User talk:Fram/Archive 20

Archive 15

←

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

→

Archive 25

Dave D'Mello

This article was in the Maidstone Adscene Newspaper on the 6th March 2008. It was also online at www.thisiskent.co.uk for well over a year but has now been archived. It is also very common knowlegde and not something that Dave Fisher has ever hidden or kept a secret. He has been a very well known footballer in the UK and everybody knows about his battle with cancer. If you have any queries please contact the Maidstone Adscene to verify.--217.44.139.104 (talk) 09:48, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this article further to my attention. I have now decided to nominate it for deletion as he is not notable at all as a DJ, and there is no evidence anywhere that the DJ and the non notable footballer have any relation to each other anyway. Fram (talk) 08:57, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Dave D'Mello last year came 21st in the UK on the highly respected TheDjList.com . The site also confirms his real name and so does the also very highly respected discogs.com . I am not sure why you are so upset at people trying to help on wikipedia but must realise that we are only trying to help, of which you currently seem to be trying to stop. http://thedjlist.com/djs/DAVE_D'MELLO/ http://www.discogs.com/artist/Dave+D%27Mello Please do the decent thing and stop the deletion of this page and try and work together to make it correct. Thanks in advance 217.44.139.104 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.44.139.104 (talk) 10:47, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Dave D'Mello currently is rated #3801 at DJlist... Heis a Dave Fisher from Maidstone. Whether he is the same as the soccer player is not mentioned though (nor is it mentioned anywhere else outside Wikipedia). I am not upset, nominating articles for deletion when the subjects appears to be not that notable is a routine procedure. Discogs.com is a user-redacted site (a wiki), DJlist is user-submitted but admin-approved contents. Neither make any claim to have criteria to be included there. Fram (talk) 11:07, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

It is actually No.3,145 at present, and that is in the world out of over a quarter of a million DJ's. He is currently 200th in the UK if you look at the correct address. Do you have DJ's in Belguim or do you just like deleting pages cos you have never heard of him? Dave D'Mello search on google brings up over 1.5 million articles so am not sure where you info is coming from. You continue what you doing if you believe that you are being a helpful user. 217.44.139.104 (talk) 11:20, 20 May 2010 (UTC) 217.44.139.104

Ah, probably one person who voted just now. When you look at the general ranks, you need a score of 40,000 to be #1, score 2,000 to be #50, score 1,000 to be #100, and score 300 to be #500. Dave d'Mello has a score of 47, which is so low that the slightest chance in score means a huge chance in position, and that one or two users coming along can boost the position seriously. It doesn't reflect on the actual popularity of the DJ. Furthermore, as WP:BIO indicates, popularity is in itself not a measure we use, coverage in good sources is what we need. User-generated websites like DJlist and Discogs are not such sources. Fram (talk) 11:34, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I started this page after knowing of Dave Fisher via his football career and knowing he had become a DJ/record producer. I was one of the many many thousands whom bought M.I.A - Bucky Done Gun remix he did which launched him as a remixer and producer. Fram from Belguim, what are you 20, 25 years old? If you dont know your history and english people then i suggest you leave Wikipedia well alone. This page has sat he nicely ever since it was made, and you even edited it way back in Nov 2009 so dont tell me you have got a problem now. You are just being awkward due to the above user undoing your deletions. Be fair my old son Johnedwardspb (talk) 12:14, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Who or what I am is irrelevant, and "my history" stretches farther back than 2007, when Dave Fisher released the M.I.A. remix. Whether it outsold other mixes or not, I have no idea: there are no independent and even slightly reliable sources about this fact, only Dave Fisher- or fan-controlled sources. I edited the page in 2009 to get rid of some very nasty vandalism, butdidn't check it any further then. Now, confronted with a very persistent editor, I checked the actual contents, and found it severely lacking. Instead of focusing on me and what you suppose are myreasons for doing this, it would be more fruitful if you provided good sources. Articles in DJ Magazine would be good. Charted hits, even solely on a Dance chart, would help as well. But none of these things is available. Fram (talk) 12:29, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Fram, Please email me direct on johnedwards@publicist.com as have info etc that i cant post on here. Many thanks. Johnedwardspb (talk) 12:19, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Info you can't post here will not help you to keep the article here. WP:V is a core policy of Wikipedia. First-hand info, personal info, unpublished documents, ... are not useful for us. Fram (talk) 12:29, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Lol, what a surprise. Sorry lads, we have a interferring Beguim do gooder here. Enough said.Johnedwardspb (talk) 12:42, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Remove the tag to delete this page, as its really helpful and is linked on Facebook to the real Dave D'Mello, and just cos you may not know him but we all do. Also this is what wiki is about, finding real information on people we may not all know. 81.152.246.17 (talk) 14:33, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Why do you need a Wikipedia page to link a Facebook page to a real person? Why not link to his official homepage directly? Anyway, ease of use of Facebook is not the purpose of Wikipedia. Fram (talk) 14:42, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry you are very much mistaken since Facebook and Wikipedia signed up together to link all the pages on Facebook for the reason to keep people and fans informed. I can see everyone elses problem now, there is just no reasoning with you. Also, you seem so behind the times. 81.152.246.17 (talk) 14:55, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Please explain

Hi, I noticed you moved my page Randy Ellefson back to my user area (Firegemini). Can you tell me why and how to get this thing published? Every time I try someone just pushes it back without explaining.

Firegemini (talk) 02:22, 22 April 2010 (UTC)Firegemini

You moved User talk:Firegemini instead of User:Firegemini/Randy Ellefson. Yo have to move the latter to mainspace, asthat is your article, not the former wich is your user talk page. Fram (talk) 06:52, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Editor assistance needed

Hi, I noticed that you are one of the editors kind enough to list themselves at Editor Assistance. I have a perhaps unusual request: I have some problems with another editor, who is either deliberately trolling or otherwise desperately in need of editor assistance. I started out the wrong way with him or her, so my advice will probably only be counterproductive. Would you be willing to see if there is anything you can do?

....

I personally don't believe one can make that many different mistakes by accident (it's not as if they are buried in his contributions: they are the vast majority), but I'm not the most patient admin, and I have had a discussion with him or her, so I am probablyno longer objective or uninvolved. Any advice is welcome! Fram (talk) 07:46, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I've had a look. It appears that Mod mmg is an enthusiastic and well meaning new contributor to Wikipedia who hasn't yet become familiar with our procedures and philosophies. Most new users do have difficulties with our complex processes, and it can take years to fully understand the main issues and specific consensus. There is a concern that the user is not learning from observation, and instead tends to argue, though even that can be the result of the more experienced users not explaining process and consensus clearly enough when undoing or repairing Mod mmg's edits. I'll drop a word on Mod mmg's talkpage and suggest Mod mmg requests a mentor. SilkTork *^YES! 12:34, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. While I'm not as confident about it all as you are, I'll wait and see how it goes (otherwise there was no point in coming to you, of course). Fram (talk) 12:51, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

March 2010

Do not make antagonistic edits in a manner that suggests they are written by me to my userspace pages again. That edit violates WP:AGF and WP:POINT. On that particular page, I only list discussions that are complete. I do not list the handful of discussions that will eventually be overturned by deletion reviews. Once those articles are restored via deletion review or normal editing and are therefore complete, then they will be added. Otherwise that list reminds me which ones I do not have to worry about. Thank you. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 16:22, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

AGF? Hah, only when I don't have a reason not to. You deliberately omit those AfDs where the closure went against your opinion. Deletion review is for incorrect closures, you wouldn't need to wait months and months to start one. Many of those articles will never be added to the encyclopedia again, as you are well aware. You link to that page in public discussions (e.g. Wikipedia:Notability/RFC:Reevaluation), so it should be correct (certainly when you present it in the way you did in Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Kww 2, i.e "Sure, people can offer good faith suggestions for further improvement and I am open to that, but please see User:A Nobody/Deletion discussions, I don't comment in AfDs anywhere near as much as I used to and since I have been renamed every one I have commented in has had a more or less acceptable conclusion.") You are presenting incorrect, one-sided information to give a better impression of yourself than what reality would present (probably the reason it is also linked from your editor review). You are lecturing people on morality, but would do better to start looking at your own actions in an objective manner. Don't come running to me for help anymore,and please keep your seasons greetings and other "friendly" edits from my talk from now on. Oh, and please reread WP:POINT: "disruptively applying reasoning with which you disagree" Which "policy or guideline" have I tried to illustrate as being bad by doing the opposite of it? Right, I thought so. One more on the long list of Wikipedia pages you should thoroughly read before using them willy-nilly on discussions. Fram (talk) 07:56, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

HistorianOfLogic block

Hi, Fram. Would you mind telling me why you assume User:HistorianofLogic is a sock of Peter Damian? [1] Checkuser? Regards, Bishonen | talk 22:55, 4 March 2010 (UTC).

30 film

Hi FRAM. I did not create this wikipedia article, but was obviously alerted to its presence once someone else had. I noticed you posted it for deletion though, but it adheres to the rules as far as I can tell. there is a very notable actress making her first film in over twenty years. I am not too saavy on how to edit properly on this site as I only joined to fix this matter yesterday, but I believe this is the reference you are looking for. PLease let me know if there is any other info I can supply you with.

Aileen Quinn also had a supporting role. Her first live-action film as an adult since Annie (1982). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Curtispollock (talk • contribs) 00:40, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I should also point out that Aileen's role in this movie was of great interest to many, many people, as I've had an overwhelming number of requests from both fans of hers as well as news and media organizations inquiring about her performance in the movie, even to this day.Curtispollock (talk) 00:45, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

absoluteatronomy

I happen to read one of your comments about Wiki Mirrors here

Just checked: Mea culpa, I HAVE linked to absoluteatronomy once (also just removed it), but then I didn't know that it was a mirror. It does look good and I don't think most people linking to it have any vandilizing intention. Please be indulgent, every contributor needs to learn. (BTW, how come the content look sometimes more complete?) Maybe if you left a message to those users who you remove the links, linking to those site may gradually become better? I know that that's what I would like: more guidance. (Msgs like: You did this here but...)

Also I have not seen any mention about it in the linking guidelines. How about adding the link to the mirror list under the What generally should not be linked section ?

PS: I've been slowly trying to learn, trying to read all those guidelines... I may have reached 5% since all the years I've been here(!) － Cy21(talk) 17:28, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I've reinstated the contents edits by HistorianofLogic that you reverted

Hello Fram. I've reinstated the contents edits by HistorianofLogic, as all of them appear to be good. Can we please discuss your seemingly indiscriminate reverts of the content edits presumed to be by Peter Damian (e.g. [2] and [3])? Regards, Paul August ☎ 13:34, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Of course they are indiscriminate, he is banned. Can we perhaps discuss the seemingly blind ignoring that is going on of the antics of this banned user? He is a serial sockpuppeteer, using the ancient good hand - bad hand technique, whose ban has recently been upheld. Give him the message that we don't want any of his contributions, instead of encouraging him to continue to act in the same manner. Why would he stop doing what he does when people encourage him like this? Make it obvious that the only time he is wasting is his own. Fram (talk) 07:49, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Just popping in to say this is absolutely correct, if we let banned editor's edits stand we just encourage them. Dougweller (talk) 08:13, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

• Hi, Fram. Please see my comment here, where I request an ANI discussion of your actions. Unfortunately I don't have time to set one up myself. Regards, Bishonen | talk 14:38, 15 March 2010 (UTC).

BLP discussion

Hi Fram/Archive 20! If there is any consensus at at all, it is that the entire discussion has become a tangled confusion, and as a result both proponents and opponents of the issues under discussion are abandoning ship. None of us want this. It is still not clear which way consensus will fall and your contributions to the discussion are invaluable. However, In an attempt to keep the policy discussion on an even track, some users have decided to start the ball rolling for clarity by creating a special workshop pages. The first of these is for the technical development of a template at WT:BLP PROD TPL in case policy is decided for it . The taskforce pages are designed keep irrelevant stuff off the policy discussion and talk page, and help a few of us to move this whole debate towards a decision of some kind or another. The pages will be linked in a way that watchers will still find their way to them. This move is not intended to influence any policy whatsoever; It is to keep the discussion pages focussed on the separate issues. Cheers. --Kudpung (talk) 23:29, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Levon Isayevich Mirzoyan

A year ago, you tagged the Levon Isayevich Mirzoyan article as a BLP violation. However, he died February 26, 1939. I added a reference, and removed the tag. Is there some reason you felt he was still alive? He was born December, 1887.--Work permit (talk) 08:29, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

An error on my part. Thanks for catching it. Fram (talk) 07:49, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Superfruit!

I don't know if you'll recall this discussion but take a look at Zefr (talk · contribs). Look no further than here if you're in a hurry. Regards. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:58, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

FAC disruption

Please feel free to discuss at will at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/History of logic/archive1, but please stop disrupting the FAC itself. Your disrution of the FAC impedes evaluation of the article wrt WP:WIAFA, which is the purpose of FAC. Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:59, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I assume you're aware of WP:3RR, so consider this notice. FAC is for evaluating articles, not waging any unrelated campaigns. I have no position, except that outside admins will not run FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:06, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I can't stop what I haven't started. You are getting dangeroulsy close to 3RR though, reverting my reply to Bishonen and then every attempt at a compromise solution. And your ownership problems get very obvious now... Fram (talk) 21:10, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I must say, it's the first time I've ever seen any user accuse a FAC delegate or director of ownership: that's interesting. At any rate, please refrain from politicizing a discussion at FAC, where we work quite hard to avoid such and keep the focus on the article and the criteria. Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

The way you are acting is pure ownership, yes. You prefer your inferior solution (keeping a bolded rant you yourself admit no reviewer is interested in) to my simpler, neutral solution (a short sentence indicating that the user is blocked and referrng to the talk page for further discussion) for no good reason at all. This has nothing to do with FA work, but all with project / talk page ownership. Never mind that your bogus 3RR warning more easily applies to yourself, or that I have not disrupted or politicized anything. Fram (talk) 21:18, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Please sign your entry on the FAC so reviewers won't think it was a statement entered by a delegate. Yes, I can only recall one issue in the last four years of someone reverting a FAC delegate or director, and that didn't end well for the revertee. Again, please don't bring political issues to FAC. Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:22, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

You mean the "reverter", not the "revertee", probably, since you act as if I am the reverter and you are the revertee. Anyway, you started reverting when you removed only my comment and none of the others. I hope we are now done with this silliness and the bogus warnings? I'll let you continue to maintain your burocracy...

I will follow up at WT:FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:57, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

deleted "Nataly Dawn"

Hello Fram, nice to meat you, virtually. I have to admit I kinda love Pomplamoose music and Wikipedia. I'm confused why Jack Conte page exists, but Nataly Dawn was removed? I generally don't mind, probably there is a reason. Do you mind to share? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 20:33, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Because the full text of the Nataly Dawn article was "Nataly Dawn is a singer who covers major popular hit songs, like 7 nation army by the white stripes." Well, there are millions of singers who cover popular songs, they don't get Wikipedia pages though. People have to meet the requirements in WP:BIO to get an article here. If there is more to write about her, and you get reliable independent sources about her, then feel free to create a new article on her. Fram (talk) 08:58, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Knerr

Sorry. Tried to make room for new image. Pepso2 (talk) 13:25, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

HI

Hi - I'm dying to see you revert this! Best - Peter 86.186.80.145 (talk) 19:00, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Hey Fram, Please stop personal attacks on my edits

Fram, I am reporting you for vandalism. You have an already well documented history (as shown here, here,here, and finally here) of personal persecution, deletion and harsh scrutiny towards my contributions and editions. This is not the first time this has happened and this time I am not tolerating it. You have reversed my edition on the template of net neutrality. This template has had a vectorized logo which was originally uploaded in a raster format by me and vectorized by another editor. The logo has been there for over two years (as shown here) with no members of the developing article on net neutrality deciding anything against such template. For over two years the identity given to the article was not challenged by anyone of the editors heavily involved in the development of the articles related to Network neutrality. This edition reversal by you is totally uncalled for and biased. There is absolutely no support on the removal and not even a discussion over such move. More importantly, let me voice openly that this persecution towards my contributions by you go beyond anything I have seen during my time here in Wikipedia. I am asking you politely. Stop your close watch and personal persecution to my actions in Wikipedia. There is absolutely no reason why you have to continue reversing or disputing my contributions without even discussing it with me or the community. This is not the first time you do so. --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 20:23, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Hey Camilio, just want to see that I understand this - you created a logo for 'net neutrality' (the concept). Is it used by anyone other than you? Is it used anywhere other than Wikipedia?   pablo_hablo. 20:58, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Colbert Family Speedy Delete

Thanks for notifying me about the action you took on this page. I do believe that it very well could be a good article with sources - and it is a notable enough topic that we should have it as a page. I was wondering if you would restore the page under a userpage/Colbert family for me. I will work on it and move it when I feel it is ready. Outback the koala (talk) 22:00, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Userfied at User:Outback the koala/Colbert Family. Fram (talk) 06:58, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks :) Outback the koala (talk) 04:14, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of An Ancient Evil

An article that you have been involved in editing, An Ancient Evil, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/An Ancient Evil. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. — The Bipolar Anon-IP Gnome (talk) 18:02, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Dorothea Krook-Gilead]]

Isn't it more useful to check at least the Googles for sources when something as notable as the Israel Prize is asserted rather than mark unsourced? DGG ( talk ) 03:01, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I tagged for unsourced, not for not notable or anything similar. Please direct your comments to the people creating these articles. Fram (talk) 06:52, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I regret to see we do not agree on the responsibilities of people tagging articles. My view is and remains that anyone who can source an article that eems to show obvious notability and easy sourceability should try to do so. The net effect, is that you are throwing the work on the patrollers, as my responsibility there is equally to delete the articles that cannot be sourced, and not to permit the deletion of the ones that can be. As for the creators, I have indeed spoken to them--I agree that is the primary problem. DGG ( talk ) 17:17, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Tom Vanstiphout

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Tom Vanstiphout. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Vanstiphout. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:08, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Deletion review for London Buses route 71

An editor has asked for a deletion review of London Buses route 71. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Dew Kane (talk) 03:48, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Armorials

An Armorial of X is precisely a list of arms in the category X

If you are going to be consistent, you need to go to the French side of the site and start removing armorials there, too. I think I can assure you that you will start a firestorm if you try that. --David V Houston (talk) 12:08, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Added later - 'arms' as in armoury. as in pictures AND words. Oops, wasn't clear.--David V Houston (talk) 14:00, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

We don't really have any consistency between different language versions of Wikipedia, and what may be acceptable there may be unacceptable here and vice versa. I know that an armorial is a list of arms, but why do we have such a list, what is the list adding to the situation of a) coat of arms included and described in commune articles and b) overview of all geographically related coats of arms on Commons? Is there a reason that coats of arms per geographic division is a "notable" division, relation, grouping of coats of arms? Fram (talk) 12:36, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Firstly (and to recapitulate what I said in reply to you on my talk page), I am planning on removing those deletion tags. <gr>You're obviously not a herald if you think an Armorial is 'not notable'<gr>. If you look, for instance, at the French Wiki pages, every single (mainland) department has an Armorial, much like this one. I have posted at Projet:Blasons asking for some contributors there to weigh in on this issue, so you won't think that this is just me. I am aware that the heraldic community on English wiki is weak - but that's a reason to want to strengthen it, not weaken it. IMO. Secondly, I am afraid I don't understand your point (b) - if you remove the departmental armorials, what 'overview' is there? Thirdly, what if someone is looking for a piece of heraldry? If you don't have it in one place they'd have to search hundreds of individual pages to find it. What if they can't remember the spelling of the town's name, for instance. An Armorial is a gathering together, in one place, of the arms found in hundreds of other places. Trying to list ALL the heraldry for e.g. ALL of France would be too huge, you'd never find an individual item. But doing it by department is a reasonable intermediate scale. Obviously, one would ultimately like an 'Ordinary' (where you could look up the arms by the 'charges' on them), but that's an even huger undertaking. Fourthly, I'm confused by your question "Is there a reason that coats of arms per geographic division is a "notable" division, relation, grouping of coats of arms?" Given that towns are arranged in departments, their armoury should be too, no? --David V Houston (talk) 13:00, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Wonder birthday present, BTW, to have hundreds of hours of work slated to be voided.--David V Houston (talk) 13:12, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

(I didn't know it was your birthday, obviously, this is coincidental). On commons, the coats of arms are listed per geographical division already, so anyone wanting to look up a specific coat of arm can go to [4]. The only thing your lists add is the heraldic descrption of the coats of arms, but those can be found (and if not, can be added) to the articles on the communes, when displaying the coat of arms (as done on e.g. Anhiers). By your own dscription, its main fucntion is as an image gallery, so people can easily find the commune which goes with a coat of arms. Such gallerys are perfect for Commons, but not suitable for (the English) Wikipedia. What is the additional value of these armories over the Commons pages? Fram (talk) 13:17, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Heh. Ya, I know the date's a coincidence, but it still makes it more depressing. [bleah!] Thank you for the link to the Category. 1) I'd never seen it nor, AFAIK, any other 'commons' category. (Commons IMAGES, of course, I know). How are people to find it? I just searched wiki (as in en.wikipedia.org) for "coats of arms Nord" and didn't find it - presumably because it's in a different namespace. So there should be something in the English namespace, no? Also, the individual images/arms/emblazons are NOT linked to this category - so no one could find that category that way. 2) the Category shows the pictures (the emblazons), but not the heraldic description (the blazons), and because it seems? to be a multi-lingual object, it presumably can't afford to have those blazons in all possible languages. (well, OK, so far 'all possible' is limited to French and English for this department, French, English and Italian for a handful of others.) 3) I will say, that if my armorials stay, each one should include the phrase "coats of arms" to help people find them ("coat of arms" is a HORRIBLY misused term, but it is the common one). 4) I'm also aware that my armorials are not well linked to other pages, which does make them harder to find, and less useful to users. I was concentrating on getting the basic work done, and then try to figure out where to link them. 5) I had understood that items like these were encouraged to NOT be categories. 6) Just spotted another point in your reply that I missed first pass. It's NOT just an image gallery, it also contains the technical description (the blazon) as well. I really don't think I would have considered doing this project if it had only been the images. The additional value of these armorials, and why it should be in English, not Commons, is precisely the blazons. (well, and users being able to find the things!)--David V Houston (talk) 14:00, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm a bit amazed that you had never seen that category, since it is linked from the top right of your armorial pages from the moment you created them, so you must have added them (or copied from an existing page?). I notice as well that when you search "coats ofarms nord", you don't find the commons cat, but you also don't find your pages (at least not among the first twenty links), so that's not very useful either (in that way) (as you indicate further in your reply, I now see). As for your other points, the description of the coat of arms is also included in the individual commune pages (as they should be), so this is just a combination - duplication article. It gives no new info, and doesn't add any value. But I don't believe that we will agree on this, so some more outside input and perhaps an AfD may be necessary (the input from the heraldry project is welcome, but obviously, due to their focus of interest, there is a chance that they will represent a rather one-sided opinion). Fram (talk) 14:11, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh, that's what those things in the corners are! Ja, the first Armorial, I copied from the original French, translated stuff, commented out the French categories that didn't work and went from there. (The very first one got removed because I hadn't learned about NEWPAGE and sandboxes and doing stuff in ones Userspace.) Stuff I simply didn't understand, I left, and then I used old ones as bases for new ones. [OK, so I feel like an idiot now!<gr>]. OK, I've gone and looked up AfD and found the Wiki meaning. Ya, I suppose, that's probably the next step.--David V Houston (talk) 15:00, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

How should we go about doing this? How about we send one page, say 'Nord-1' to the AfD resolution process. The issues involved are going to be the same for the others, and splitting commentary among 5 pages won't help. If the decision goes against me, I won't contest the others. Make sense? I obviously need to read all the picky little details about rules and procedures, as I've never been involved in a contested deletion before. In the meantime, I will refrain from adding new material to any of the (English) armorials. So, I guess that means that I don't remove the tags from the others, since that is apparently an automatic contesting.--David V Houston (talk) 15:20, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, I tried submitting Nord-1 to the AfD process, but I think I messed it up.--David V Houston (talk) 18:00, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll take a look. My apologies for using to much jargon, one tends to forget that not everyone is involved with all these policies, templates, and so on, and that most people here are just trying to contribute to their small corner of the large Wikipedia (which, of course, is a good thing). I'll remove the proposed deletions as "contested", and create an AfD for one (or perhaps for all of them, but in one discussion). Fram (talk) 06:28, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and you can equally rest assured that whatever the outcome of the deletion discussion, I'll respect it. I have now commented at the discussion, and added a suggestion which may at least counter some of your remarks about people not finding the information otherwise. Fram (talk) 06:49, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

“Bologna Children's Book Fair” and “Global Learning Initiative”

On the GLI disambiguation page, in Global Learning Initiative section, you added an unexplained and poorly-syntaxed link to the Bologna Children's Book Fair article created by you. The latter article doesn't describe any connection to GLI, while the GLI article doesn't even exist, so any relation between the two is unclear to an uninformed reader. Please, expand the article and adjust the commentary on disambiguation page. 217.172.21.161 (talk) 03:46, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Um, no. I linked (added the square brackets) to an already existing "unexplained and poorly syntaxed" sentence, I didn't add a poorly syntaxed link. This was intended to have at least one bluelink in that line, so that people can at least check what the Bologna Book Fair is. This adds some info for the reader to this otherwise barely intelligible line. Far from perfect, but my addition improves it, while your comment implies that I made it somehow worse. Fram (talk) 06:26, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Great Repeal Bill listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Great Repeal Bill. Since you had some involvement with the Great Repeal Bill redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). 147.70.242.54 (talk) 19:41, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Architects Registration in the United Kingdom

I notice that you have deleted Architects Registration in the United Kingdom. What a pity, for it was intended as a useful article. The reason appears to be "Unambiguous violation of copyright", citing the AARUK website. I am the webmaster of that website and would respectfully draw your attention to the front page where it is clearly stated: "This website © AARUK 2007-2010: free licence for copyright purposes, subject to acknowledgement, viz: First published on website of AARUK – About Architects Registration in the United Kingdom."

As it happens, however, there is no necessity for the requested attribution, as the article on Wikipedia was placed there by its authors, who are Lexigator (a barrister-at-law) and myself (an architect).

Your assistance would be appreciated in restoring the article, including if necessary the required formula or attribution so as to justify / mollify others who might also wish to remove articles without inquiry. Many thanks. Salisian (talk) 09:23, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

It is unclear to me whether this is sufficient or not for our purposes. Luckily, we have a page explaining things in more detail: Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials, mainly the final section, "Granting us permission to copy material already online". I hope this is sufficient to help you. We appreciate all contributions, but copyright is a tricky business and we have to be (sometimes too) careful. 09:44, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. As I am not familiar with templates, if you would kindly restore the page, giving advice as to when this has been done, and let me have the code for the appropriate template showing that the authors have granted a licence that is acceptable to this community, then Lexigator and I will oblige. I look forward to seeing the article restored with the least delay.Salisian (talk) 15:43, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

As it happens this particular subject will be topical this week in the UK architectural press, as the Architects Registration Board has conceded an important issue concerning registration. It would be good if this item could be restored today please. Thank you. Salisian (talk) 06:41, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Please follow the steps outlined on the page linked above. I cannot restore this page on your say-so, I have to be more careful with potential copyright problems. Fram (talk) 06:49, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Please see the footnote added to AARUK Point of View. When you have restored the article, please leave a note on the talk page to confirm that you have verified the copyright licence to your satisfaction, for we do not intend to make a permanent note that is extraneous to the subject matter of the article. Thank you.Salisian (talk) 07:25, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Restored, this looks to me to be acceptable. Thanks for helping us! Fram (talk) 07:24, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Eden Primary School, Carrickfergus

Can you please point me at the relevant policy here, because I just couldn't find it. There seem to be two issues:

• Is creating a redirect like this acceptable practice? It's not listed under WP:REDIRECT#Purposes of redirects, but then that doesn't show that they aren't acceptable, merely doesn't state clearly that they are. (I'm sure they are, but any policy that describes this use may also answer the second question).
• More importantly, how do we reconcile consensus with the creation of redirects like this. We explicitly forbid a speed deletion in this circumstance, so I can only infer from that that converting an article to a redirect (which in this case would be tantamount to deleting it, only preserving the history) should be treated similarly. It's possible, but would require community visibility rather than a single editor's action.

Thanks Andy Dingley (talk) 13:11, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

No, it is very different from speedy deletions. The history is still available, so anyone can easily merge all information if needed, or can undo the redirect and expand the article if it is a notable subject after all. Redirecting primary school articles to either the locaility or the school district article has been standard practice for many years here. This isn't a speedy deletion, and doesn't belong on AfD either, which is only (or at least mainly) for deletions. I don't want this to be deleted, just redirected. Debates like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Woodside Primary School, Grays have been around for years, and apart from the few cases where clear notability for the primary school was shown, they all ended up merged/redirected. This is also mentioned in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes.

If you don't agree with the redirection, we can request a third opinion, or you can expand the article to make it clear that this is one of the notable primary schools, or we can take it to AfD anyway. Fram (talk) 13:20, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't disagree with the redirection (I'd even happily delete it - there's too little content to make it worth keeping), however I am curious about the process and was looking for a pointer to the full policy or past discussion of the issue, so that I can read it and learn. (I don't generally edit school articles, but I do have some local connection to Carrick)

My main concern is that as we do regard any and every school as "inherently speedy-proof", then I'd have to extend that to "articles of similar weight (i.e. schools) shouldn't be converted to redirects by single editors acting unilaterally". My worry is the visibility of the decision in regard to following consensus, not the action resulting, and certainly not the action resulting here.

I mentioned AfD because I can't think of anywhere better, no more than that. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:03, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of wiki page

Hello,

May I please have a clarification regarding this deletion? I work for Deputy Minister Jay Hope who requested that I create a wiki page for him (to replace an outdated page that was deleted). The image used and the biography are from the Ontario Government website found here:

http://www.mcscs.jus.gov.on.ca/english/about_min/DeputyMinisters/CorrectionalServices/DM_Hope_bio.html

A reference was added pointing to this page. Once again, not sure what the problem is, please advise and reverse.

Many thanks!

Kaymar1234 (talk) 16:10, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

The page you used is copyrighted (bottom right of the page). Wikipedia articles should not consist of copyrighted text, and such articles, when found, are always deleted. Furthermore, we are an encyclopedia, we aim to have neutral pages, not government-approved or subject-approved pages. Please see WP:COI and WP:NPOV for more on this. Fram (talk) 06:29, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of Jim Plamondon

Hi Fram,

In my opinion Mr Plamondon is a person of interest because of his work to promote highly ergonomic (and scientifically-based) musical instruments (notably the Thummer/jammer) in a very novel way. I have not bothered to post much about him in Wikipedia, because (1) several people have advised me that it's wasted effort, and (2) past experience [the-wikipedia-blues|http://musicscienceguy.vox.com/library/post/the-wikipedia-blues.html] with articles.

I understand the need to keep down the trivial BLPs. However, upon consideration I do feel he is noteworthy. If you put him back, I'll add information about him to backing up this point.

If you still think he is trivial, we can go through the proper AfD process, and I'll call in my jammer-playing friends for the discussion. Ken Rushton.

MusicScienceGuy (talk) 18:00, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I have restored the page for now. The page curently, summarized, states that he has invented musical instruments no one has bothered to actually produce, and that his work is discussed on a blog. What the page needs to show is that he has received significant attention in reliable sources (reputed music magazines or other mainstream sources), not just on blogs, fora, personal webpages and so on. It is also necessary that the sources are (partially) about him, and not just about the instruments. By the way, "and I'll call in my jammer-playing friends for the discussion" sounds like you want to votestack a potential AfD discussion, producing a lot of keep votes. I hope that that was not your intention, as that is very strongly discouraged on Wikipedia. calling in your friends to help you improve the article, however, is more than welcome of course. Fram (talk) 06:26, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Calling friends is not meant to be a vote-stack, which you can readily spot, but rather to add to the discourse.MusicScienceGuy (talk) 06:38, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I've added some details from the mainstream,and music journals. etc. - this is not a good time for me, as my son is ill. A fair amount more will be added, e.g. there was a WSJ article about him. Is this sufficient for now? MusicScienceGuy (talk) 05:57, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Eden Primary School

Hi

In redirecting the Eden Primary School, Carrickfergus page it is now not possible to access it at all. On The carrickfergus town page when the link is selected to the primary school the user is now sent back to the page they came from. Has the eden Page been deleted all together? What constitutes a non important school? THanks Markcoulter50 (talk) 07:33, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Any subject that meets our notability guideline is "important" enough to have a separate Wikipedia article. For primary schools, the usual option is to mention them in either the community article or in the school district article. Only primary schools which have repeatedly received significant attention in non-local sources) should get their own separate article. The article on the school has not been deleted, but redirected, so anyone searching for the school will automatically end up at the town page. Fram (talk) 08:08, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Ahh, thanks Markcoulter50 (talk) 21:10, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you again, but is there not a way to give primary schools more than just their title in wikipedia. Can we not justidy creating a 'schools in carrickfergus' page that allows for more information than present though not ever school deserving an indepdent page? Thanks Markcoulter50 (talk) 21:17, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Assuming that there are more than one or two schools in Carrickfergus, we can have an article Education in Carrickfergus. Alternatively, if the primary school belongs to a school district, you can create an article for the school district. Fram (talk) 06:56, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

For a simpler and lighter starting point, this could be List of schools in Carrickfergus. Please see WP:LIST though, as there's a sizable amount of policy re: list articles.

IMHO Education in Carrickfergus suggests a scope of discussing the issues facing education in Antrim, and should probably be under Education in County Antrim or Education in Northern Ireland. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:12, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Some links for your convenience. As you can see, MediaWiki doesn't often delete content and old versions are still accessible if you need them:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eden_Primary_School,_Carrickfergus&redirect=no

The redirect=no parameter stops the redirect having an effect

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eden_Primary_School,_Carrickfergus&action=history

The action=history parameter shows page history (i.e. versions) rather than just the latest

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eden_Primary_School,_Carrickfergus&oldid=355555051

The oldid=355555051 parameter gives a specific version from the history (the last here with content)

Andy Dingley (talk) 12:03, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Derek Allen

I'm no fonder of some of their tactics than you are, but please don't edit closed AfDs. 07:44, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I read it before the close, and when I pressed edit, I didn't notice that meanwhile, it had been closed (correctly). I am not going to edit war over it, it won't change the outcome, but that source was so thoroughly wrong and so typical that to let it stand unchallenged is not desirable, even in an archive that hardly anyone is going to read from now on. Fram (talk) 08:08, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Trust me, I know. Thanks for not edit-warring over it. AniMate 08:12, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Seriously, your actions do not seem like those that an administrator should be taking. You should clearly know how AfDs work with your position. Silverseren^C 08:04, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps divert your attention to your fellow ARS'er and make clear that such extremely poor source checking is not the kind of action an experienced ARS'er should be taking instead. Fram (talk) 08:08, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Me being a part of the Article Rescue Squadron has nothing to do with your actions on the AfD. The discussion ended as delete as it is, so it doesn't matter what sources were there because they are gone now. Dream Focus and I have rescued dozens of articles from deletion by adding reliably sourced information. If we mess up on one or two here and there, I really don't see it as a big deal. Regardless of that, your comment made on the AfD after it closed shouldn't be there, according to AfD policy, so Dream Focus was right to remove it. Silverseren^C 08:14, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you and I are going to agree on the average quality of the rescue efforts of Dream Focus. It is obvious from this (and other) AfD's that he has no idea of what is and what isn't a reliable and/or independent source. Afd comments he recently made like "Keep Any coverage is enough, and it receives some." or "Keep The writer of notable books, is notable for being the writer of said books. What's wrong with the Google news results? They walk about him and his work." for an author of one single book. He doesn't check whether the sources are about the subject under discussion, or whether the sources are in any way reliable (see e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Society for Condensed Matter Nuclear Science). He mainly follows your rescue tags and votes keep every time, no matter if it is truly rescueable (which it often is) or not, and with little good work done in rescuing the article or presenting good sources. He has made 21 mainspace edits this week, and he has made 26 keep votes in AfDs. At first sight, he has made no edits to any of the articles he wanted to keep (the only exception being Derek Allen, which is now deleted). So "rescued dozens of articles from deletion by adding reliably sourced information. " is not really an accurate description of his current work. Fram (talk) 08:44, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

mpkomara talk page

can you please remove your comments from my talk page? i have become a more responsible wikipedian now, and i won't commit errors like the one you corrected in 2008. thanks! Mpkomara (talk) 13:07, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I have removed it. Good luck with the editing! Fram (talk) 13:11, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Copyright

Dude, you can not copywrite infringe your own work! Stop deleting my post refering to the web site content that I created! This is not copywrite infringe ent. Please get a life.

We have no evidence at all that the one posting it here is the one that thas the copyright on the information. Apart from that, the page seems to fail WP:N and would be deleted as a non notable organization anyway. No reliable independent sources have given attention to the project. Fram (talk) 10:29, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:NOTPLOT

Thanks for directing me to the WP:NOTPLOT guidelines for the X-Files Blood article I submitted. --Group27 (talk) 02:10, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

ITN for Leterme II Government

--Well done :) Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:06, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Request for extension of page protection

Thank you for protecting my talkpage, however, I fear the attacks on me may continue once the protection of my talk has expired, can you protect it infinitely? Thank you. Btzkillerv (talk) 13:38, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I've extended it now for a year, we can see again then how the situation is. Fram (talk) 06:43, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from Dancing with the Stars (U.S. TV series) scoring statistics

Hello Fram, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Dancing with the Stars (U.S. TV series) scoring statistics has been removed. It was removed by 76.248.89.208 with the following edit summary '(no edit summary)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with 76.248.89.208 before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 09:43, 3 May 2010 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages) 09:43, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Gratitude

Thanks for adding the catergories to the Willoughby of Parham articles. "Rovington (talk) 03:09, 4 May 2010 (UTC)"

Bryan's Dictionary of Painters and Engravers enlarged by George Stanley

Excellent work on these. I'd like to help out some, but I want to make sure I don't step on any toes; are you creating the articles according to any particular rule, or are you just plunging in and copy-pasting them alphabetically? --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 14:24, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Alphabetically. I only take the painters, I don't know or care enough about engravers, and I only take those for which there seems to be more than "X was a painter" available from other sources. I also try to place the article at the most commonly used name, not necessarily at the name used by Bryan (but I create a redirect from the Bryan name to the current one). You are free to help with this, of course. Perhaps the easiest would be if you take another letter (e.g. B), or if you'ld prefer to take all the Italians, I can focuse on the Dutch, French, Danish, German, Spanish, ... It's up to you! Fram (talk) 14:27, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

No, no, I'll take another letter. I like playing around with "Q", for starters. :-)

All depends on when I can get to it, of course; my article creation is somewhat come-and-go, depending on my mood. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 14:28, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

No problem, it will be a while before I arrive at the Q anyway (I only do a few a day, generally). If you need any help or have any advice for me, feel free to drop a note of course. Fram (talk) 14:30, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Sure thing. I can take some of the smaller letters (one of my oddities - I love chasing Q's, X's, and Z's) and pick up the S's and T's and such. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 14:35, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I see you started, thanks! By the way, in case you can use it, I use [5] for the original text, and [6] to copypaste the actual text (needs some copyediting afterwards based on the first link though, the OCR isn't always perfect). Fram (talk) 13:38, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

That's what I do, actually. Great minds, and all. :-)

By the way, there seem to be three versions of Bryan's book floating out there on Google Books - there's a more comprehensive version from 1889 (I think? 1880-something), and another one still from 1904. I've used the 1889 version for some things - both should be in the public domain, correct? Just to let you know, in case you're looking for something with more depth. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 14:21, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

And an older, original version as well, which is apparently not available through Google books. The 1865 edition seems to be identical to the 1849 one, but there is an 1866 supplement of some 180 pages. My search didn't yield the newer ones[7], that's why I didn't use them. The 1903 edition is available through Archive.org though. Perhaps it's better to use that one, if we can make certain that it is public domain. Considering that the second author lived until 1942, that may still be tricky (death plus seventy years = 2012!). Perhaps a question for our copyright board or soemthing? The 1849 one is certainly save for work ;-) Fram (talk) 14:39, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I haven't delved into the 1903 one yet, as there's ample material in the 1889 version for upload. And that should be public domain, near as I can tell. If not...then, oops. :-) (No big harm done, as most of the stuff I've written can be translated, if need be, from other Wikis.) It has a supplement, too - not a large one, just about twenty pages or so. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 14:53, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed the 1889 one. I can't see any objection to using that one. Perhaps I'll change my 1849 articles to that one as well, as soon as I can find some easy-to-use links. Original text of part 1[8], part 2[9]. I can't find a good copyable text source though, the text version at archive.org is dreadful, and I'm not going to transcribe those entries. Do you have a good method of getting the etxt from the 1886 version into Wikipedia? Otherwise I'll stick to the 1849 one after all. Fram (talk) 15:01, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Here's Volume 1 (A-K), and here's Volume 2 (L-Z), from Google Books; both have pretty good plain-text versions.

Also, if you're interesting, I found this, published in 1873 in Philadelphia by one Shearjashub Spooner. Might be some more fodder for articles there. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 15:30, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Bizarre. I get "no preview available" for the links you give to the Bryan version. Perhaps these are for some reason not viewable in Belgium, despite them being public domain? No idea, I'll try again tomorrow, to be certain that it isn't some page-per-day limit or other error on my part. Fram (talk) 15:35, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Bizarre indeed - I don't have any trouble with them whatsoever. I can't think what the issue might be. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 15:37, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Same problem this morning. The only thing I can imagine is that, despite going through Google.com, they use some public domain definition dependent on my country (Belgium), and somehow they don't believe that the book is available for me yet (or the uploader has given the rights for full view to some countries, but not to others). Google books are sometimes fickle in that regard. Anyway, having thought about it, we should really use the 1889 source instead of the 149 one, because it is more complete and (probably) more accurate, so I'll change the Bryan template to relect this, and will change all articles I have created based on Bryan so far. I'll not touch the ones you wrote, I hope that's allright? Fram (talk) 06:26, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Perfectly. One more thought - here's a plain-text link to the first volume, and here's the second, also plain-text. By any chance might they work for you?

I might also play around with Mr. Spooner's book and see what comes up. (Remarkably, he has an article of his very own. Who knew?) --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 13:48, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

No, they don't work for me either, but thanks anyway. And I believe that everyone who has such an unusual name as Shearjashub Spooner should get an article :-) Fram (talk) 13:53, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more (what is it with American politicians? Seriously?). Maybe I'll work up a template for Dr. Spooner, and transfer some of his content later, too. It makes a change. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 14:08, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

{{Spooner}} - what do you think? There's not a whole lot of stuff that isn't covered by Bryan, but there's enough that this is useful. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 14:39, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Good! We should have as complete as possible coverage of those painters. I have just updated Antoine Ansiaux, and considering where his work is located (or was at the time), it is good that we finally have something on him, even if it is an old text for the time being. Seeing that there are many similar artists missing, every effort and source to cover more is to be lauded. Fram (talk) 14:42, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

There are actually significant numbers of them covered on other Wikipedias, I've found: Albert, Max, and Robert, and Richard Zimmermann; Pieter Quast; Lorenzo Comendich; and Clemens von Zimmermann, to name a few. I'm not familiar with any (my art history degree notwithstanding :-)), but some evidently have some following, still, in their home countries. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 15:10, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

experienced enough

Hello! As you stated that you are experienced enough, you might be interested in this long-term experience. -- Matthead  Discuß   13:39, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that they are the same (but I'm far from convinced that they aren't either). If you have more evidence, perhaps filing an SPI would be more useful, as no admin will block HP-1740B on an unsubstantiated claim alone. I will not take any admin actions against him, having been involved with both HP-1740B and Rex Germanus. I do notice that Dutch people was the last article Rex edited at length, and that he had serious problems with using sources correctly, and some other similarities, so they are certainly similar, but if there's more to this, I don't know. A sockpuppet investigation or an ANI report may help, perhaps. Fram (talk) 13:57, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Dan Maes Page

Fram: Can you please explain to me why the page keeps getting deleted? If the reason was a lack on my part to site the source for the image, please let me correct that. I didn't notice a requirement for that when i uploaded it. Can you restore that page or restore it to my personal site, so i can get it cleaned up? I had put some effort into that, and thought it was pretty clean. Thank you Eckirchn (talk) 17:06, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

The text was a near-straight copy from the campaign website, which is a copyright violation (not allowed on Wikipedia at all), and creates a promotional, non-neutral article as well, which violates WP:NPOV and WP:SPS. Articles should not contain copyrighted text, and should be written in a neutral, objective tone, containng all relevant aspects (positive, neutral and negative), based on reliable, independent sources. The reason for the deletion was the copyright violation of the text, but the other aspects need a lot of work as well. Fram (talk) 06:21, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Bryan/Spooner redux

I took the liberty of mentioning both books over at WP:MEA: here's what I wrote. I thought there might be some people there with an interest in both books; I hope you don't mind. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 21:30, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Argumentum Ad Jimbonian

While your comment was probably meant well....I think that that the reference on Jimbo's page by Camelbinky were correct [[10]]. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 04:13, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

You didn't understand

My comment was in no way a insult to Wales. I approve of what he's doing completely. I was remarking though that moving out of the silent majority opens you to things like ArbCom sanctions. It was a insult toward a behavior of a group of people and not in anyways directed at Wales. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 13:46, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Depending on who you suppose is the "silent majority", your comment could be read both ways, and equally applicable in many ways. Fram (talk) 13:48, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I've actually urged Jimbo to make some way to protect children without ocmplete censorship. In this case while it can mean several things it only means agrement and bagging on Arbcom bungling. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 13:50, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Polish Jura Chain

The word Chain should be deleted from the expression "Polish Jura Chain", because it resulted from wrong translation of the phrase "łańcuch górski" (=mountain range, not chain!!).--Sylwia Ufnalska (talk) 12:20, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Malamanteau

You should not have undeleted that page. Prodego ^talk 20:23, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I did. It was not my creation of a redirect, it was the restoration of an earlier redirect by someone else. Correct attribution is one of the main aspects of our licensing, and should be respected wherever possible. Perhaps you need to reread more than just our blocking policies... Fram (talk) 14:25, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Fram?

Noticed your name and wondered whether it was a hommage to this Norwegian ship. -Nomen Nescio(talk) 11:27, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I think it is from the Dutch word framboos - raspberry. Cuz he's Belgian. 86.89.146.118 (talk) 19:48, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for the info :)--- Nomen Nescio ^{Gnothi seauton}_{contributions} 14:40, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

India – Syria relations

Concerning the above page you deleted I was wondering why this was the case because numerous articels like Brazil–India relations was also a copy of the MEA info (reads like WP:OR). Instead the info could be tagged/removed with calls for more citations. Isn't that a better alternative than taking the page out? Documents by the state are in the public domain too.

I was wondering if there was a copy of the page before it was deleted around? Lihaas (talk) 14:22, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe a copy of the page is still available through Google cache or a Wikipedia mirror. Anyway, articles where are the versions (history) are partly or mostly coptyright violations shouldn't be improved and cnleaned, they are deleted and should be restarted. This also means that a page that is deleted for copyright violation can always be recreated (without the copyright violations) without any problem. Fram (talk) 14:30, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

BerndGalama

I've unblocked BerndGalama. You are absolutely not to block him again without speaking to me. If a user requests an unblock request, saying they want to edit constructively, we assume good faith and give them a second chance. The user informed me he no longer has the password to his old account, and so long as he makes good edits, WP:CLEANSTART applies. I left a note on the talk page of the account he informed me was his old account, User:Mrlob. Prodego ^talk 15:10, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Why did you unblock a sock of an indeffed blocked editor? He has plenty of old accounts, has he forgotten the password to all of them? As I said, you should really, really reread policies before taking any more actions (not only related to this, but any admin actions at all), since you don't even apply WP:CLEANSTART correctly: "A clean start is permitted only if there are no bans, blocks or active sanctions in place against your old account". Fram (talk) 15:17, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

An indef block which I would have removed, if he had still had the password to his old account. So you can consider the old block 'lifted'. Worst case is he gets blocked again, best case he edits constructively. There really is nothing to lose. Prodego ^talk 15:20, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

That's a novel appraoch of cleanstart, unblock the old account (just one of them though, not all of them), and then claim that there are no active blocks... AGF is all very nice, but not when an account has socked and vandalized over and over again. Have you seen our blocking policy: "Except in cases of unambiguous error, administrators should avoid unblocking users without first attempting to contact the blocking administrator and discuss the matter with them." Furthermore, you indicated that he contacted you complaining about the blocks I made. This is not the behaviour of someone wanting to improve their act, that is the behaviour of womeone who just wants to continue stirring up trouble. Fram (talk) 15:32, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Fram I never have been a vandal. I always edited in good faith and on my last account every single edit I made was sourced. All I wanted was to make a fresh new start, and you made that impossible for me. So I contacted someone who was willing to give me what I wanted. And so I am back, and I am here to stay. Deal with it - as long as I do no vandalism I cannot and will not be blocked. The block of my IP, btw, has run out already. Have a good day, BerndGalama (talk) 20:12, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

• FYI: Wikipedia:ANI#User:Fram. –xeno^talk 20:25, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I took it to ANI, Fram. I hope you will accept I am right and you are wrong and apologize to me. Kind regards, BerndGalama (talk) 20:35, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Almost neutral observer:

I have to declare that I have a love of Belgium. I have been to Belgium several times. Some of those times, I was only technically in Belgium because I was only in at the airport in Zaventem.

I must say that I encourage camraderie and cooperation in Wikipedia. "You are absolutely not to block him again without speaking to me." sounds too rude and blunt to me.

On the other hand, administrators should clearly explain the reasons for block on the blocked person's user page. Simply making a declaration that they are a sock is not enough. In the USA in the 1950's, it was common to accuse someone of being a communist and their career was ruined. Under Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge, simply wearing glasses was proof of being pro-Western and reason to be killed. A summary of evidence (not necessarily diff's but a simple explanation) is helpful to all. If this person is considered a sock, then the disruption should be explained. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 20:51, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Beware of Godwin's law. This is not life or death, it's only a website. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:52, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

"Lists of county governors of Norway" name change

There is a discussion on Talk:Lists of county governors of Norway about the name of the article, where you may want to contribute. Lampman (talk) 12:58, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Roamin' Bones

Hello-

I would like to know what can be modified about the Roamin' Bones page in order to restore it. 97.102.250.65 (talk) 23:25, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

It would need to meet WP:N, i.e. you need significant coverage (not passing mentions) in reliable, independent sources (not student newspapers or local papers and the like, not webfora, but solid sourcing). Fram (talk) 06:24, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Alright, well is there a way to retrieve the text from the page? I have no intention of restoring it, but I would like the text for posterity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.80.132.37 (talk) 14:01, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

What next

I would like to ask you... what do I do next? All my accounts are blocked and I wish to contribute. The block of my IP is over now, luckily, but I cannot edit properly from my IP-adress. Will I be allowed, with your approval, to create another account and tell you the name of it so you know about it? Or am I supposed to edit under my IP-adress now? 86.89.146.118 (talk) 11:44, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

You could of course, havingblown numerous chances here over and over again, just not edit here. Or at least stay away for more than a few months, and then come back acknowledging that you were correctly blocked (instead of claiming to never have vandalized and to have been incorrectly blocked, as you did just this week). If you can then also show some months (six or so) of constructive work on another Wikipedia version (or Wikisource, Commons, ...), then that would be a bonus. Considering that you have been blocked here in January, that you were also blocked in that period on the Duthc Wikipedia, and that you were still pleading total innocence the past few days, I don't believe the time is right to let you return (see e.g. the ANI thread you started). I don't think that telling what the account is that you claim has been editing the Dutch Wikipedia would significantly change this refusal, but it can hardly do any harm (I am not an admin at the Dutch Wikipedia, so I can't block you there in any case). I supposse you are nl:Gebruiker:Dr. Magnus, who has again tried to get Donia as a featured article and acts surprised when it is rejected, and who is now retired? Anyway, stay away for six months or more, and then present your case (e.g. with an unblock request at User talk:86.89.146.118) in a fair and complete manner. I will now reblock your IP address, you are free to post an earlier unblock request of course, but I wouldn't expect too much success if I were you. Fram (talk) 12:09, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Beans

I believe that is a known issue, filed in bugzilla somewhere. For obvious reasons, it's best not to talk about it publicly... –xeno^talk 14:04, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Heh, our posts crossed. I'll try to find it in bugzilla, but that's not really my favourite territory. Fram (talk) 14:06, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm having trouble finding it too. Surprised. –xeno^talk 14:08, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Oil

When I see your name in debates about blocking or not, I'm reminded of Fram (oil filter) and their slogan, "Pay now, or pay later." :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I prefer thinking that I'm an incarnation of Fram, meaning Forward, which would give me my own museum :-) I'm glad that you are not one of those editors who take one negative encounter with another editor on Wikipedia as the start of a never-ending vendetta. Fram (talk) 06:23, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Hey, that sounds like a personal attack! I will fight you to the death over it!

Come to think of it, I won't fight you to the death over it. I'm not allowed to do anything to the death. Doctor's orders. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:58, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Gelijkgeaard

Hi Fram,

You wrote "Gelijkgeaard" is "Likeminded", or "similar". "Common" is something different.

Being Dutch I tend to disagree with this translation. 'aard' comes closer to the English word character than to mind. The literal translation of 'gelijk' is equal. Together one probably means similar or close, nearly the same. Hope you get the gist. My €0.02 Patio (talk) 14:28, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, I gave "similar" as one of two possibilities. To get "common", one would neet "gemeenschappelijk" instead of "gelijkgeaard". "Similar" would normally be "gelijkaardig", not "gelijkgeaard". "Of a similar character" is perhaps the best approximation. Fram (talk) 14:35, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

on-and-off e-mail

This provides a clue about receiving spam with no e-mail account. Possibly. Or maybe not, I am losing the will to live following this saga.   pablo_hablo. 23:20, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Non-orphan language articles

Hi Fram,

You recently moved Non-orphan language articles to my user space. Problem is, that negates its effect, which is to prevent the orphan bot from tagging non-orphan articles as orphans. (These articles on very minor languages are linked through their linguistic classification, and that's all that any of them are likely to ever be linked to, unless s.o. creates corresponding articles on ethnicities, which are similarly obscure.)

Ideally, we'd simply tag the articles so that the orphan bot would ignore them, and could delete this faux 'article' altogether. Do you know of any way to do that? — kwami (talk) 20:31, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Can't you create a "real" article, e.g. list of languages, or Index of language articles? These are acceptable. An article specifically made for Wikipedia purposes only is not acceptable though. Are these orphan articles included in the List of languages by name? That may solve the problem as well. Fram (talk) 06:47, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah, that may do it. I'd avoided that list as largely meaningless. — kwami (talk) 08:09, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeh, I don't know it is a useful list, but it is acceptable, which is the only thing we need now. I noticed that at least some of the articles on the orphan page are already included in it. Fram (talk) 08:11, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Laeken move

Hello! It occurred to me today that you are perhaps the only administrator who is familiar with Belgian topics. I would therefore like to ask you to help correct something that's been perpetuated only because of inertia and technical restrictions.

The community reached a consensus on language use in Brussels articles, found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Belgium/Brussels naming conventions. Some time ago, User:Westermarck unilaterally moved Laeken to Laken, and used the scorched-earth tactic of giving it an edit history so nobody could move it back. See here (I tried to fix it; it didn't work). Westermarck has a long history of disruptive editing and unilateral moves; see his contributions and his talk page's history if you're interested in details. At any rate, once we had reached the consensus on naming Brussels-related articles, I put Laken as a requested move, but nobody really participated except Westermarck, who objected to using French names at all, so he just stonewalled the discussion, completely ignoring the consensus.

Could you please move Laken to Laeken? I know you're a Dutch-speaker and the topic is sensitive, but that's why we agreed on reaching a consensus on this sort of issue. It would be great if we could finally get this fixed, and if you have any questions or comments, please let me know. Cheers! Oreo Priest ^talk 19:35, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Moved. It was included (but buried deep inside) the naming survey, and it is pretty obvious that Laeken is by far the most common name in English. Fram (talk) 07:03, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Oreo Priest ^talk 18:14, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

So apparently Westermarck also did the same thing to Royal Castle of Laken. Would you mind fixing it too? Thanks, Oreo Priest ^talk 16:05, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Done. His method of preventing removes is rather disruptive, and Google Books makes it very obvious that not one real book uses the Laken spelling (the two books returned are "books" made by pasting together Wikipedia pages). Fram (talk) 06:27, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Brussels

You have again reverted me at Brussels, removing {{Lang}} templates and removing information from the body of the article. Please fix both matters. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:24, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I had not removed info from the body of the article at all, the sentence you included in brackets in a barely relevant place duplicated info contained (in a better way) in the very next subsection. I have added the ref from the infobox there as well, as that would have been an improvement, instead of removing it from the infobox. I have also readded the invisible languagie indiactors, while keeping the visible ones. We are writing for human Wikipedia readers in the first place, not primarily for search engines, semantic bots, ... If you can combine them without loss of info for the reader, fine. Otherwise, please don't bother. Fram (talk) 12:44, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

InterPals

About an hour ago you made this edit and a corresponding one on the article talk page. The newbie SPA IP editor who made those posts also left a similar one on my user talk page, which I've reverted for the same reasons that you did those. (I've also asked the oversight folks whether they might want to oversight it, so it might disappear before you see it, but if it does, it was essentially similar to the ones you deleted.) I fully agree that they needed to be removed, but I'm concerned that he was making, at least, a credible sockpuppet claim about his antagonist using an IP address and a username. I've looked at the posts and I think that the question of whether the alleged puppeteer was just forgetting to sign in or was attempting to game the system is a pretty close call. Did you look at that issue? If not, would you? I'm concerned that the evidence is not clear enough to start an SPI, but I wonder if it's not at least clear enough to justify a warning. What do you think? Best regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 14:19, 28 May 2010 (UTC) I have also asked oversight for the pages I reverted. As for the actual issue, the page he wants included will soon be deleted through AfD, making most other concerns moot. If he continues, then it may become worthwile to investigate possible socking, but for now it doesn't seem worth the trouble. Fram (talk) 14:22, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Game of Mr Paint and Mrs Correct

Hi Fram. I created the above article and you put a delete tag on it. Where is the best place to discuss the issue? Best wishes, Robinh (talk) 12:32, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I've replied on the talk page of the article, which is the best place for this. Fram (talk) 12:35, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

County governors

Hiya! Just letting you know of a question at Talk:Lists of county governors of Norway#Requested move. Cheers, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 19:42, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Peter Damian here

Correcting a spelling mistake [11]. Please feel free to revert back, and to block this IP. The Burley article needs a lot of work. 86.182.216.133 (talk) 08:20, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

You may have caught another sock ...

... with your Meezu block. See here (I just declined unblock-auto on those grounds). Daniel Case (talk) 16:12, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

AFD for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mixing in the Food Industry

You commented on a similar AFD here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mixing in Consumer Products. ErikHaugen (talk) 18:22, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

History of Logic

I note that you undid the edit by Peter Damian in History of Logic, in accordance with the policy on banned users, however, the edit itself has merit. Would it be alright by you if I restored it? I am not trying to edit on behalf of a banned user here, my only concern is the article, which was messed up by an ignorant, fanatical POV-pusher. I will take full responsibility for the edit. Regards, Athenean (talk) 18:02, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Be bold. ErikHaugen (talk) 18:10, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, people may always redo a change by a banned users if they believe that it is a good edit they want to do themselves. Fram (talk) 06:45, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Rank Names vs rank names vs Rank names

Hi! I see you've renamed Brigadier General to Brigadier general (presumably because WP won't let you rename it to brigadier general). In case you weren't aware, this was, at one time, a fiercely argued topic. (e.g. see talk: rear admiral.)
Once-upon-a-time I would have argued long and hard with you, but now I'm somewhat resigned to the fact. However, the reason I'm here is to point out to that, as far as I'm aware, rear admiral and (now) brigadier general are the only ranks so named, and ALL the other two-word-named-ranks are still "Xxxx Yyyy".
Are you planning to rename ALL of them?
Don't you think it might be a good idea to canvass opinions and discuss the matter first?
I'll be interested to read your reply.
Best wishes, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:58, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I came across the article through an unrelated report on WP:ANI (or WP:AN). I noticed that it was incorrectly capitalized, just like Rear admiral was, long ago. I didn't plan to move all the other ones at the same time (there are some tricky ones, where it is more of a title than a job, like Master of the Horses). Note, by the way, that Brigadier general (United States) has been at that capitalization for a long time yet (since july 2008, and not moved by me), so it's not as if the move was unprecedented. Fram (talk) 14:05, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

"so it's not as if the move was unprecedented" - I wasn't trying to imply that it was - sorry if I was ambiguous.

Never-the-less:

Are you planning to rename ALL of the "non-tricky" ones?

Don't you think it might be a good idea to canvass opinions and discuss the matter first?

I'll be interested to read your reply.

Best wishes, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:58, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I have no fixed plans for the moment. I have noticed a few years ago that many editors of the MilHist project (or at least those that respond to earlier move discussions) seem to be rather entrenched in their nomenclature, even when it conflicts with general Wikipedia rules. But I have also noticed that once an article is moved, most editors don't seem to care one way or another, and the move sticks (as evidenced by e.g. the Brigadier general (United States) example above). So this seems to be a situation where a fait accompli is more useful than starting with a discussion. Just using WP:BRD, basically. Fram (talk) 06:44, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Although it isn't my POV, I find I must agree with your highly pragmatic observations. (I said I would be interested to read your reply!) Many thanks. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 14:23, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Explanation of deletion

Can you please explain why you deleted the article on Josh Hill. It was created using genuine references, pinpointing the sources as per guidelines. All facts and figues were correct and, as far as I can tell, was in no way breaching the terms of this site.

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lord depravus (talk • contribs) 16:21, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

We just had a deletion discussion about this article, resulting in the deletion on June 9 of this page: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joshua Hill (racing driver). To instantly recreate this page, with some primary sources (websites for organisations he races for or with), is not sufficient to ignore this discussion. You can always try your luck at WP:DRV though, or you can create a page in your own userspace, adding all reliable, independent sources you can find, before discussing this again. Fram (talk) 06:22, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Overleg over archaïsche verbuigingen in het Nederland

Hoi Fram,
Enkele collegae hebben in nl:Wikipedia:Taalcafé overlegd over achterhaalde verbuigingen. Zou ook hier (Archaic Dutch declension) verbetering behoeven. Wil je daarbij helpen? Alvast bedankt,
Patio (talk) 15:51, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Trecento

"Trecento painters" means painters from the 14th century. By your intervention we lose the nationality catagorization. --'''Attilios''' (talk) 13:43, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

No, Trecento is specifically about Italy: "The Trecento (Italian for 300, or from "mille trecento," 1300) refers to the 14th century in Italian cultural history." It is made as a parallel to the category Category:Quattrocento painters, which has existed for three years now (and with which I wasn't involved). Furthermore, Trecento painters is a subcategory of Italian painters, so everyone looking for Italian painters wil come across it. But instead of needing to search through 2000 articles, they are now all grouped. Fram (talk) 13:47, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, but I think this is a typical Anglophone deformation, and I seem it doesn't infere immediately "Italian". In Italy "Trecento" means 14th century. Let me know... --'''Attilios''' (talk) 13:50, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Not really a deformation, just an adaptation. When discussing in English (and Dutch, and as far as I know most languages apart from Italian) the Trecento, Ducento, Quattrocento, it is (nearly) always used to mean an artistic period in Italy. No one will discuss the Trecento painters of France or the Quattrocento architecture of Flanders. Fram (talk) 13:57, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Strange. In Italy we say "Trecento" also for France, Flanders etc. Anyway, this is an English encyclopedia, so I live with English errors ;) Joking. Ciao and good work. --'''Attilios''' (talk) 14:11, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

No problem! I understand your concern, but obviously non-Italians knwo better what Italian words mean than Italians do :-) Similarly, what we call "Flemish primitives" in Flanders has become "Early Netherlandish painting" in English. Art history does strange things to people and languages... Fram (talk) 14:14, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

As the writer of Italian Renaissance painting, and the major contributor to Giotto, Fra Angelico, Leonardo, Sistine Chapel ceiling, and Renaissance architecture, I would like to state that I consider it inappropriate to categorize painters by the Italian terms "trecento" etc. Can I remind you that this is an English encyclopedia? While professors and university students of Fine Arts (specifically) may be expected to have the term "trecento" in their vocabulary, no-one else does! The whole idea of categories is to make Wikipedia accessible. Please categorise them under a century. In English. Amandajm (talk) 08:30, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

And yet, we have had the sazme category for the Quattrocento for years, and this is the universally accepted term for this art period, also used in e.g. Template:Art of Italy or Music of the Trecento (not "thirteenth century music of Italy") and the accompanying category Category:Trecento composers. So thisnew category fits perfectly in the existing scheme of categories, both for painters and for the period. We shouldn't be dumbing down Wikipedia. An explanatory note can be added to the category if you think this is necessary though. Fram (talk) 09:15, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Why did you delete my page?

Your such a c*nt —Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgefarr (talk • contribs) 16:18, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Why did you delete this Category:Wikipedia possible inappropriate reviews

This is a list for the flagged revisions trial. People can report if they think a flagged revision was too strict or not strict enough along with diffs. This is not controversial but will let use have the facts when the trial is over in 2 months, rather than just say "I think it worked" or "I think it did not work". Please restore this or let me know why it is disruptive. I'm not going to fight over this, though. Thank you. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 15:17, 25 June 2010 (UTC) I see that you want a noticeboard. Fine with me! It has been created by someone elese. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 22:19, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

It's not that I want a noticeboard, or that I think it is disruptive. It is that you can only add current, active versions of pages to categories. You can not populate a category with diffs, which was what you were planning. This meant that the category would effectively stay empty forever, and so was a speedy deletion candidate. Fram (talk) 06:45, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics and Template:Infobox graphic novel

Hi, Fram.

I've mentioned the above wikiproject and template as well as a whole category of templates at:

• User talk:Moonriddengirl/RfC#Concrete issues redux

which is a sort of workshop for an RfC (or multiple RfCs) concerning the whole issue of colour use, and wikiproject authority. I see you've been heavily involved in this and am letting you know; a few other interested parties, too. Cheers, Jack Merridew 22:37, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Fram. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents.
Message added 08:41, 30 June 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Consensus discussion on source reliability/notability

Hi. I've started a consensus discussion here. Would you please participate? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 02:25, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

/* Nils Rosén von Rosenstein */

At Template talk:Did you know#Nils Rosén von Rosenstein, I have pointed out a couple of things in the article that appear to me to be incorrect, but I don't have access to Blunt and don't know if these are your mistakes or Blunt's. I think you ought to double-check Blunt and any other sources you may have used. --Hegvald (talk) 04:31, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Conversion does not have to be central to someone's notability to be listed

By your logic we would only list birth years, schools attended and many other things if these were "central to a person's notability". Conversion from Judaism is part of a person's notability because it is similar to things like "Americans of Italian descent". As long as the conversion is spoken of in the article it is clearly notable enough to be categorized.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:44, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

The category description disagrees, and I agree with how that category is set up. We don't make categories for everyone that moved from one state to another or one city to another, we don't make categories for everyone who becomes a widower or a widow, we don't categorize tons of verifiable information about people despite it being included in their articles (cat:people without children, peopel with one child, people with two children, ...). When something is true about a person, but not really something they are known for, then it shouldn't be the basis for their categorization, except for a few agreed upon things (living or not, year of birth and death). From WP:CAT: "Categories should be useful for readers to find and navigate sets of related articles. They should be the categories under which readers would most likely look if they were not sure of where to find an article on a given subject. They should be based on essential, "defining" features of article subjects, such as nationality or notable profession (in the case of people) [...]" For those people where I reverted your addition of the cat, their conversion was not an essential, defining feature of the subject, but something that also happened in their life. Wikipedia:Overcategorization is the ruling guideline here. It contains "people should only be categorized by ethnicity or religion if this has significant bearing on their career." Please stop adding religious categories to people where it had no significance in their career (no matter if it was important in their personal life: if it has no significance in their career, it shouldn't be a category. A theologian who converts, or C.S. Lewis, or Muhammad Ali, are obvious people where the cats should be included. In most other cases, it shouldn't. Fram (talk) 06:58, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		Making the connections between Communiqué "Geochange", Global Network for the Forecasting of Earthquakes, Elchin Khalilov, World Organization for Scientific Cooperation Active Banana (talk) 16:17, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

GNFE at AfD

Hi Fram, I'm really pleased to see this article back at AfD, you've made a much stronger case than I did the first time - I guess I thought that it was obvious that it was all self-glorification, but I got outvoted by the SPAs. Cheers, Mikenorton (talk) 17:06, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Another hand in the GNFE circle-jerk

Hi Fram. I wanted to verify for myself your assertion about the circular dependence of notability between GNFE and WOSCO and came across another site by the good 'professor doctor' : IC Geochange. And further, the good 'doctor' is also claiming an affiliation with NATO: http://www.sfp-982167.org/ on which he is hawking his magical earthquake detecting machine in a 60 odd page what looks like sales brochure http://www.sfp-982167.org/Images/broshura.pdf. Mtiffany71 (talk) 23:52, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Nils Rosén von Rosenstein

— Rlevse • Talk • 12:03, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Tiësto

Hi Fram. I note that you accepted this change [12] to Tiësto. I don't know much about Dutch pronunciation, but this change removes the "T" sound at the beginning of his name, so I don't think it's correct. Besides, the same change had previously been rejected by User:deliriousandlost. Is this change in phonetics definitely correct? Thanks, CLW (talk) 13:36, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I am here to ask the same thing: can you please explain why i am wrong. I spent a long time looking into it before rejecting it as i don't speak the language. It looks like the pronunciation is changed to what would be written in English as Hësto. Then there is the significant changes to the pronunciation of his birth name. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 13:46, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

No, I am not claiming that it is definitely correct, however, pending changes is for articles "being checked for vandalism and clear errors": this change was not (obvious) vandalism) not a clear error (Tiësto can possibly be pronounced ti-esto or Tsi-esto or Tjesto or Tsjesto or ...) My accepting the pending change does not endorse this version over the previous one, it only indicates that it is a possibly productive edit, assuming good faith of the editor. You are free to improve, reverse, ... without feeling contradicted by my action. And by the way, the accepted change would not be soemthing like Hësto, but Chesto (with an English ch linke in chip). This is comparable to my "spelling of Tsjesto above. No idea if it is correct, but it is a quite possible pronunciation. Fram (talk) 13:50, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the other changes I accepted, it looks to me as if the change to the "l" in Michiel is an improvement, the change to the "ij" sound is also an improvement, I am unsure whether IPA includes "'" to indicate the stress, but if it does, these changes as well are an improvement... Tiësto I would personally pronounce with IPA "tj", not "ti" or "c", but that's a content dispute that should not be settled by not accepting the changes of one side of the dispute. All in all, I see no reason not to accept these changes. Fram (talk) 14:08, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I did make a typo in writing "Hësto". It should have been "Chesto". Until you approved it i thought it nothing more than sneaky vandalism as i have never once heard it pronounced that way. It may be odd to mention but in slightly archaic English an "ë" was used to mark the second of consecutive vowels (in this case an "e") that are to be pronounced separately - cooperation, co-operation, or coöperation. I happen to be one of the few in the world these days to write coöperation. Looking at the Dutch and Afrikaans IPA, "i" like the English "deep" is how i have heard Tiësto pronounced almost exclusively by others and always by the man himself. Hence the change is odd to me as it seems to be saying he doesn't know how to pronounce his own nickname, which he made up. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 14:59, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea how he pronounces his own nickname, and am not disputing that you are correct there. I based my comments on what I heard on the radio (and TV, didn't he play at the opening of the Olympics?) and how I would transcribe those pronunciations. Considering that his other changes seem to be defendable, I believe that his change to the Tiësto pronunciation is also well intentioned. An article talk page discussion may be the best solution here (and a note on the IP talk page as well perhaps). Fram (talk) 15:04, 26 July 2010 (UTC)