

No, not specifically. There is nothing wrong with the use of primary sources in this manner, but it is not enough to establish noability for this article, or to solve any of the other problems mentioned above. Fram (talk) 20:13, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, obviously I disagree. Personally I find it rather unbelievable that bibliographic references such as these could ever be consider "unencyclopedic".

I don't necessarily fault you in this, however, since guidelines for fiction are constantly "up-in-the-air", so convention has been mostly: "Be bold in ignoring all rules". That said, I have been watching Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) with interest.

(Though honestly, if an XfD discussion isn't about "votes", but about "arguements", this should have probably been a "no consensus" close at the very least, depending, of course, on how the closer weighs the arguments. Which leads back to the sentence directly above concerning guidelines, or lack thereof.)

I'm going to give this some further thought (and of course, I welcome your further comments as well); but I'm probably going to list this at DRV. - jc37 20:30, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Move protections

Hi. I'd like to urge you not to move-protect any further articles solely on the basis of "no need to move this in the foreseeable future". Pages should only be protected (including move-protection) in response to a problem; no part of the wiki should never be pre-emptively locked down -- this interferes with normal editors' ability to change it according to their discretion.--Father Goose (talk) 09:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

But all my move protections were "in response to a problem", since they all had recently been Grawp moved, and I have noticed unprotected Grawp-move victims being moved again. Fram (talk) 09:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I hadn't realized, my bad then. Perhaps it would be best to mention the specific cause for protection in the summary ("pagemove vandalism") in the future so people like me don't get confused.--Father Goose (talk) 22:50, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll try to do that in the future. Fram (talk) 06:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Law protection?

Guten Dag Fran, I don't understand what the protection edit you made did - did something get reverted, or what were you aiming at? Just interested. Wikidea 22:41, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

It's to prevent things like this[1] happening again. Pagemoves can be very useful, but for well established pages with a clear, undisputed name, they are mostly a form of vandalism. No pagemove of a page like "law" can ever be uncontroversial and so needs to be discussed first anyway. The move protection prevents vandalism and harms no one (while editors technically lose the ability to move this page, there is no probable reason why they would need to do this anyway). Fram (talk) 06:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Name violation

Your username is in violation of a policy prohibiting corporate names. Fram is a name of a well known car parts company.

Perhaps a disclaimer on your talk page is sufficient? It could say "This user has no relationship to the Fram brand of car parts or the Honeywell Corporation." Either that or you could state that "This user has a financial relationship (stock ownership, employment, etc.) with Fram." Doctor Wikipedian (talk) 16:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Given that Fram has been editing from at least August 2005 (and is an admin incidentally) and that no one else has made any comment on the username, there is absolutely no need for a change or disclaimer. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 19:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Like NeilN said... My username is no the name of a company, my username is the name of the ship of Fridtjof Nansen. Almost every letter combination of four or less letters is a company name somewhere. I had never heard of this company before coming here, and have never edited in a way that would suggest any link to it. Fram (talk) 20:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The fact that nobody has said anything before does not make a new observation invalid. However, Fram has stated that his name is that of a ship and not the company name. This answer satisfies me. Doctor Wikipedian (talk) 22:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

It's also the name of a footballclub, a mill, a research institute, a building corporation, etc. Like Fram says, with four letters it is unavoidable. Guido den Broeder (talk) 22:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

WT:NOT

Can you expand on your comments at WT:NOT so that I can understand your viewpoint more fully? I beleive you may have an inportant contriubution to make in this respect. --Gavin Collins (talk) 08:53, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm flattered. Could you be more specific as to which points need expanding? The comment about subpages not suitable for plot only? Or something else? Fram (talk) 08:56, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

• I think your contribution hit the nail on the head. --Gavin Collins (talk) 11:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Dust1235

Please indef block this user. It is a SPA

We don't indef block for being an SPA. Either he only made the one edit, in which case a block is pointless, or he will come back for more edits, in which case we'll see if he is actually an SPA or not. Even if he turns out to be one, he won't get blocked as long as it isn't disruptive. Fram (talk) 12:34, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Pinky beecroft and the white russians

OK, I see your point (this came out of the AIV on the now-blocked creator), but I think the proper venue should be DRV (I've never reopened an AfD, and I salted the article due to the repeated recreation). Daniel Case (talk) 16:48, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't notice that the creator is blocked as well. Oh well, let's leave it closed and deleted until someone else protests. Due process is all fine, but to undelete this would come close to process wonkery at the moment, so I'm more than happy to let it stand as it is now. Fram (talk) 07:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Use of rollback

Please remember that rollback should only be used to revert blatant vandalism. Reverts like this should be made the traditional way. Using rollback sends the message "that edit was so worthless that it doesn't even justify an edit summary in reverting it". Thanks! Stifle (talk) 10:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

When I'm dealing with a user who makes hundreds of edits with numerous usernames and IP adresses, and who has been indef blocked after an ANI discussion, I prefer to spend as lttle time as possible in reverting his edits. His edits are unwanted. Please check User:WJH1992 and related pages to get an idea of what we are dealing with. I notice that you posted the same message to Rodhullandemu, who has dealt with this user as well, and that his reply was basically the same. It's nice that you'll watch that one page, but there are dozens of pages he regularly edits, and where 90% of his edits need to be reverted. Fram (talk) 11:14, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Smurf!

Thank you for smurfing my readdition of the "Smurf as a nickname" smurf to the article the Smurfs. Had you simply reverted it, I would have been smurfed, but your explanation in the edit smurf was very helpful. Therefore I have smurfed it back, but this time I have taken a good smurf at its contents, and kept only the most notable and interesting smurfs. I smurf this is OK. JIP | Talk 20:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, much better, thanks! Sourcing is of course still an issue, but that can be handled later on. Fram (talk) 06:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

E3value

Hello paranoid dutch boy, can you provide explanations why you deleted the e3value article ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pipo489 (talk • contribs) 08:29, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

The discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/E3value was quite clear, with everyone except you supporting deletion. You can always request a deletion review if you think the closure of the discussion somehow wnet against the deletion policy. Fram (talk) 08:49, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review for E3value

An editor has asked for a deletion review of E3value. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Pipo489 (talk) 09:16, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Prix Saint-Michel

Could you please put back Le bal du rat mort - link (French) for 1981. It should not have been removed, it is a necessary information (and it is a "bon article!"). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Karel leermans (talk • contribs) 16:07, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

We use such links to reference a fact, i.e. the fact that Le Bal du Rat Mort has won the prize in 1981. However, Wikipedia articles (no matter in what language or if they are GA or FA) are not reliable sources. If the French atricle has a good source for th prize winning, that source can of course be added directly. Fram (talk) 06:54, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Dear Fram,

If you go to the site of J.F. Charles, you will see that he got the Prix Saint-Michel for Le Bal du rat mort in 1981 along with the Prix Spatial. (Go to French wiki of Prix Saint-Michel and then reference 22).

Yes, you can see reference 24 on the English Pix Saint-Michel article (on the Bal du Rat Mort entry), which goes straight to the JF Charles website. This was added in August 2006[2] already... (and in April 2007 on the French one[3]). Fram (talk) 12:38, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Spirou move

Hi Fram. Spirou et Fantasio was recently moved^[4] in a bold action by User:SF007. I'm a bit concerned because it was simply done with no discussion, and would have thought moving articles on top of existing redirects without regard of WP:RM should be addressed. I would have hoped something like this would only happen after reaching a concensus. What do you make of this? MURGH ^disc. 19:38, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Such redirects can be done without discussion, but can also be undone without discussion, and should then be taken to the talk page or WP:RM or something similar. bold, revert, discuss is the method here. There are good arguments for both the old and the new name. I had created The Smurfs (Hanna-Barbera series), which was moved to The Smurfs (TV series). I reverted with a good edit summary (explanation why that title was incorrect), and it was then moved to The Smurfs (1981 TV series), which seemed like an acceptable compromise (actually following the Wikiproject Television guidelines, I believe).

I would suggest to either revert it with a clear (and civil of course) edit summary, or to take it up on the talk page of either the article or the editor who did the move. As far as I have interacted with him or her, he seems to be perhaps too bold but with good intentions and often good results. 06:18, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Allright, good to know. Yes I'll go on the BRD way then, thanks. MURGH ^disc. 09:50, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Twinkle hiccup

Hey Fram. Not sure what happened there but thanks for fixing my broken edit! ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 13:50, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Khalida Neferher and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/B.O.W.s (Resident Evil)

The nominator of the first AfD listed above has just been blocked as a ban evading sockpuppet of arbitration committe banned editor Eyrian. He also commented copiously in the Resident Evil one. As I do not think it appropriate that we should humor banned editors, I recommend relisting these AfD and perhaps at least striking his comments. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:12, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I certainly see no reason to do anything about the second, where his involvement was not crucial in any way. As for the first AfD, you can always take it to DRV if you want. While the nominator was unwanted, the discussion that followed between other, established editors was in depth and about the article, not just per nom or something similar. I see not reason to relist the AfD only because of the nominator, but I have no objection if you check at DRV if other people feel the same way about it. Fram (talk) 07:22, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

D.J. Mbenga

Check out my new comment at the bottom of the talk page. Do you think it's time to start restoring the section now with this new source? It seems reliable enough to me. Bash Kash (talk) 05:44, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

481 in Ireland

Do you think there should be any article with a single incident? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 08:38, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

No, but that is a next step. I'm first trying to organize the categories a bit more logically, since these year / decade / century in country / continent / ... are all frightfully intertwined. These single year pages were created to be consistent, but they have very little to no use, certainly considering the uncertain dates of many of these events (check e.g. 450 in Ireland. Articles for decades or even complete centuries (as long as you don't get hundreds of entries of course) would be much more reader-friendly and make the categories lots easier to go through. Some thorough discussion is probably needed. Fram (talk) 08:42, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Timeline of the history of Ireland and History of Ireland should accommodate most of the material, with splits for size as needed. I think List of years in Ireland and Category:Years in Ireland both go too far, though some year articles on some subjects are possible, the material rarely divides so neatly. Better to write by historical periods. Carcharoth (talk) 14:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, or articles like 6th century in Ireland but then for the other centuries (1 through 11 or so, there looks to be more detail after that). Fram (talk) 14:43, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Yup. Updated my comment (the 'small' stuff) after an edit conflict. Carcharoth (talk) 14:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

6th century in Ireland is a timeline, not an article. Different writing and presentation styles. Carcharoth (talk) 14:47, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

The same problems exists for a few other countries (e.g. China), but is by far the most extreme on Ireland. As for article vs. timeline... Thebest would be to have agood intriduction (prose) and then a timeline. But I'm not volunteeringto write it. Fram (talk) 14:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Things

Names of relevant people in Schoharie County are added due to relevance. Please re-read WP:NNC and if you'd like to remove names without warrant, please give cited evidence to why this person is not notable to the article at hand. If you cannot, or at least try to, your changes are vandalism. Sgt. bender (talk) 20:46, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't use the word vandalism lightly, please. We had a civil discussion at different talk pages. Let's keep it that way. Oh, and you shoudl'n task people to prove a negative, it's up to you to prove the positive. Fram (talk) 06:49, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you're right. I'll leave your edits for the time being. No hard feelings. Sgt. bender (talk) 13:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Category:Music festivals in Europe

Hi - I know that Europe is a continent, not a country, but do you think it's better to create a new category called "Category:Music festivals by continent"? There's nothing else in that category so I'm not sure how useful it is. I'm just wondering what you think about that. --mcld (talk) 07:42, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, the thefestivals of different European countries (Belgium, France, Germany, ...) were in the category "Music Festivals by Country" and "Music Festivals in Europe", but the latter itself was also palced in "Music Festivals by country", which is incorrect (as it is not a country) and useless (as you could accessthe festivals directly and didn't need to go through the Europe category first. We can either remove the "In Europe" category (no objection there) or create an "Music festivals by continent" category, where you could browse the countries one by one via the continent system, and also add those festivals which were spread over different countries but in one continent (the festivals currently in Music Festivals in Europe don't seem to be restricted to Europe). I'm not really sure what is the best solution in this case. Fram (talk) 08:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know either. I'll just leave it as it is and see if "...by continent" takes off... --mcld (talk) 10:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Good work

... on notifying Majorly as well, that should have been my next logical step. I'll state now, yours and my posts re:notification will probably be the only posts in the whole thread that aren't filled with drama. I'm already thinking this one is gonna get big and ugly. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 14:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Quite possibly. Either Majorly orKurt (or both) will get a lot of flak for this). As for not notifying Majorly: you notified one, I notified the other, Kurt is the one that should have notified them both (but then, I believe he thinks that all policies should be ignored). Fram (talk) 14:38, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Account on fr.wp

Some time ago you asked to usurp the account fr:Utilisateur:Fram. Since this contributor didn't react to my notification, I renamed him out of your way : you can now log in under "Fram" on fr.wp if you made your SUL. Regards, Blinking Spirit (talk) 09:32, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much! I'll login in a moment. Fram (talk) 09:34, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

List of best-selling albums worldwide

Your asisstance is required on the talk page. Cheers. --— Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 16:21, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Great work!

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Keep up the great work! Tiggerjay (talk) 06:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Fram (talk) 06:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Hard work always deserves the recognition - especially since RCP'er tend to get beaten up by both vandals and other editors alike. :) Tiggerjay (talk) 07:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

List of best-selling albums worldwide - semi protect

Do you think this article needs semi protection again? Its last protection expired after 1 week. Usually it gets a month at a time. --— Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 17:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I would wait a while and see if it gets better or worse. The current level of vandalism is manageable, and protection should be a last resort. Oh, and thanks for catching my typo, I really should proofread my edits more. Typos on talk pages aren't a big deal, but they shouldn't happen so often in articles... Fram (talk) 06:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

If you want we can team up and try and get this article through FL. You seem to be interested in it anyway. I dont tend to like working with admins though but you seem ok. ;-) — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 08:56, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks :-) I'm interested in it, but I doubt that any similar list will ever get to FL because it is never definite or complete. I have created the List of best-selling fiction authors, which suffers from the same problem.Fram (talk) 09:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it appears that if you go out and make a list up from multiple sources that amounts to original research. However if you just make the list from one source its a copy-vio. You really dont know how much I hate policy. Particulary photo policy. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 09:06, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, the problem is more that the sources don't agree and don't address the topic as a whole, in general. A list of presidents of the USA is easy to make and except for one or two disputes (vice-president being president for an hour or two), everyone agrees on what should be there. For sales of books, albums, ... there are no reliable, agreed upon sources. As for the copyvio claim: that one was incorrect, as a representation of facts can not be copyrighted (the layout perhaps and the comments certainly are copyrighted, but the facts as such are never copyrighted). This is contrary to lists of the best books, movies, ..., since these involve personal opinion and creativity. Fram (talk) 09:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Well with you on my team, and with the luck of some soft reviewers we might stand a chance. We must sort out the lead and we must make sure all sources are up to date - seriouly like 2005 would be the oldest according to the last FL. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 09:31, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

If you could exterminate that ip adress it would really help. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 09:35, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

By the way, are you aware that this list is rather popular? [5] This is e.g. about four times as often as the article on Dark Side of the Moon [6]... Fram (talk) 09:36, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, would explain the carnage lol. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 09:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

WJH1992 socks

Hi Fram. I've started a talk page on the WJH1992 socks category that details some of their stereotypical behaviour, and can be used as evidence to get them blocked by others who are not familiar with the situation. I've put some details on my talk page if you'd like to take a look and contribute to the page. ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 13:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll take a look 13:05, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Top 10 best selling cars in Britain

I'm cross-posting at the talk pages of the participants at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Top 10 best selling cars in Britain. After the article was deleted, I requested that it be userfied so that I could attempt to improve it. I've now made some small alterations, which are explained in greater detail at User talk:DeLarge/Top 10 best selling cars in Britain. Basically, I've flipped the page so that the latest years are at the bottom (to make the TOC more intuitively navigable), and converted the 2005-2007 data into tables which now include precise sales figures.

The work done so far was quite labour-intensive, so before I commit more time to this, I'd appreciate any feedback to say whether it's worthwhile continuing with the years prior to 2005. Thanks in advance for any comments you can offer. Regards, --DeLarge (talk) 23:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Katie Brownell

Hi there! Quick question on the Katie Brownell deletion - I'm curious why you singled out the weakest "keep" arguments (IAR and ATHLETE) as reasons to delete, without noting the WP:BIO factors in favor of keeping the article. I have no intention of sending the article to DRV; I can accept results I disagree with, I'm just trying to understand your analysis for my own future benefit. Thanks! Townlake (talk) 15:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I misstated my intention, what I wanted to say was "even EXcluding IAR and Athlete". I hope that is a bit clearer. I'll correct my closing statement now. Fram (talk) 15:57, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

'k - thanks for taking my question in good faith! Townlake (talk) 16:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review for Real_World/Road_Rules_Challenge:_2008

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Real_World/Road_Rules_Challenge:_2008. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Zredsox (talk) 21:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

re: DRV for Real_World/Road_Rules_Challenge:_2008

Thank you. I'd found no evidence of that deletion discussion. That changes a great deal. I appreciate the update. Rossami (talk) 14:12, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Debuts

Just a not to say that the debuts are for the comics not the character - see for example Category:2000 comic debuts - they go under the relevant "Introductions" and "Works" categories paralleling both Category:2000 television series debuts and Category:2000 books (following discussion on the Comics Project talk page about this). I'm not actually aware of a similar structure for character appearances (I can't find one so assume it might have been deemed A Bad Thing). The distinction is important as some characters were introduced in another series before getting their own titles (and, of course, it also tags series that aren't connected with any specific character).

The ultimate aim is to collect together the series that started in a specific year, which can help populate the years in comics articles, which are still thin as you go back in time. See for example: 2008 in comics#First issues by title. We've been slowly rolling the structure for the decades (which also includes comics image years as well as crossover storylines, etc.) and I am back to the 1970s (where I'm pausing as we populate the categories). As it would be legitimate to include the different Elric series (for example) in the specific "year in comics" entry it is legitimate to include it in the category, although it may look odd if one thinks they are the character debut years, but they aren't.

Hope that explains the situation. (Emperor (talk) 15:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC))

TfD nomination of Template:DTTR

Template:DTTR has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. MBisanz ^talk 07:20, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

John Sullivan (footballer)

Regarding your closure of John Sullivan (footballer). As per deletion guidelines, can you provide a basis for the closure if there is not a full consensus? Nfitz (talk) 17:44, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

First, I don't see the guideline which states that if there is not a full consensus, some basis for the closure has to be given. The Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators don't seem to imply this, and Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#closure doesn't mention it either. However, I may obviously have missed some other guideline or overlooked some part of those two guidelines.

Anyway, no matter if it is in the guidelines or not, it is only polite to provide some explanation when asked, so... While not a full consensus, it looked to me like a clear rough consensus, with 10 people favouring deletion and 4 preferring to keep it. Of the four people wanting to keep it, only your edits were actually policy/guideline based. But from the discussion, it became clear that most other editors either felt that a stricter, more specific guideline (Athlete) takes preference over the more broad general guideline (a position which I agree with, if the specific guideline is discussed and used often enough and generally accepted, like this one or WP:MUSIC), and/or that the sources provided didn't pass the notability guideline anyway. So while your argument was a good argument, it was not convincing enough for a large majority of the discussion. Fram (talk) 19:02, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Rough consensus of course is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any). But I think you know this, as you said you don't think the argument was strong enough, and I appreciate the explanation.

In terms of guidelines, I was thinking of Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#Closure which says A good admin will transparently explain how the decision was reached. (I guess it doesn't require an explanation :) Nfitz (talk) 03:13, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I somehow missed that line :-) Most closures don't need an explanation, as the close should be the obvious result of the discussion, but I might have given an explanation without prompting in this case, since your argument at least was worth addressing in the closinsg statement as well (by not explaining my decision, it could come across as if that the keep arguments weren't worthy of consideration, which was not my intention). As for rough consensus, it's not only a votecount, but when a clear majority reaches a policy or guideline based conclusion, then I think it is valid to use the term. As the page on rough onsensus makes clear: "Note that 51% of the working group does not qualify as "rough consensus" and 99% is better than rough." AfD is not a votecount, but a rough consensus needs some count of the valid, good faith opinions. Policy trumps the consensus where needed (that's one of the reasons why AfD is not a straight vote), but if policy/guideline and votecount are in basic agreement, then closing a discussion isn't too hard. Fram (talk) 06:36, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Sometimes I think there's too many, often contradictory, Wikipedia guidance documents! Nfitz (talk) 06:12, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/You're Gonna Go Far, Kid

• Just a note to let you know that the AfD above, which you closed as delete, the article has been recreated. It quite likely is a G4 but without being able to see the deleted version I can't tell for sure. RMHED (talk) 14:40, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. Another admin has already deleted it again (as a G4 indeed), and it is now a redirect (which is of course acceptable). Fram (talk) 18:52, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Drew Pickles (3nd nomination)

Hello! I am not challenging the redirect at present, but only ask that the edit history be restored so that as additional sources are discovered editors do not have to start over and so that editors' contributions remain public. Thanks for your time and consideration. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:04, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

The article, after 240 edits, was 5 lines long, i.e. one line on the character, three on the Youtube group, and one with a source, i.e. youtube. Most of the earlier edits were vandalism and vandalism reverts. There is nothing in the article that would really help in the case that starting over is needed. I don't see the point in restoring an edit history which won't be of use anyway. Fram (talk) 19:01, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Why did you delete the history of this page? ILikeMusicaLot (talk) 19:20, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

There was nothing to merge, nothing useful, and loads of vandalism and promotion of youtube groups, which was the opinion of many people at the AfD as well (only one "merge", a lot more deletes and/or redirects). The conclusion of the AfD was simple; the article as it stood, and which its history of vandalism and promotion of some youtube group, was only worth deleting. The subject as such was a plausible search term though, so a redirect would serve that purpose perfectly. Fram (talk) 19:28, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

But I want to see the history. ILikeMusicaLot (talk) 19:30, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, non admins can not see the history of deleted pages, that is standard practice. Fram (talk) 19:31, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Well,since the page is protected,you could restore the history since nobody will be able to revert. ILikeMusicaLot (talk) 19:33, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Yep, but what would be the point? You have seen what was in there before deletion, since you created it, so it is not as if you need to know the history. The page and its history was decided to be not needed at the AfD discussion. If you disagree with this, you can always take it to Wikipedia:Deletion review, or you can try to give me some good arguments to restore it. Fram (talk) 19:43, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

In addition to DRV, another idea is to revive Wikipedia:Pure wiki deletion system. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

(deindent). An idea I'm not in favour of though, and which has failed to reach community consensus. Fram (talk) 19:51, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

What if there were a way to at least allow established non-admin editors say with 20,000 or more edits or who have been here for two years to see (not undelete, just see) deleted contribs, i.e. those who are experienced with and likely to participate in Deletion reviews and Requests for adminship where seeing deleted contribs is helpful and relevant to the discussions? Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:54, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

That's a different discussion, one to be held at the village pump level or somewhere similar. I would e.g. not object to restore the history for the time of a deletion review in cases like these (not, obviously, for BLP or copyright violations and so on, if someone thought it useful to do so. Fram (talk) 20:01, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I've started a thread (hopefully that was the right forum). Thanks for the suggestion! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:03, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Your Sinclair official top 100

An article that you have been involved in editing, Your Sinclair official top 100, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Your Sinclair official top 100. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Corvus cornix_talk 20:27, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Bishops lists

I strongly believe that "Bishops" should be capitalised in these lists. Bishop of X is a title, and even The Guardian's style guide (which tends to be on the side of lower-casing everything) recommends that it should be capped up see http://www.guardian.co.uk/styleguide/page/0,,184840,00.html (under bishops) or http://www.guardian.co.uk/styleguide/page/0,,184844,00.html (archbishops) when the full title is used. David Underdown (talk) 10:06, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, what we certainly agree on is that all these pages should use the same method. Before I moved a lot of them, some where "List of Bishops of" and some were "List of bishops of". E.g. List of bishops of Ely vs. List of Bishops of Durham. But you can see from e.g. this search (at the Guardian) that in the case of a plural (so not person X, Bishop of Durham, but the B/bishops of Durham), the opinions are divided.[7]. The same goes for archbishops of Canterbury.[8]. I choose one solution, you defend another. I don't care enough to editwar over it, so if you strongly prefer the cpitalized versions, you are free to move them all to that standard. Fram (talk) 10:43, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, just because they often fail to match up with their own style guide (just look at the daily comments and corrections column...). David Underdown (talk) 13:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

True :-) But what I mean is, that their example is for one individual person, not for the general group or concept, and that their actual use for plurals is erratic (not just a casual error, but numerous uses of both formats). Again, I have no real objections to your moves (unlike some of those donr by Protheus, who feels that List of baronies in the peerage of Ireland should be at List of Baronies in the Peerage of Ireland). Fram (talk) 13:56, 30 June 2008 (UTC)