User talk:Fram/Archive 31

Archive 25

←

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

→

Archive 35

Sandbox

Hi Fram, you deleted an article I had in my sandbox for "no explanation of significance". I am confused. The article was not finished yet, I just started to work on it. I thought that is what sandbox is there for... Once you feel your are done, you submit it. Am I wrong? TheDoctorZ (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheDoctorZ (talk • contribs) 06:48, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I only deleted SDS Concept, which was not in your sandbox but in the mainspace. If you mean another page, please list it here, but I can't find a deleted sandbox page you made. Oh, and in the future, please add talk page messages at the bottom of the page, this is the standard approach on Wikipedia. Fram (talk) 06:54, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Ok. Sorry.. My mistake then. Still new to Wikipedia. As you might be able to tell... TheDoctorZ (talk) 06:58, 6 June 2014 (UTC) TheDoctorZ

No problem, we all make mistakes and Wikipedia is often confusing anyway. Fram (talk) 06:59, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Didn't got you

Your revert[1] removed my comment.[2] If it was accident, you can restore, and remove this whole section. If it was not accident, you can explain :) OccultZone (Talk) 15:43, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Was an accident, now restored, thanks! Fram (talk) 17:40, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

The Smurfs

Hi Fram, they pictures are not perfect, but this is best pictures in commons, and original pictures are mít can record to commons because they protect copyright (autor rights). I thing that they pictures are enough quality, so i revert you edits. Thanks for your understand.--Toma646 (talk) 14:24, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Recent RfD actions

I don't necessarily disagree with your nominations; I think advances in search engines have obviated the need for a lot of redirects. But this is coming across to me as something of a crusade against one particular user. Mangoe (talk) 21:42, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 10

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:51, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Redirects for discussion

Sincere thanks for bringing these redirects up at Redirects for Discussion. I may not always agree with you but they are patently well thought out redirects that you have researched and think that they find it harder for people to find things in the encyclopaedia, which in the end is what we are here for (although some other editors have a different view and think Wikipedia is there to boost their own ego instead of to make life better for others – I don't think you are in that camp because I have never heard of you before the last couple of days but patently you have been gnoming around for years).

May I please make one suggestion: mark your posts with Delete if you want the redirect deleted. This is not a point of order, but we are Redirects for discussion not necessarily deletion (unlike AfD, CSD etc) and so unless you explicitly say Delete it might be inferred otherwise (as a retarget, page move or what).

Again, I thank you very much sincerely for your contributions to Wikipedia. Bloody hell I sound like a bot! Doesn't read very sincere does it, but it is sincere, I assure you.

Si Trew (talk) 10:51, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

RF

You and a certain other editor with the initials RF seem to have constant spats. Ignore him. He does the same to me: if you say keep he will say delete and vice versa. He is essentially trolling you and there is no point my joining in: ignore him and he will go somewhere else out of boredom.

THanks for your intelligent and insightful comments at WP:RFD. I shan't always agree with you, but you set your stall out intelligently and honestly. But the more you do, the more he will chase you. He is not a nasty man (I hope) but can't bear to be wrong. Turn your back, believe me. Si Trew (talk) 14:39, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

He has for years introduced many errors in Wikipedia because people largely ignore him. Ignoring him doesn't work. It is not fun to check his edits, but it's the only way to reduce the damage and to show people that their is a rather major problem. But thanks for the kind words! Fram (talk) 14:43, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Repeatedly recreated article Vijender Bora

The article, which you speedily deleted as A7 earlier today, has been recreated again, and nominated for A7 again (it was also speedily deleted as A7 in March of this year). Please delete, and also please consider salting the title... Thomas.W ^talk 14:43, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Fram. You have new messages at Template:Did you know nominations/Hammersley Fork.
Message added 23:11, 13 May 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Jakob (talk) (my editor review) 23:11, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you at RfD

Thank you for your intelligent contributions at RfD. I am just a gnome.

Excuse my typos I do everthing longhand and have no electricity pr gas or water but have inyrtnry internet it is getting dark so i am just touch typing and miss sometimes.

Si Trew (talk) 17:09, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! I hope that your lack of water etc. is only temporary (camping?) and not a permanent situation :-) Fram (talk) 06:20, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 17

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:52, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

typo?

Here, by "threhold", you meant "threshold"? OccultZone (Talk) 07:37, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Obviously. 07:38, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Thomas Pieters

You will remember how you chose to try to discredit me in my editor review so I had a look at your new article Thomas Pieters to see if it lives up to the high standards you demand from others.

• For a start there is an obvious typo in the sentence starting "He qualified to play ...". You seem not to check your work properly, as OccultZone mentions above.
• The worst mistake that I could detect is the factual error in the first sentence. The golfer was not born at Antwerp but at Geel.
• The sentence starting "He studied at the University of Illinois for which he won ..." does not make sense.
• In the infobox there are some vital statistics for height and weight but you put metric units first so that the "convert" templates you use render the imperial units incorrect. I am assuming you got the figures from this site, one of your "External links", because you have not referenced the information.
• The article is inadequately referenced elsewhere. It is too short for DYK but would be rejected there because of the lack of referencing.

Altogether, I was quite pleased to see that you are at least as prone to factual errors and poor quality work as I am. This is your most recent article, according to your contributions page, not one that I picked at "random". What particularly rankled at my editor review was the way you and Cyclopia greeted with such glee the errors you found in the so-called "random" articles of mine that you selected. Stone throwing and greenhouses come to mind. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:47, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

First, what Occultzone is mentioning above, is a typo in a talk page comment. So you're off to a good start there, comparing quality of articles to talk page comments...

Second: According to the official European Golf Tour biography, he was born at Antwerp: [3]. So your worst mistake is in fact information from a highly reliable source. It may be wrong, but then it is their error.

Third; feel free to rephrase. He studied at that University, and competed for them in golfing competitions, some of which he won.

Fourth: yes, that's the source. Can you indicate what is "wrong" with the imperial units? It is the same format as used by other golfing biographies like Robert-Jan Derksen.

Fifth: the article is not meant for DYK. I think that articles which are meant for the main page, and especially the hooks that will appear on the main page, shuold have higher standards, yes. Just like GA's and the like. Oh wait, the articles I reviewed were DYKs and GAs...

So, to reiterate, you haven't found a single factual error in it. Your claim that I am "at least as prone to factual errors" as you are is not supported by your evidence. But I'm quite certain that when you would make a more thorough check of my articles, you will find some errors here or there. Fram (talk) 10:03, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

At the point when I made the above comments, the article had a single source and that states unequivocally "Born Jan 27, 1992 in Geel, Belgium". The source for the statistics stated his height was 6ft 6.25ins not 6ft 5ins. You now appear to be saying that DYKs and GAs should have a higher standard of accuracy than other articles, or to put it the other way round, the accuracy of other articles is less important. Huh! I try to be accurate all the time but I sometimes make mistakes. The point I was trying to make is that we are none of us perfect, you make errors, I make errors, so I don't see why you wanted to go out of your way to be nasty to me at my editor review? Cyclopia apologised afterwards. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:10, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't nasty, your articles were riddled with basic factual errors. As for your conversion: it appears that the source Europeantour is wrong with either the inches or with the centimeters, since 6ft 6.25 is not the same as 1m96. They give two incompatible lengths, and being European, I chose the European ones, not noticing that they are not the same as the (to me less familiar) imperial ones. If the source is wrong (internally contradictory), it is of course a bit harder... Anyway, according to Karl Vannieuwkerke (professional sporting journalist at the Flemish Television), 1m96 is correct[4]. Fram (talk) 11:31, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Stone throwing and greenhouses still come to mind. ;-D Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:48, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

That's "glass houses", not "greenhouses", unless you are thinking about the Simpsons... Fram (talk) 13:30, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Why Tag?

I think you should simply delete it. OccultZone (Talk) 12:04, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I have now removed the speedy tag. A7 doesn't apply to buildings nor to elements of fiction, and this is a fictional bulding... Fram (talk) 12:08, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

There is a Afd now. Anyone who is interested in writing about the subject will probably know. OccultZone (Talk) 12:16, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

DYK

I would be interested to know whether you think the points raised by AfadsBad in this DYK nomination are valid. They seem trivial to me. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:50, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Why would I do the bidding of someone who is "quite pleased" when they mistakenly think they have found errors in my work? Fram (talk) 10:42, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Because you are an admin? Out of your innate kindness? For the good of Wikipedia? After all, AfadsBad is choosing to criticise this and other articles of mine through the mechanism of DYK nominations, and the view of a respected figure like yourself might influence me if I thought the criticisms were justified. As for the "quite pleased" bit, since you heavily criticised my efforts, it was a relief to find your effort was not perfect. At that time, your article was inadequately referenced and the only reference supplied gave a different place of birth. I was, however, pleased that you afterwards improved the article. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:45, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

No, thanks. Fram (talk) 12:47, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

William Henry James Weale

I was, and still am, prepared to let bygones be bygones. However, your negative response to my request stimulated me to turn my attention to another of your recent articles, William Henry James Weale. Failed again I am afraid, maintaining your 100% failure rate. A few errors that I noticed include the page number for #2 being incorrect (page 432 does not exist), there is some original research and various information is attributed to #1 but does not appear in that source. The worst error that I detected concerns the Bruges exhibition of 1902. Some things are mentioned in the lead but do not appear in the body of the article, etc. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:58, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

• • If you can't do better, then please just leave me alone. Page 432 doesn't exist? Well, the reference is not for "page 432", but for "pages=432", i.e. indicating the total number of pages of the source. This is a standard parameter for books, just like "page" is, but different from it. And where did I get the 432 pages number: here. The rest of your comments is, well, utterly unverifiable. If you don't indicate what is supposedly wrong, original research, and so on, then these "errors" will probably remain in the article for ever. Until then, you have corrected one typo (thanks for that), and misinterpreted one parameter. Not really the most impressive retaliation effort. Fram (talk) 14:07, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

So, on which page of the Google book did you find the information you referenced to it? And what about the specific point I made concerning the Bruges exhibition? I'll leave it at that and just hope you will improve the standard of your articles and their referencing in future. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:59, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

The complete "specific point" being "The worst error that I detected concerns the Bruges exhibition of 1902."? Perhaps, now that you have checked your dictionary for glass houses vs. greenhouses, you can also check the meaning of the word "specific" (and of "error"). Is there any "specific" information that you couldn't verify, even when you tried to? Or any "specific" information that was contradicted by the source? Was the exhibition not in Bruges? Or not in 1902? Or not about Early Netherlandish painting? Or what? Because, you know, that's what I did, I tried to find where you got your information from, and checked whether your text matched what was available; and I only called something an error when it really was, you know, an error, not something where I had to use my brain and some effort to find it but which was correct, or at least verifiable. Perhaps you can try to do the same. Otherwise I doubt I'll spend much more time answering your vague complaints. Fram (talk) 19:11, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

• I was thinking of stopping this unproductive discussion, but if you want specifics ...

1. "Weale was already interested in early Flemish art, and could pursue that interest much better in Flanders." - This is your deduction and is not present in the source. Is not that considered to be original research?
2. "Meanwhile, in 1902, he organised the ambitious Exposition des primitifs flamands à Bruges, the largest exposition of works by Early Netherlandish painters up till then, which was groundbreaking and the source of many publications and research." - The only thing the source states about this exhibition is "a catalog for a Bruges exhibition [appeared] the following year." If the information you give in the article is correct, it must come from an uncited source.
3. Stating the number of pages in a book source is a pretty futile exercise. The use of a "p" indicates a single page and the purpose of a citation is to enable the reader to check the original source if they wish. Since you provide a link to the book it should be no problem to provide an accurate page number.

Hope this helps! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:38, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

So, where is this error? Which fact in the article is wrong? Please compare the error reports I made at your editor review (you know, where you asked for yo uredits to be reviewed), where I indicated what was wrong, what would be the correct thing instead, where you could find the correct answer, and where, if possible, you went wrong - with the "error" report you make here; "I can't immediately find it, so it is wrong". You are aware that it is policy that not everything needs to be directly referenced in an article, as long as it is verifiable? I'm reporting errors you made, you are reporting imperfections in sourcing (not in verifiability, in immediate inline sourcing). I am not interested in those.

Lets look at your claim about OR. Part 1: " Weale was already interested in early Flemish art". The source states " After his release, he traveled to Belgium where he settled on his avocation of studying and writing on Flemish art." The only thing missing in the source is "early". The second part of the sentence of supposed OR is ", and could pursue that interest much better in Flanders." The source states "The following year his mother died, leaving an ample enough inheritance to move to Bruges, which was more tolerant of Roman Catholics, and where he could write on early Flemish painting. " So here we get the "early" we needed, and the indication that in Bruges, he could write on the subject. Taking this literally, you can of course write on the subject anywhere in the world. But the clear sprit of the sentence is that you can "better" write on the subject, better study the subject, in Bruges than in e.g. Islington. But if you have a better interpretation of the source, feel free to share it...

Please, only come back if you have a real error to report, the kind where you say "your article says X, but I couldn't find a source for X, and this source says Y instead". I'm more than willing to check these things and correct them where necessary. But so far, nothing factual has been corrected (or needed correction) after your two reports and by now 8 posts here. Fram (talk) 06:46, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

It is apparent to me that you are happy to write poorly referenced articles but expect higher standards from others. Hounding seems to be your hobby, and fresh from victory over Richard Farnborough you decided to attack me at my editor review, and a very thorough job you made of it. As far as I know we had never come across each other before. You seem to enjoy demolishing others and all you were looking for at the editor review was finding my mistakes and reporting them in a very contemptuous manner.

I would say that, even with their lack of accurate sourcing, Wikipedia benefits from Weale and your other articles. So what about the articles I write or expand? Are they of overall benefit to the encyclopedia? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:37, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

It is apparent to me that you don't know the difference between "wrong" and "not sourced for dummies". I'll try to explain it: you write that "Macrotritopus defilippi has been reported from the Atlantic Ocean, including the Caribbean Sea, the Mediterranean Sea, the northern Indian Ocean and the coast of Somalia", but the source you give after that sentence, [5], doesn't include the Caribbean. Does that make this an error? According to the standards you apply here, yes. According to the standards I apply, no, since it is easily verifiable from sources like [6]. So it looks to me as if, contrary to what you claim, you are the one expecting higher standards from others, not I. Fram (talk) 11:09, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

A lot of editors don't know this, but |pages= is not supposed to be used to report the total number of pages in a book. The rule is documented at Template:Cite book#In-source locations: "do not use to indicate the total number of pages in the source". |pages= exists so that you can have "pp. 1–10" (meaning pages, plural, using the old convention) rather than "p. 1–10" (meaning page, singular). If you're citing the entire book for some piece of information, then no page should be indicated at all. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:16, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Fram (talk) 16:51, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Heads up on Jeff Cullen (musician)

You had nominated this fictitious or non-notable subject for deletion in December 2013. I just cleared about a dozen articles of references to this person, mostly added by User:142.136.65.103, in February. The situation probably bears watching. Cheers! bd2412 T 15:28, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, there is some heavy promotion of this artist with an unlikely lack of notability going on... I'll try to check it from time to time. Fram (talk) 17:25, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Pāʻū

Can you move Pa'u riders to Pāʻū riders?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 08:49, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

No problem, done! Fram (talk) 09:01, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. It sucks they can't fix this black list problem. Can you move User:KAVEBEAR/Modern Hawaiian Royals/Mahana Kaahumanu Walters to User:KAVEBEAR/Modern Hawaiian Royals/Mahana Kaʻahumanu Walters?

Yeah, we need the blacklist, but some unintended consequences are rather annoying (mainly for you, an occasional move request at my talk page really isn't a bother :-) ). Move done! Fram (talk) 09:06, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Please unblock User:Chobot.

I've fixed the problem. -- ChongDae (talk) 09:18, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Unblocked, thanks! Fram (talk) 09:33, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Norman Alvis for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Norman Alvis is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Norman Alvis until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. TomStar81 (Talk) 10:13, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Cookie

Providing energy to cyclists everywhere...

Hi. Just to thank you for your swift action in restoring Norman Alvis. Have a good day! RomanSpa (talk) 05:43, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment

Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:47, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank You

		The Teamwork Barnstar
		As one of the editors who helped answer my question(s) at the Teahouse concerning my mistaken csd/afd two step with regards to the article Norman Alvis I hereby present you with this Teamwork Barnstar. Thanks for the help, I can see now both why and how I screwed this matter up so badly, which will hopefully translate into fewer mistakes of this nature down the road. With my sincere thanks, TomStar81 (Talk) 01:26, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Building of the Third Belgrade Gymnasium

Do you know what sing under construction mean?!?--Tvrdjava18 (talk) 15:11, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes. Any reason you create articles without any content, and then leave them alone? Consider using your sandbox in the future. Fram (talk) 20:39, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Hanze Universidade de Ciências Aplicadas, Groningen

Portuguese, actually. :-) —Largo Plazo (talk) 15:23, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I always mix these two, thanks ;-) Fram (talk) 20:39, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Prince Oana

Can you deleted these images already on the commons File:Prince Oana 1932 Zeenut PCL card.jpg and File:Prince Oana 1943 Milwaukee baseball card.jpg? Thanks.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:19, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I tend to stay away from files, I guess they will get deleted eventually. Fram (talk) 20:40, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Potential edit warring

You may want to check My Stealthy Freedom‎, 2 users are edit warring. One of them had used IP for reverting so other editor had asked Magioladitis to protect it and the page caught my attention. Summaries are pretty simple to understand. Both editors have been told not to edit war, but there was no improvement. OccultZone (Talk) 07:27, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I protected it, for two weeks, and of course at the WP:WRONGVERSION. Talk page discussion and WP:DR should help, hopefully. Fram (talk) 07:36, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

In this post, I am requesting a closure of this post. Same discussion was closed by bushranger on WP:ANI, although he hadn't been asked for that. I will say something to crisco, and he will say, it may continue forever. Though it is apparent that discussion is no more on the topic. OccultZone (Talk) 07:25, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

It was closed at ANI because it was no longer relevant for that page. It is very relevant for DYK. You can simply stop responding and let someone else have the last word. You can even announce that intention first if it makes you feel better. While it is good to contribute to a discussion about your actions, there is no obligation to continue doing this when you believe that it is no longer useful. Fram (talk) 07:28, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing your opinion. I have left a warm message, maybe I won't need to reply again, hopefully he will agree. OccultZone (Talk) 07:33, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Requesting input

Hi Fram, I noticed that you're active at the moment. Will you be online for the next few minutes? I'd like your opinion on something, please, Thank you. Acalamari 09:22, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm here to stay :-) Fee lfree to ask, I'll see what I can do. Fram (talk) 09:23, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks very much. Well, for the past few days, there has been a slow-burning edit war that has taken place on Christina Aguilera. Then, in the past few hours, the edit war's intensity had a sudden increase. The editors engaged in the dispute were communicating almost exclusively through edit summaries, although one did use the other's talk page but was reverted.

Anyway, I requested the page for protection but when the reverts continued after I made my request and the editors were way over 3RR, I went ahead and protected the page myself. While I am a neutral party in this particular dispute on the page, I have more edits to Christina Aguilera than anyone else (over 800). I am fully aware that I should not protect pages that I frequently edit, but as I said, I am neutral in this particular dispute, and the continued (and fast-moving) reverts were bothering me and I was concerned that the warring parties would be blocked. I wanted to encourage discussion and that has been achieved.

I would like to know: was I completely out of line and if my contributions to the page were not withstanding, would the protection be appropriate? If you feel that the protection should be lifted, I will accept that and I will have no problem if you or another admin wishes to remove it; if you wish to "take over" the protection from me, I will accept that, too. I admit right now that I was a bit too impatient and should have waited some more for another admin to intervene.

Thanks in advance, regardless of what you choose to do. Acalamari 09:32, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I have taken over the protection to avoid people trying to get it lifted on that technicality. Apart from that, your protection seemed absolutely acceptable to me (I hope you haven't sneakily protected it at a version you supported elsewhere, but I can't find no evidence of that and as far as I know you it would be highly uncharacteristic behaviour anyway). It owuld probably have been better if you had waited, but that technically somewhat involved action is rather unimportant compared to the edit war you stopped, so you'll hear no complaints from me over your action. Fram (talk) 09:37, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your review and input, Fram. My protection was done at that point because the reverts were continuing and that was the version in place at the time; I'm not really bothered about whether a particular image is in the article or not and I don't favor either side, regardless of some complaints that I was purposely shutting one person out. I completely agree that I should definitely have waited some more, but as you said, there is now a discussion (and no one has been blocked).

At the risk of sounding like a ass, your take over protection doesn't appear to have occurred, which means that my protection is still in place.

Again, thank you. I appreciate this. Acalamari 09:55, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, you're right. Apparently one has to change something in the protection to be able to take it over, but no message or error appears otherwise. I have now restarted it for a week for this reason, thanks for letting me know. Fram (talk) 09:59, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, and thanks again for taking the time to review this. Best. Acalamari 10:14, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Protection of dance-pop page

Special:Contributions/120.148.90.195 added "hardbag" many times on dance-pop page with stylistic origins field. Can you please protect? 183.171.168.223 (talk) 10:02, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I have protected the page for 24 hours. This is no endorsement of your version, I have no opinion on whether you are right or not. Please discuss this at Talk:dance-pop. Pleae also check WP:3RR, technically you could have (both) been blocked for that edit war. Fram (talk) 10:05, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Mr. Guye - Overenthusiastic with "Speedy Deletion" Tags?

Hi. You may remember the recent tagging of Norman Alvis with a "speedy deletion" tag. I've just run across the editor in question again: User:Mr. Guye. It looks like he's been tagging numerous other articles with the same tag, and it's fairly clear that he's not really reading the articles or doing any serious checking - he's just tossing "speedy" tags around like magic pixie dust. I've left a comment on his talk page here. Please would you check that I've not been too hard on him, and, since you've already got some experience with this editor, please would you review his recent tagging activities, and take whatever action you feel might be appropriate. Under normal circumstances I'd suggest a disruptive editor would benefit from either formal or informal "adoption", but my intuition is that this might be difficult here. In any case, any input you could give would be much appreciated. Thanks in advance. RomanSpa (talk) 05:51, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye on it, for now let's wait and see how he reacts. But BLP prodding can be done without any research or any care about the notability of the subject. It may not be the nicest thing to do, but it is perfectly acceptable (although I usually just tag the article as an unsourced BLP to give the creator or others more of a chance to source it). Fram (talk) 06:33, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Great. Thanks, and have a good day. RomanSpa (talk) 07:52, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Page moves

Check Special:Log/OccultZone, my recent page moves. I think my list has many pages that would require such page moves. Am I doing it correctly? OccultZone (Talk)

I don't know the naming conventions of individual projects, so I don't know whether e.g. American footballers are normally disambiguated with "fottballer", "American football", or anything else. I'm afraid that I can't give you much advice here. Fram (talk) 13:01, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I shall ask some other admin, thanks anyways. OccultZone (Talk) 13:04, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Boban Šimšić and Nenad Tanasković

Can you userfy both pages and their take page to my space? Boban Šimšić is a war criminal known for massacres during the Kosovo War so it is understandable why information on that page maybe negative. I'll try to NPOV and resolve the issues with the article before moving it back to the main space. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 20:59, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Haven't you asked this before? Anyway, the answer remains no: one is deleted as a BLP violation, the other as a copyright violation; both are reasons not to userfy the pages. Fram (talk) 07:23, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

No, I haven't I've never dealt with you before nor this subject. I generally like to look at prior versions of articles before working on them. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 14:15, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Okay, then it must have been someone else. The answer stays the same, but you had every right to ask of course. Fram (talk) 14:17, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Request

Hello kind sir. If you are not too busy these days, I'd appreciate if you would review Edda Görings article for GA status I nominated. Kind regards. Jonas Vinther (talk) 22:24, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the request, but I'll decline. I have too many things to do, and not enough knowledge of or interest in the subject to do a thorough GA assessment. Fram (talk) 07:22, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Another request

It seems that when you tagged the article Tropaeolum as being in need of GA reassessment, you initiated an "individual reassessment" of whether the article still reaches the GA criteria. As I understand the position, this is different from a "community reassessment" and puts an obligation on you to complete the process. The instructions for GA reassessments are here.

I have dealt with the issues you raised, so please could you revisit the article and see whether you think it now reaches the required criteria. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:14, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I've delisted it, as explained at the talk page. Fram (talk) 07:21, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I agree that the original assessment was deficient. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:04, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Yuandun Famen

You're correct, I had a problem with (a) sourcing the article, (b) too many pages open at once. sources are mainly in Chinese and only one in English. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:57, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't intend to start the article again by the way. It was only a byproduct of others I was working on at the same time.　No time or inclination to revisit it. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:09, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

OK, no problem then! Fram (talk) 20:52, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Translation tags

Do you have any particular opinion about the excessive translation tags like it can be seen on this page. OccultZone (Talk) 05:14, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

*wincing at your sentence construction* If it bothers you why not translate the text and improve the article? Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:24, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

@Spartaz: I think that will be the best idea, to expand from each wikipedia and then remove the tag. OccultZone (Talk) 07:52, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't think such tags are useful, apart from the original language and/or very good articles in other languages, but they don't bother me enough to do anything about them. Fram (talk) 06:37, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Categories

Also look at Jacob Bancks, the categories, don't you think that there are many in amount? OccultZone (Talk) 07:52, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Don't see which ones can be removed... Fram (talk) 06:36, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Hey

i didnt fisnhsed yet for not add character's name Do-won and Dong-joo by --Sunuraju (talk) 11:18, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Christina Aguilera

The article now is no more disputed, so could you please change the protection level of the page? Thanks! Simon (talk) 02:33, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

The protection expires today, we'll see how it goes then! Fram (talk) 06:30, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Input on image decision

Hi you are invited to vote for the image to be used on the LG G2 infobox page at Talk:LG G2. Thanks! GadgetsGuy (talk) 04:04, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Please don't spam random people. Fram (talk) 06:29, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Edward Abnel Keliʻiahonui

Can you help me move Edward Keliʻiahonui to Edward Abnel Keliʻiahonui? Thanks.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 07:29, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Done! Fram (talk) 07:31, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

June 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Exposition des primitifs flamands à Bruges may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• |120 || ''Calvary'' || Unknown, 1500 || Unknown, Bruges, c. 1500 || [[Master of the Bruges Passion Scenes || San Salvator, Bruges || <ref>{{cite web|url=http://explore.
• [[Netherlands Institute for Art History]]|title=De bevrijding van Petrus (Handelingen 12:1-9) (op de binnenzijde: De bekering van Paulus (Handelingen 9:1-7), c. 1522-1530}}</ref> ||

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 09:53, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Ua Mau ke Ea o ka ʻĀina i ka Pono

Could help me move Ua Mau ke Ea o ka 'Āina i ka Pono to Ua Mau ke Ea o ka ʻĀina i ka Pono? Thanks.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 14:47, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Done! Fram (talk) 06:44, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Template sin user space

Hi Fram,

I saw the note you dropped on Montanabw's talk. Although I can see value in keeping templates in template space for maintenance purposes, I am not aware of any policy that prohibits developing templates in user space, nor on using those templates in a limited number of trial articles during that development. Nevertheless, if you would be kind enough to let me know which template you're objecting to being in user space, I'll do my best to brush it up to a usable state and move it into template space as a matter of priority. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 21:09, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

It was actually @JockeyColours: talk page, not mine. Montanabw^(talk) 21:47, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Indeed it was on JockeyColours talk page - my mistake. I see you're talking about User:JockeyColours/123Header, User:JockeyColours/123CollapsibleHeader, User:JockeyColours/123Row, User:JockeyColours/123Footer. They are actually just the redirects left behind when they were moved into template space a couple of weeks ago. I'll do my best to see that they get sorted. --RexxS (talk) 00:49, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Ah, they are redirects? That's less of a worry then. Fram (talk) 06:28, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Pa'u riders.

Could you change that back please. I don't agree as the main contributor to having the page titled in that manner and with no discussion or reason at all. I have to request that when you move articles in the future you have a reason that is more than...someone asked you to do it. No offense and I am not trying to make a deal out of this ( I like you and respect your work) but Kavebear gave no reason and was not the author of that article yet you made the change with no questions asked. There are equally as many references to the spelling without all the extra stuff and had I wanted to title it that way I would have. Thanks.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:13, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

By the way, Kavebear knows how to move articles and so do I, but since you changed it I must ask your permission first (just a respect thing). If you do not wish to make the change but don't mind if I do it, just let me know. If I do not see a response I will take it you are not objecting.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:14, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I will not take any action while you are off Wiki. I will wait until either your respond (you may strongly object) or I am sure you have been back long enough to have seen this post. I am in no particular hurry. I took a little time to decide how best to handle this situation. But I see no reason for Kavebear to be changing the titles by requesting an admin do it. It holds no further weight than anyone else and the editor has an issue with my contributions and I feel this is a further attempt to disrupt my editing of Hawaii Topics by this editor who has began attacking me in an aggressive manner with a battleground mentality.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:16, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I have moved it back. As indicated at the original move, I make these moves in the WP:BRD tradition; if controversial, I'll undo them (and I have no problem with anyone else undoing them either), and then people should start a WP:RM move discussion if they still want to move it. The only reason I did it instead of Kavebear is that the "strange" characters / diacritics in Hawaiian subject titles often trigger an edit filter, making the moves apparently impossible for a non-admin. My help in this is purely technical, and I don't need or expect any reason beyond "can you please move this" in the spirit of WP:AGF, and because Kavebear seems knowledgeable about Hawaiian topics (not meaning that he is the only knowledgeable editor about these things or that he is right, just that his requests so far never were ridiculous or obviously wrong). Fram (talk) 06:27, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining. I understand now why you made the move.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:55, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I was merely changing to title to its correct Hawaiian spelling with kahakos and okinas, one which already exist as a commons category for years, and asking User:Fram since Wikipedia has blacklist such moves recently. If the creator disagrees I will leave it to him. Sorry about getting you involve Fram.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 06:36, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It isn't actually the "correct" Hawaiian spelling. There is no formal correct way to write Hawaiian words. There are accepted methods of spelling but nothing official that I am aware of. The Hawaiian language is an ancient language, but in this case the phrase is not actually Hawaiian, but a mix or Hawaiian and English words. The actual tradition is also a recent tradition formed after the introduction of horses to the newly formed Hawaiian Kingdom under Kamehameha I. After the kingdom was dissolved the tradition died as well but was resurrected in the early 20th century. The earliest written use of the tradition was "Pa'u Rider". Commons and Wikipedia are separate entities.

No need to apologize for involving Fram. The editor/admin is very helpful and they did exactly as explained above. No harm, no foul.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:52, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

No problem, and don't hesitate to ask for further moves (well, if Mark Miller has created them, better discuss it with him first, but in other cases...). It is a small effort to move things (or move them back), and since it is only a technical reason that prevents you from moving them in the first place, I don't think I should get in the way of things. Fram (talk) 06:44, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Stupid book list

Took it to AfD. Dougweller (talk) 09:56, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I was thinking of doing the same. I'll take a look! Fram (talk) 09:58, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Help with a move?

Hello again Fram. I need your help with a move. I noticed just now that our article Music circus is improperly named without the capitalization of "Circus". This is incorrect as this is the proper name of the type of theatre that is involved and, while there are only two still surviving, it is still considered a proper name. Music Circus is a redirect and I cannot move this article to it's proper and accurate name. Could you please consider doing this move for me, unless there is something I am not considering.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:38, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

While I'm not really convinced about this one, I can hardly refuse now :-) It is unclear whether it is a type of circus, or a proper name. Obviously, if someone objects, please just move it back and discuss on the talk page. Fram (talk) 06:25, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Yes, of course if someone objects I will discuss. To help convince you more, what this is, is a form or theatre like Shakespeare in the Park. Music Circus produces Broadway shows (shows that have been on Broadway) under a circus tent and is a proper identifying name of the individual sites across the nation (when there were several locations) such as Lambertville Music Circus or Sacramento Music Circus. Today, Lambertville is gone and the Sacramento site is no longer under a circus tent but a tent shaped permanent building. Thanks!--Mark Miller (talk) 02:39, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Request for revision undeletion of deleted page Southeast Asian Sea

Hello Mr/Ms Fram. Because you deleted the page Southeast Asian Sea with the criteria A10 which is not suitable (this article is a whole new article with many new contents). I would like to request you to undelete the page history so that the primary writer could recover his writings (I agreed with your redirect).

FIY, the wirter is a new one and has no knowledge of Wikipedia policies so please don'tWP:BITE him like that. He stated this is the first time he wrote something for Wikipedia and due your action, he decided to quit. Moreover, he is a history scholar and he could be a great contributor for our project.--Gandalf Tóc Trắng (talk) 03:13, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello Fram. If you found my request not worth to reply, I would ask an other admin for your convenience.--Gandalf Tóc Trắng (talk) 11:48, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi, brand new editor with lots of knowledge of Wikipedia. The article was not a whole new article with lots of new contents, it was a POV fork to promote his or her preferred name for the sea, and nothing else. If you want him to be a great contributor, please educate him on what is acceptable here and what isn't. Wikipedia isn't the place to right great wrongs. I see nothing in the deleted article worth recovering. Fram (talk) 11:51, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Edit conflict: a bit of patience wouldn't do any harm either, I'm just back online since a few minutes and have posted one reply beneath this one, which needed more of my attention. Fram (talk) 11:51, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your replying. Would you mind providing me an copy of deleted article. The author stated that he spend half a day writing this article and I believe him. I would send him that copy so that he could get back his writing.-Gandalf Tóc Trắng (talk) 12:04, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

I am not brand new editor, I am very active in Vietnamese Wikipedia and that is the way I got my knowledge on Wikipedia policies. To be honest, I admire English Wikipedia and often study this community to use in Vietnamese Wikipedia. Many Vietnamese Wikipedia policies were written from English Wikipedia policies. And the writer of Southeast Asian Sea is total newbie and you should have treat him more kindly. By browsing your contribution history, I realized you didn't notify him of your deletion and that is very rude for a newbie, IMO.--Gandalf Tóc Trắng (talk) 12:13, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello, as you totally ignored my request for a copy. I am going to ask for another admin for his/her assistance. I did everything I can to solve the problem between us. Goodbye.--Gandalf Tóc Trắng (talk) 06:33, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Bryan

Hi Fram, I know you have been working diligently on the Bryan list of painters & engravers, and I was trying to find a working list somewhere but couldn't see it. Do you type these in as you read them from the copies of the 5 volumes on archive.org? I noticed they don't have any indexes (bummer). I am asking because Magnus has build his "red links on steroids" project and I was hoping to cross-reference the Bryan project with the other painter projects on his Mix-n-Match page. I of course would like to take the opportunity here to invite you to his matching game, which is kinda fun and prompts one to explore WikiData at the same time. I could offer Magnus the list at Category:Wikipedia articles incorporating text from Bryan's Dictionary of Painters and Engravers, which is already over 1,000 entries, but I noticed you are only at the "G" so if you have the list of redlinks from H-Z I would appreciate it if you posted it under Category:Wikipedia red link lists where I can pick it up. Thanks! Jane (talk) 07:54, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't have a list of entries, I just took name by name (skipping most of the engravers and the one-line painters) and checked whether we already had an article (at that name or another, often I only had to make a redirect). 11:46, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

OK I suspected as much, but it was worth a try to ask! Thanks so much for doing all that work by the way. Many were added this way that have been improved over time, and all of them should probably be added eventually to Wikisource for historiographical reasons I suppose. Filed under "future plans". If you ever come across a list of names from the indexes, pls let me know. Jane (talk) 07:46, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

OK...now in my defense...

I'm an idiot. Yeah...that's my defense. The actual name that article should be titled is Paʻu riders not Pa'u riders. The black list thing appears to be a glich in just moves and not in creation. This is just my forgetting to replace a single character. Now just to clarify, the suggested title with the cultural spelling gets about just over two thousand google hits and the one now gets something like 92,000, but the most accurate one is the one I just suggested and I meant to do (Have I mentioned I am an idiot) gets something like 6,460,000 hits. That would be the most common name. I have, however added the cultural spelling to the article similar to Alii.

And while your at it.....I think it was a mistake not to create Umi-a-Liloa and not ʻUmi-a-Liloa but it has already been created as a redirect. Could you move the article to the redirect page, history and all? I'll give you a nice picture of kittens, chocolate chip cookies or beer, although I could always steal Dennis Brown's bacon pics. ;-)--Mark Miller (talk) 12:54, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

I will contest the Paʻu riders move. If Miller would like to proceed, he should submit a move request on the talk page.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:06, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

OK, will do. That makes the most sense.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:57, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

If you reach a consensus, feel free to contact me to make the move. Fram (talk) 06:37, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Prods

Hi Fram. I've deprodded the Hyndburn Borough Council election articles you prodded. There are hundreds (if not thousands) of articles on elections at this level in the UK (see for example Category:English local elections, 2012). You also noted concerns about total number of votes being higher than registered voters - this is because voters get to cast more than one vote in many UK elections (three or four in some electoral wards in Hyndburn). Cheers, Number 57 10:01, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Number 57: Can you provide me the link? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 10:04, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

What to? Number 57 10:25, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I see no reason why we should have such articles, if we would do the same for the whole world we would have a mountain of statistical articles with little interest outside their neighborhood. It really makes no sense to have 126 articles on local English elections for one year, but this kind of parochialism by editors (and unwanted but resulting Anglo-centrism) is very hard to counter. County elections, OK, but Borough elections? Things like Broxbourne Borough Council election, 2012 shouldn't exist (the article I mean of course). Fram (talk) 10:06, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't have a particularly strong view on the subject (I don't think I've created any of these articles, but have been tidying some up), although I would point out that although county councils are above district councils in the governance hierarchy, the latter are arguably more relevant/visible to residents as they provide more direct services, so their elections are of roughly equal importance to county councils (turnout is roughly the same for both types, which you wouldn't expect if one council was more important than the other). I agree with your comments about "little interest outside their neighborhood", but could apply to a number of topics for which notability is agreed upon (e.g. villages/hamlets).

As far as I'm aware, there is no formal guideline on what level of subnational election is notable - there are also plenty of third-level (i.e. city/borough/district) election articles for American localities. Perhaps a centralised discussion is needed. Number 57 10:25, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I think such a discussion is needed, but I don't have the time or energy at the moment to create it. I'll leave these articles well alone for the time being. Fram (talk) 11:09, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

How to go about editing/cleaning up the Alvarez & Marsal page

Hi, Fram,

I work in the marketing dept. for Alvarez & Marsal New York, and I am tasked with the job of editing/cleaning up this page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvarez_and_Marsal). Since you are one of the editors who reviewed the draft, I figured you might be a good place to start the conversation. I would like to do things properly so as to avoid any COIs that might arise. Any help you could provide would be appreciated. Thanks, Eric EricArthurA&M (talk) 14:40, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for coming here to help out. WP:COI has most of the explanation you need. Basically, there are a few rules you should follow:

Clearly declare your COI / affiliation on your user page, and when you first appear on the talk page of the article (the same way you did here)

Never edit the article directly: always make suggestions at the article talk page and wait for uninvolved editors to review your proposals and edit accordingly

These are usually sufficient, but if you run into problems, we have different methods of dispute resolution and methods to request help from uninvolved editors (e.g. when you post to the talk page and no one responds).

Keep in mind that we are an encyclopedia, and that an article on your company may contain information which is critical or negative. As long as it is reliably sourced (to e.g. newspaper articles) and relevant, there is little you can do to keep it out of the article. Similarly, articles should not contain text that is unduly positive: relevant awards and so on should be listed, but client endorsements or text from press releases is usually not wanted. Fram (talk) 14:56, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

1704 in Spain

Resolved

I had reviewed that page, because it is similar to thousands of other pages that will be updated everytime by those editors who are interested in addressing and learning the history of the nation. But it has been unreviewed by Carriearchdale.[7] Hopefully, I disagree and no rationale has been provided. Thanks and have a look. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 09:59, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Right after 11 minutes of this post, the page was marked as reviewed by the same editor.[8] OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 10:28, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Occultzone, it is best if you don't take too much notice of Cariearchdale's actions. They are not targeted at you, but at me, probably as some kind of misguided revenge against my repeated corrections of her sometimes very problematic edits. Don't hold your breath waiting for an explanation of her actions. Fram (talk) 07:16, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

She has now found someone else with whom to hold an imaginary grudge of her own creation, me. See: [9], [10], and [11]. She has unreviewed 3 articles that I recently created, and gave no rationale for any of it. Daniellagreen ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:43, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Move request

I am requesting the move of two pages that cannot be done without admin help due to special characters. Per a discussion on another page, KAVEBEAR has mentioned in good faith, a number of sources that they claim are from reputable historians using the Hawaiian orthography as follows for the pages they are piped to: Kekauʻōnohi and Kekūanāoʻa. The page titles as they are right now, are assumed to be inaccurate and the proposed spelling is considered to be preferred. Could you please move these pages unless KAVEBEAR has any objections.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:41, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

It appears that KAVEBEAR is uncooperative, even when he, himself brings up these issues. As a result of the lack of AGF I am requesting that no further moves be done at his request and that all further Hawaiian related moves requests be done through the move request page. After the last issue as seen above with Pau riders, the editor made a tactical maneuver with their move request to simply thwart any attempt I might make to suggest a different spelling. I have tried just about everything with this editor, including disengaging, not reporting violations and instead discussing the issues as much as possible, used both honey and vinegar in posts and even offered an actual peace offering. While I received a thank you, I also a continuation or assuming bad faith, further accusations and vitriol. He takes disputes from one page to another, in an attempt to forum shop, attacks my edits at multiple venues at once and cannot refrain from making personal attacks and discussing the contribution and not the contributor. I can't control what you do, so this is not a demand, which would just be stupid. I am simply requesting that consideration be made to the fact that their behavior has become nearly intolerable.--Mark Miller (talk) 19:37, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Fifth Harmony Category

Hi I was wondering If I could create a category page for Fifth Harmony. It said in order to create the page I needed to contact you because you were the admin that previously deleted the page. It was deleted in 2012, though, and now Fifth Harmony has at least 6 separate pages relating to them. Would a category page be okay?Divine618 (talk) 22:00, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I only deleted it back then because it was empty (which isn't allowed for cats). As it now has an article (and apparently more to come), I have restored it. Thanks! Fram (talk) 07:18, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank you for all of your hard work on Wikipedia, and for being there for me in regard to a recent situation about which I informed you, Daniellagreen (talk) (cont) 03:22, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

August 2014

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

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• |concern = Unsourced, which makes this a BLP violation (I checked one article, and it didn't contain the wealth of the actor, so this is not sourced at the

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 10:28, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Invitation to review

Hello Fram, I hope you are well. As I greatly respect your opinion and your voluminous work here, I am inviting you to review Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tintin in Tibet/archive1. I know you mostly as the editor who once had time to be one of the principle editors of the Tintin articles, back in the earlier days of Wikipedia, long before you were needed on more important projects. Sometimes I feel like I have taken over the work you began. Anyway, this will be my first Featured Article. If you are able to provide your thoughts, I thank-you. Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 22:49, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Prhartcom, thanks for your nice comments, and for your hard work on Tintin articles. I mainly worked on the articles on Hergé and Petit Vingtième, not so much on the books. As you may have noticed, I haven't edited for nearly two weeks, so I wasn't able to review Tibet or reply to you here. I see that you have had two reviewers and generally good reviews, so I trust that this article as well will become a FA soon. Brilliant job! Fram (talk) 07:01, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

And I believe I remember seeing that you also played a role in the decision-making of "which Tintin subject (i.e. character) should be an article" and which should not, and other important "adult" structuring decisions (steadfastly opposing those who were "less adult"). Thank-you for that, thank-you for the compliment above, and hopefully you are right, that Tintin in Tibet will be promoted someday. If you feel like adding a single line of your Support to the FAC page link above, that would be great. Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 14:39, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Les Mis and copyright issues

I know nothing about copyright issues and honestly am more than happy about that. But I know it is a serious issue and one that needs vigilant and informed individuals watching over it. I also know that Les Mis is fiction and that certain editors with issues that have necessitated being taken to Arbcom are not remotely Jean Valjean.

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		For your tireless and often regrettably thankless efforts in ensuring that wikipedia avoids copyright problems which could potentially make it the copyright violation site shut down for legal violations. Unfortunately doing the right thing isn't always as popular as it should be. John Carter (talk) 18:32, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! Fram (talk) 19:44, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Royal Castle of Laeken

In Belgium eveybodys only knows the Castle of Laken, there is only one Royal palace in Belgium! We don't speak of Windsor Palace, right? 62.205.64.178 (talk) 03:24, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

What matters is how it is usually called in English sources, not how it is known in Belgium. 06:23, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh that is realy kind to know that the English will teach us how our national heritage should be named! you must be a doctor! congrats.62.205.86.52 (talk) 10:15, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

No, we are not teaching anything, we just show what reliable sources do. We summarize, we don't invent, research, or correct. If all reliable sources in English would call it the Palace of Schaarbeek, then that would be the name of our article. Considering that even Belgian sites use our name or a variation of it, e.g. Visitbrussels.be, and that the same is even used in Dutch on Belgie-toerisme.be and French, I don't think that your sarcasm is really warranted. Fram (talk) 10:24, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Srđan Grahovac

Since your edit to this article was automated, I have to ask, did you intend to remove the speedy deletion tag, and if so, why did you think it was necessary? Thanks. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:31, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Sir Sputnik: Nonetheless, I have removed the tag and added 2 sources to the article. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 16:52, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

It was intended, but without good edit summary, you could of course not know why I did it. Since the previous AfD, he had joined Rapid Wien, which was a new claim to notability and made the article (to me) not G4 speedyable. Not having played yet for Rapid Wien still made him eligible for AfD (again), but I on't think that someone who is deleted for only having competed in the Bosnian competition can be automatically redeleted once he has joined a somewhat higher rated competition (not one of the top competitions like England or Germany, but still). Fram (talk) 06:22, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

This AfD was interesting, he has played in 1 fully professional league now, so article is not going to be deleted. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 04:49, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Hah, sheer luck for me that he played during the AfD! But the rason for declining the G4 turns out to be correct and relevant, so I'm glad ;-) Fram (talk) 06:32, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Grotta Campana, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page George Dennis. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:55, 27 August 2014 (UTC)