User talk:Fram/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Hello Again

Fair enough, but do you not think that they should be ducumented as part of the history of the genre? Would it be better if they were merged with the root article rather than deleted? Deltion is a bit too harsh, really. I think I am trying to be reasonable here. When I found the article, all it had was the list, and I put it up for GA status, and one of the criteria meted out was to place the list within its own article. I did this in good faith, so if you agree that it should be merged, then do the honours (I'm not particularly good at that sort of thing!). I'll delete the canvassing section from that post, and apologise for being 'uncivil.' However, I still believe that deletion is excessive due to the fact that the Oxford Encyclopedia of Railway History has tables of such info. I also understand that in having a vested interest in the topic, I may have tunnel vision in seeing it through to its conclusion, but I would probably say the same thing as an observer, as all articles are there for a reason. Also, some of the locos had been preserves, and it is better to list them than have extremely short articles documenting their individual histories. Anyhow, cheers.--Bulleid Pacific 14:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I am not accusing you of bad faith, creating an article for something you are interested in is not a form of vandalism or objectionable behaviour, even when I think the article should be deleted. And I have no problem with a short section listing the locomotives that have been preserved if there are ten or less (arbitrary number, but you get my drift). Take a look at GWR 2800 Class: this is (for me) a perfectly acceptable method of listing the surviving examples of this loco. Expanding this list to include all demolished ones though, would seem to me rather pointless. This one, GWR 1076 Class, on the other hand, is a pointless disaster. I hope that my objections and the difference of interest such an articles may have for most readers is clear: I'm not a trainspotter, but the first article is a nice read, while the second is, well, utterly boring. Oh, and apologies of course accepted, it is easy to become a bit heated when an article you care about is handled rather rough. Fram 14:34, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I have just read your reply on the article's talk page, and it was just a bit too sarcastic for my liking. Anyhow, I have put an entire clarification of my stance on the matter. I AM NOT trying to be insulting to you, but I do feel that I have to defend my reasons in a succinct way. I can't help being an enthusiast who wants the reader to see the variety in terms of locomotive names. I was not alive when steam engines roamed the network, the Southern examples disappeared two decades before I was born. But it was through names of locomotives that I learned where geographical places were, eg. Scafell Pike, and that my interest in locomotives flourished. Before my interest in locomotives, I never knew there were countries called Rhodesia, Siam, and places called Alberta. The numbers I can understand, as they were just numbers, and these reflected the workhorse nature of these locomotives (the 28xx class was a heavy freight locomotive). But named locomotives; they were the pride of their respective operating companies in a steam context, and this pride comes through in the names more than an article on class background can express. I hope you don't judge me too harshly on the parting comment I made on that reply, but I was only inferring what came through in your typing, that of impassioned debate. I believe that we'll just have to agree to disagree on this issue. But it still would not be prudent to delete the articles in question, as one man's muck is another man's treasure. I think this is the moral of this story. Anyway, thank-you.--Bulleid Pacific 15:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Locomotive names re: WP:NOT

So there are other people who are not happy with your attempts to clean up wikipedia. Also, I believe that you reference to "Trainspotters memorial" is rather insulting to that section of the Wikipedia community. Wikipedia is for all people regardless of interests, and I do honestly believe that wontonly nominating articles for deletion WITHOUT discussing reasons in the article's talk page PRIOR to nomination for deletion is tantamount to VANDALISM. You seem to be a bit too hasty in wanting to delete articles that do have every right to exist. --Bulleid Pacific 13:34, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

St. Mark's Church, Burlington

You recently tagged the article on St. Mark's Church, Burlington as lacking notability. Please read the discussion page for this article. I have stated that I know the article is small right now, and that is why I marked it as being a stub. I will soon expand the article, so please don't "prod" it, at least for now. --ThefirstM 23:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Recent card game articles re: WP:NOT

Pardon me, but I think you may be going a little overboard in your attempt to clean up the articles on card games. Strategy is certainly outside the scope of an encyclopedia, but it doesn't seem to me that the basic rules of a game is unencyclopedic, particularly if the card game itself has been determined to be encyclopedically notable. Rules are practically all there is to a card game, after all. -Toptomcat 12:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

If rules are all that there is to a card game, then that article should be deleted. "Rules" are basically a game guide or a how-to (WP:NOT). The articles should describe the history of the game, the impact, etcetera, but not how to play. I may have goen a bit too far on some articles perhaps, but then again, many articles contained nothing but gameplay and could just as easily have been proposed for deletion. Stubbing them seems like a good compromise between those two options (see e.g. [1], [2], or [3])? Particularly the last one is what I intended to do: leave a very basic description, and drop all the rest. If I have erred too far in the other direction, omitting even the basic description, you are free to either indicate to me which articles you think I've shortened too much, or you can always readd those parts you think are necessary yourself. I'm not planning to start a revert war over these articles, but I hope you agree that many of them were quite blatant violations of WP:NOT. Fram 12:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

"Rules" are not a how-to guide. They are the description of the game. If you think that the details of rules do not belong to Wikipedia, that's fine, but then you should replace the long rules text with a summary rather than delete the entire text.Punainen Nörtti 12:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOT: Wikipedia is not for instruction manuals. What are rules if not instruction manuals? Anyway, do you think that what I left of e.g. Jackball: "Jackball is a drinking game that involves the throwing of a small ball (about the size of a tennis ball) among a circle of players. If a player drops the ball or throws what is deemed a poor throw, said player must drink from a bottle of hard liquor. When the bottle is finnished, the game is considered over, however, games with multiple bottles can be played." is a good summary, or do you expect something more elaborate? Or to take a different example, which you certainly can relate to: why would we keep anything but the introduction, the infobox and the references from the article Marjapussi? All the rest is an instruction manual / how-to guide / whatever you want to call it, and a clear violation of WP:NOT. Fram 12:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, please stop. This blanking of content is not good, since it's really just your opinion and all of these blankings are very debatable. In my opinion a lot of this stuff looks relatively encyclopedic. Blanking it en masse is a bad idea. --W.marsh 12:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Could you explain how the infomation you put back into this article is not a big violation of WP:NOTfor instruction manuals? Examples: "If a jack is played, followed by a seven then it may be slapped." "The way that you can do this is whenever you pick up the cards after a win pause and look at the card below the joker (unsuspectingly and brief of course). If you weren't the one who won the hand then try to sneak a peek at the card below the joker before the other player places their cards at the bottom of their deck." In fact, pick whichever of the unsourced statements you want and explain to me how this is not part of an instruction manual / game guide, because I don't see it.Fram 13:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC) +

The rules of a card game are not an how-to-guide nor manual. Without the rules the game is not definable. Also the "Instruction manuals." clause of WP:NOT is only applicable when an article is simply only containing that data. Not when it has some stratedgy mentioned that is sourced as notable in the part of a wider article.--Dacium 12:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

What is the difference between "rules" and "instruction manual"? The "rules" are the "instruction manual" of the game, plain and simple. And your interpretation of WP:NOT is not consistent with its text: from WP:NOT an instruction manual: "Wikipedia articles should not include"... It doesn't say "Wikipedia articles should not solely exist of...". I have removed everything that according to WP:NOT (an official policy) should not be included in Wikipedia articles. Fram 13:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

It is unrealistic to expect an article to be able to describe a game without giving its rules. Likewise the rules cannot often be given when out showing how to play the game. If you are intending to make such widespread, deep and controversial cuts, you should discuss it in depth on ALL of the talk pages and categories/community/group pages/projects instead of just deleting huge chucks of many many articles--Dacium 13:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Fram, even if your interpretation of WP:NOT is correct - and I don't believe it is - it would have been better to use common sense and realise that removing most of the content of a large number articles would be controversial and worthy of discussion first. -- Chuq 12:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I hadn't thought following policy would be this controversial among established editors, but since it apparently is, I'll cease for now. Do you have a good suggestion where to discuss this? And could you explain why you think my interpretation of the policy is incorrect? Fram 13:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The WP:NOT guidelines only refer to video game guides, presumably to discourage rambling POV/unsourced strategy guides about how to beat each mission or level, in a way that isn't applicable to board and card games. A game's rules are not a suggestive "guide" as to how to play it effectively, they are concrete rules. Nor are they any sort of "tutorial" process. --McGeddon 12:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

No, WP:NOT is not only about viudeo game guides, it is about all kinds of instruction manuals, and "this includes ... video game guides". It does not exclude other kinds of game guides, but specifically includes one example. Please look at the article Jackball, where my edit was reverted by W.marsh: how is this not a tutorial / instruction manual. An instruction manual of a DVD player tells you what to do first, how to install the player, and which buttons to push for what result and in what order. The rules of a game tell you what preparations you need, what to do, and how to react when something happens. Where is the difference? What we need in these articles is the history of the game, reviews of it, championships, controversies, anything, but not a how-to guide. Fram 13:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

An instruction manual is a manual of instructions. The rules of a game can be written as instructions, which is bad for an encyclopaedia, but they can also be written as a neutral description of how the game is played. If there's an article that gives the rules of the game in an instructional form, then I'd agree that it should be corrected, but you should do this by adding Template:Howto, or making some effort to rewrite the rules yourself, rather than simply deleting months of other people's work.

Note that the Chess article contains the rules of the game, and is a featured article. --McGeddon 13:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Rules describe the game, that is, if someone asks "what the game is like", you'd probably answer by giving an outline of the rules.

Let's take Marjapussi, for example. There's quite a lot of information on the game that's clearly encyclopedic. First, it is a trick-taking game, in particular a point-trick game where the points in the tricks count rather than the number of tricks. Second, that it is a game of the European ace-ten group, where ten ranks above the king. Third, that it is a game where one must beat the high card (trick-taking games come in two varieties: In some games you are required to do that, in other you are not required to do that.). This is the taxonomy of the game.

Then, there is info on those things that make Marjapussi different from other games of the same type, namely the trump-determining process. Unlike other similar games, in Marjapussi the trumps are determined in the middle of play by declaring a marriage rather than in advance, and most of the score are earned by declaring marriages rather than by winning tricks.

Then, the different varieties of marjapussi. There are two different varieties, marjapussi, the basic game (which is also played in Sweden) and Huutopussi, which involves bidding. In marjapussi one must get exactly a certain amount of points which gives the game occasionally a misere flavour, whereas in Huutopussi points are always a good thing.

A good article must contain the above-mentioned into about a card game: (1) to which group the game belongs to, (2) how it differs from it peers, (3) what varieties there are and how they differ from each other. One way to convey this information is to give the rules of the game (plus a couple of variants). There exists other ways to convey the same information, for example the description I gave above. I ask you not to remove the rules text unless you replace it with another kind of a text that conveys information on (1)-(3).Punainen Nörtti 13:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

And I ask you not to create articles which are just an instruction manual, and instead create articles that describe the taxonomy of games and compare them, preferably based on sources comparing them already (otherwise we get close to WP:OR territory). What is the point (in an encyclopedia) of having all those variations of Circle of Death (drinking game) (as now reverted by Dacium)? Do all of you seriously think that the version now restored is superior to this one [4], or do you just prefer it because it is longer? That article, like most of those I stubbed, is an ugly, unsourced, unencyclopedic information dump which we should be ashamed of instead of blindly reverting it. It violates WP:NOT and WP:V simultaneously. Fram 13:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

If you want to nominate for deletion for WP:V (as many of those drinking games at least should be) then fine. But you must understand that the community, as is seen here, does not agree with your interpretation of WP:NOT.--Dacium 13:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I've just deleted the variants under WP:NFT. This has nothing to do with the argument of whether the core rules of a game have a place in Wikipedia. --McGeddon 13:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The given examples of the 'game guide' clause are 'tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals,', and 'video game guides'. This suggests that the idea is to prevent 'how-to do well' guides, not neccesarily all 'how-to' guides. -Toptomcat 13:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

But it seems I'm not the only one confusing "rules" and "how-to guides", as can be seen in e.g. War (card game). The set of rules says how to play the game, the set of rules is the instruction manual of the game. What is wrong with this interpretation?Fram 13:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I am not a wikipedia lawyer, but my mostly-common sense tells me that only such how-to guides should be banned that do not have encyclopedic value beyond being how-to guides (or which use the unencyclopedic you should-language). The rules of card games have encyclopedic value beyond being how-to guides, namely they describe and define the game in question.Punainen Nörtti 15:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I've started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not about this problem. Fram 14:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Selective revision deletion

Actually, in cases like that, it is possible to selectively delete revisions. Just delete the page with a summary like "Temporary page deletion, page will be undeleted momentarily", and then use the revision checkboxes to selectively restore without the ones that need to go. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 13:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. I didn't know that and preferred not taking any action and giving "safe" advice instead of potentially messing things up. I'll delete / selectively restore such edits in the future when needed. Fram 13:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Civil Allegiance

Hi. You placed a NPOV tag on the above article (replacing another template I am unfamiliar with) but gave no reasons for it other than the edit summary. I have opened a discussion on the article talkpage if you with to comment. LessHeard vanU 16:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Seitou Ryu Karate Article

The topic regarding the above mentioned deleted article was archived here /Archive 4. I wanted to point out that Obtree has nothing to do with the article so I don't know why it was being discussed. It looks like on the archived discussion someone was asking a similar question but it referred to a different article that was not Seitou Ryu Karate. Maybe someone got the wrong idea. If you look at the article itself you'll see no mention of Obtree whatsoever. With that in mind, can the article be reinstated please? The club was discussed on a few martial arts internet chat forums and I can either provide links to the sites or just omit that section of the article, whichever is preferred. Please let me know. Thanks. RichardGregory 16:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Someone just added a question about Obtree beneath your section, it is indeed unrelated. But my answer to you stays the same. It was deleted because it did not assert notability (per WP:NOTE or if you prefer WP:CORP). It has been discussed on several Internet fora, but it doees not claim to have been the subject of multiple independent reliable sources (for a definition of reliable sources, see WP:ATT). Please do also read WP:COI: creating or editing a page about a subject you have a personal interest in, like in this case, is in general not a good idea. Fram 05:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up. Those information links still confuse the heck out of me, just too much jargon for me to handle. So what do I need to do to have my article reinstated? I'll delete the section about the internet forums as that seems to be the main issue, unless I've missed something else? I cannot see any other reason why the article cannot be reinstated. There are other karate club/styles articles on Wikipedia that have had no problems with remaining online such as GKR, Kenshukai, Goju Ryu, Shotokan, etc so not allowing the Seitou Ryu to be there just seems a bit harsh. RichardGregory 23:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, Wikipedia can be a harsh environment, and doesn't work by precedent. I have proposed one of the other articles you mentioned for deletion as non notable, but the other ones seem more important and historically significant than Seitou Ryu. However, the best way to proceed may be to recreate the article in the most neutral way you can, and with as much sources as you can find (newspaper and magazine articles and so on). I have no power over what other editors will do (so it may be speedy deleted anyway), but if I see it, I'll judge it seriously, and will either leave it alone or nominate it for a thorough deletion discussion (WP:AFD, so that you can see what a larger number of editors think about it, and join the discussion to defend the article (such discussions last for five days before a decision is taken by another administrator). Fram 05:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Ontoclean deleted

Dear Fram, You have deleted an article on Ontoclean. Despite not "asserting notability", the definition would be useful for many... I beg apologies if i am not using the correct space to "complain". Best regards, Renato —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.150.49.110 (talk) 14:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC).

Usefullness is not a reason to keep (or delete) an article on Wikipedia. When deciding whether a concept like OntoClean is a suitable subject for Wikipedia, we look at the sources provided in the article, establishing notability. To be suitable for Wikipedia, every article should have reliable, independent sources (so not the homepage, articles written by the inventors, ...). If such sources are available (and given in the article), then of course it is good practice to also give the original sources and if needed to add information found in these primary sources. The article on OntoClean however only had a link to the website (i.e. not an independent source). An editor noted that he didn't think the concept was notable enough for Wikipedia, and when after five days, no one had argued otherwise, I deleted it. You are free to recreate the article (or if you want me to, I can recreate the last version for you), but please add some sources indicating that the concept is indeed used by scholars other than the authors, or that it is widely discussed at least. Fram 14:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Navdeep Singh

So do you feel the article is on someone notable enough ? Haphar 10:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, it is at least notable enough (or claimed to be notable enough) not to be speedied. I can't judge the worth of the sources (they seem to be genuine newspaper articles, even if they are based on press releases (well, that's what press releases are for after all). If you have doubts about it, you can always take it to WP:AfD. But this is a sourced article making claims about a person being a recipient of multiple awards, so I don't see how we can speedy delete it zs "no assertion of notability". Fram 11:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Well since you did weigh in on removing the speedy delete tag, if you could devote a little more effort to the article it would help- Here is why in my opinion it does count for a delete :-

1.Nothing links to the page-

2.Here are the google searches on the person and his book

Nothing regarding the author.| Captain Navdeep Singh - No return matching the person

Know Your Rights

- 1 return And here are the notability guidelines related to this person. In general: A credible independent biography. The person has received significant recognized awards or honors. Wide name recognition The person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field.4 Multiple features in credible news media.4 Commercial endorsements of notable product

Creative professionals: scientists, academics, economists, professors, authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, engineers, and other creative professionals. The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique. The person has created a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, which has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. The person's work either (a) has been displayed in a significant exhibition or as a monument (b) has won significant critical attention, or (c) is represented within the permanent collection of a significant gallery or museum of more than local significance.

3. The only criteria applicable is significant recognized awards or honors. And apart from one award, ( The Army Commander's Commendation Medal) whose significance is not clarified, there are just mentions of "most awarded" without details of awards, and no independent confirmation of "press release" like reportage of award/most award in what are local newspaper editions.

The "Army Commander's commendation medal is of unknown vintage/ importance / Goolge search on Army Commander's commendation medal It does not find a mention in Wikipedia category Military awards and decorations in India

There are 6 Army Commanders in the Indian Army and god knows how many commendation medals they give out each year. That is the only medal which has got a mention here and then claims are made as to this person being the "most awarded" person in the Indian Army !-!A volunteer is the most awarded person in the Indian military !

So even if you do not agree with the speedy delete, please do wiegh in if this does qualify for deletion or not. Haphar 14:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I think a good case can be made for deletion of this article, but I wouldn'tv be surprised if you get a lot of opposition. Our standards are open for interpretation, and many people interpret them in a less restrictive way, and will possibly consider the newspaper articles given as sufficient to keep the article (after removing all the unsourced info). It could go either way, and I will not oppose deletion on an AfD (if no better sources turn up, who knows what is written about him in other languages perhaps?). Fram 14:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Can you access the links referred to here ? [5].I cannot and I wanted to know if these links help establish that the award is credible. Haphar 15:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I can see the websites, and the first one gives a list of names recommended in 2005, and Navdeep Singh is one of them (one of many, but then again the Indian army is very large so this still seems to be a true distinction, though perhaps not one that gets that much press coverage beyond the local newspaper). Fram 19:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks a lot for your support in my recent RfA, I have been promoted. J Milburn 16:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

TROUT

I meant Kelly's request, actually. It seems as arbitrary as the next standard. I'm sure you've seen User:Cyde/Admin criteria? >Radiant< 09:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Hadn't seen that one yet, but it is sadly realistic. I'm glad most of these proposals (like the one now on the RfA talk page) pass away queitly, as I would never have become an admin (just like many other admins, it seems) with such "rules". It looks like those arguing that RfA should be reformed because adminship is no big deal are actually making it even harder to become one... I should support more people and nominate someone, someday! Fram 09:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Gypsy Woman (Hilary Duff song)

I noticed that you speedy deleted Gypsy Woman (Hilary Duff song) under WP:CSD#A7, and I was wondering if you could undelete it. The article did assert the notability of the song outside the album, with citations to sources such as USA Today...until Tcatron565 (talk · contribs) blanked the article and put a speedy deletion template on it. Before speedily deleting articles, please remember to check the edit histories. Also, WP:CSD#A7 refers to "Unremarkable people, groups, companies and web content" - it doesn't say anything about records; if it was an article about a record by an "unremarkable person", I'd understand, but Hilary Duff is notable. Thanks! Extraordinary Machine 19:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

You are right, I didn't check the history and considered it "just a song", and album tracks by notable artists are generally considered not notable (hence the interpretation of A7). Your version did clearly assert notability: perhaps it is better merged anyway, but a speedy delete was wrong. I have restored the article and then put your last version again as the good one instead of the redirect. My apologies for this, and thanks for the civil explanation. Fram 19:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for undeleting it. I also initially thought the song didn't need its own article, but the main album article has been growing quite a lot recently and creating new articles for the two notable non-single tracks was a better way (IMO) of organising the information. Thanks again! Extraordinary Machine 20:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Jim's Big Ego

Can you possibly undelete Jim's Big Ego? I put the speedy on there because it looked like a rampant non-notable puff piece, but after checking the history it looks like it was vandalism. Sorry about this, I'll remove the vandalism if you can undelete. --Bongwarrior 20:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I just noticed the same and had undeleted it before I saw your post :-) Fram 20:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Good work, thanks, sorry about the mixup. --Bongwarrior 20:46, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

No worries, it fooled me too at first, and you were swift in correcting it as well. Thanks for tagging articles for speedy, it's one of those jobs we have to do! 20:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Jim's Big Ego

Hi, you deleted and undeleted Jim's Big Ego (see logs). Could you undelete Talk:Jim's Big Ego as well (see log)? Thanks! Errabee 12:48, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Done!

Hillside Drive Deletion

I would just like to know why you have deleted my article. I'm trying to get the word out about my friends' band and I just started the article last night and was planning on adding more to the artice in the coming days. I just hope that you will be able to restore the article back to its original form.

Thanks, Jzegarski12 12:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

[Hillside Drive Deletion 2]

Im not looking to promote the band in any way. They have grown largely in my area in past months, and I figured what a better way than to create a wikipedia article about them in order for the people and fans to learn the facts and such about the band. I did not intend to try to promote the band on Wikipedia, I just wanted a page where people can learn more about Hillside Drive.

Hopefully you can undelete the article. Thanks, Jzegarski12 12:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

First off, the band's website is currently under construction and is in it's early stages. They're fan base has been completely underground and has not had hardly any internet exposure. When fans are looking for info, they cannot find any, and this is why I have made this article. Second, the image on the site was an original cover for the bands first single, "Countdown". It was made by a close friend of the band, and I can assure that there is no copyright infringment invovled. If you could please undelete the article, it would be greatly appreciated. I will continue to work finding more notarity in the meantime.

I hope it can be undeleted, thanks. Jzegarski12 13:44, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Anniversaries

Congrats on seeing that huge job to the finish, well done! Now for [Year] in comics?  ;) MURGH ^disc. 22:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

One thing, on Portal:Comics/Anniversaries/January/January 1, Juanjo Guarnido's DOB is listed (pretty sure I put it there based on the Bedetheque source, but later suspect this site shows Jan 1 as a default whenever they don't have a specific date. (an indication [6]) so I think I should remove them. MURGH ^disc. 10:14, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

No problem, if there are any you think are wrong or uncertain, it's better to remove them. certainly for January 1, we have enough anyway :-) Fram 20:35, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Reprod

Good call. Must've been half asleep. Can you provide any sources, before I waste time taking this to afd? --Dweller 13:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I award thee...

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For the extraordinary work put into the creation of the Anniversaries page. Zuracech lordum 16:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

		The Half Barnstar
		For the commendable cooperation that you have demonstrated alongside Murgh. Zuracech lordum 16:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Abie the Agent

On 27 April, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Abie the Agent, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--howcheng {chat} 02:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

re : Karl Elieff

Thanx. i'm sorry about that . i wont do it again. Athangjain ^talk 13:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: Obtree

Per this notice, for this article to be deleted, it has to go through the AFD process. I agree with you that it should be deleted, but that template keeps my hands tied. Sorry! If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 21:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Oops! My mistake. I completely misread the template, my mistake. The article will be speedily deleted in a few minutes. I've never seen that template before, so I was thrown a little bit off balance. Anyway, it'll be deleted shortly. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 20:18, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Conquer Online

Greetings.

I'm here about the Notability tag. Can you read here and let me know? :) Marc 10:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

A Delete not yet deleted

Hi, I saw that this article, Point Guardian (as I was about to nom it) has already been doomed in this AFD a while ago, but noone has swung the axe. Can't think of the appropriate template for this, but will you take care of it? Murgh^disc. 12:12, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Deleted as a near identical recreation of an article deleted through a previous AfD. Thanks for notifying me! Fram 12:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Aha! it wasn't the same one. Sneaky. Murgh^disc. 12:39, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Rear Admiral

I personally do not see a "consensus" as you have pointed out. What you are saying is that everything that's not a name or place should be lowercase in Wikipedia. You're saying Lieutanant should be changed to lieutenant or Captain should be changed to captain. It is you who is not following consensus.Neovu79 03:44, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

There was a move discussion, closed by an uninvolved editor, because everyone but one editor agreed on the move which is compliant with the Wikipedia Manual of Style. There was a similar discussion regarding Prime Minister / prime minister, where again the discussion was that it should be in lower case. Yes, everything that is not a name, place, or individual title (i.e. book or song or movie) should be in lowercase, like it is in every dictionary and encyclopedia. "A lieutenant and a captain went into a bar, and encountered a rear admiral". Can you explain how I am not "following consensus"? Please check our guideline (formed, as it says, by the consensus of many editors) Wikipedia:Manual of Style (capital letters), and check out the section on Titles. 18:47, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Well if you include myself, I'd say it's a 2:2 split. Neovu79 02:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Polly and Her Pals

Nice add! It's amazing the stuff that you'd think would be in here but isn't. --Tenebrae 16:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I know, I thought that at least the American comics would be covered rather completely, but there are still quite a few holes... And I like to create articles now and then, between all the small edits and reverts, so these are fun to do, and I like the irony of a Belgian coming on the English Wikipedia and creating these articles ;-) 19:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

about the smurfs character page..

You said my page is still too big..

1. How would I know what are my page limits (technically , how can I tell when it is too big?).
2. I used to help on the construction of this page, and even though it seems just as big it was approved.
3. please explain how I could fix the smurfs character page to be in the apropriate size.

Acidburn24m 20:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Info on the size and the reason of the limits can be found on Wikipedia:Article size (a guideline, but if possible it's better to follow it anyway). It is usually best to avoid pages that are larger than 60kB. You can see the size of a page either when you edit it (at the top of the Transformers page you linked to, it says "this page is 84 kilobytes long", which is too long as well), or in the history (at the end of the line, it gives the size in bytes). As for your last question: you can just split the page the same way I have done it with the old ones, which will create pages of about 20 and 40 kB. Copy your user subpage to another one, and delete the major characters from one, and the minor characters from another copy. Voilà, you now have two smaller pages similar to the current two pages. Fram 20:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I do not like the idea of two different pages for the charecters becuase that messes the whole thing up. I rather try minimizing the text on each charecter. thanks for the tips. have a good day. Acidburn24m 20:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

DYK

On May 21, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Polly and Her Pals, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

hi Fram. Thanks for flying the cartoon flag and DYK. happy editing. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Do you think this needs taking out, Fram?

Hi Fram, do you think this info about the 2005 and 2006 lines is relevant here as you already have this info covered on the Blue Imps website which is linked and it seems daft to have just two years mentioned if you are trying to make things more concise? Just a thought! I might even have added the 2005 info myself, it sounds familliar! Reading it back it looks a bit out of place with the whole article. What do you think? Hope I am adding this comment in the right place!!

Schleich's release of 2005 Smurfs sees a return to the "classic" smurf characters, with new figurines of Papa, Smurfette, Grouchy, Brainy, Vanity, Jokey, Harmony, and Baby Smurf. The 2006 Halloween series includes the horror characters Dracula Smurf, Ghost Smurf, Werewolf Smurf, Mummy Smurf, Grim Reaper Smurf, Frankenstein Smurf, Witch Smurfette and Pumpkinhead Smurf, while the 2007 Native American series brings us eight new figures: Canoe Smurf, Spear Smurf, Archer Smurf, Rain Dancer Smurf, Peace Pipe Smurf, Medicine Man Smurf, Indian Smurfette and Chief Smurf.Kittyscavern 22:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Kittyscavern :-)! You are right, the lines are a bit out of place in the article. Perhaps a separate article about the figurines would be better (Bully, Schleich, Dupuis), including such info as the new releases. For a general Smurf article, it is a bit overkill. Fram 18:12, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

article deletion The Road to Success is Always Under Construction

Did you even read my comment on the talk page of this article stating my opposition? Does it not make sence? Is it not clear? Do I have to dig up more examples of other "non-notable" books that are still here? What else do I have to add to make it clear? (FYI, the comment on the talk page is written by me as my sock puppet for public computers.) Sincerely, Sir intellegent - smartr tahn eaver!!!! 21:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Barts and the London Football Club

Hi Fram, i noticed that the wikipedia page relating to this football club has been deleted. i would like to discuss the reasons for its deletion, as this club is one of, if not THE most historical club in footballing history. the University Hospital cup, which is played for by Barts amongst other teams is OLDER than the FA cup, and deserves some recognition of the historical value it carries.

There was nothing offensive included on the page, and i can find no justifiable reason that the page was deleted.

i look forward to your swift response

"This club is THE most historical club in footballing history"? Of course... I quote from the deleted article: "The club was formed in 1995", "The club won its first trophy on Saturday, 11th of March 2006 when the third team won the ULU Vase 6-3 after extra time". They compete in a very old competition, but that age makes the competition noteworthy (I haven't deleted the article on it and don't plan to do so), not the clubs competing. Living in a very old house doesn't make you notable. Playing in an old competition doesn't make you notable. There are no Google news articles about the club, and very few regular Google hits (none of them indicating any notability). Apparently no one reputable outside Wikipedia could be bothered to write about this club, which indicates that it fails WP:NOTE. Fram 13:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Robert Fitzgerald (politician)

What's the reason that Robert Fitzgerald (politician) is deleted? It's been on WP for long and he was a senatorial candidate. Regards. Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 23:24, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

It is an expired prod for having failed WP:BIO (section politicians]]. And having been on WP for a day or for five years is quite irrelevant, it is not like it has been challenged and judged to be sufficient before (through an AfD or so). Fram 04:34, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism and user THE RAVEN / CATBAG

Hello Fram. Sorry to intrude but I'm in need of advice regarding vandalism issues and user The Raven as it seems you unfortunately have experience in this area. Specifically, I'm referring to my own TALK page and Eastside High School (Gainesville, Florida). Any help/ideas would be much appreciated! Thereisaplace 06:33, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Wow... thanks for taking care of that so quickly. "This is the image in question, by the way: Image:Kasteel Fonteinhof.jpg" - Thank you for the link. I should have known... GOTEM! Of course (sigh). Regards Thereisaplace 23:04, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Mock-AFD opinion

Hi Fram, I'm considering taking an article for deletion review but would like help with a little reality check, and set up a local AFD mockup. I'd much appreciate it if you gave me your opinion. Murgh^disc. 00:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)