User talk:Fram/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

Could you please let us know how we can improve the TestShell page so that it won't be deleted?

Fram - We are very sorry that you found the TestShell page problematic. As a software developer and providers we think that the knowledge we have to offer is important and can enrich many of Wikipedia readers. There are many other software applications on your website and we believe it is important to give the audience a full coverage of every new feature and definition. We would be happy to improve the text and rewrite it to fit your requirements. Please send us the guidelines you wish us to follow.

Thank you very much… --Qualisystems (talk) 08:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Could you please elaborate request for deletion of recent Pardus Company entry?

There are similar entries in wiki (PANalytical) where Google also returns mostly directory entries also so what's the difference? The article is not advertising nor products or services agressively as they are advertised in other company entries -- Siemens or SAP AG for example. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dkropf (talk • contribs) 16:53, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

There probably are many other articles on Wikipedia which are similar or worse. This is not because we think these articles should stay, but because it is nearly impossible to catch all articles. However, that is not a reason to keep this one, but to delete (or cleanup) other ones as well. What you have to do, if you want the article kept, is to defend it with arguments based on WP:NOTE, i.e. give us reliable independent sources which discuss the company (not just a passing mention or a reprint of a press release). Fram (talk) 20:37, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I see your point - I went through WP:NOTE article and could not give you sufficient arguments to keep the article so it is destined for removal I'm afraid. I appreciate your comments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.172.48.145 (talk) 03:45, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your graceful reply. I hope that you will stay with us and keep on editing; while this subject was not notable enough, theer was no problem with your edits as such, and there is plenty of work left to improve Wikipedia. Fram (talk) 08:12, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Could you please explain more fully?

You were the closing admin for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abdullah Gulam Rasoul In your concluding statement you wrote: WP:BLP is also valid for suspected terrorists and the like, and the lack of third party sources about this person (or at least such sources which use his name) is a very vald concern. Nominator, and several other respondents have repeatedly asserted that {{blp}} proscribed reporting allegations from official sources, that could not be otherwise proven true. I believe that this interpretation of {{blp}} cannot be reconciled with WP:VER and WP:NPOV, and is not a valid interpretation. Are you backing up this interpretation of {{blp}}. Could you please cite which section of {{blp}} your deletion conclusion is based on?

You were the closing admin for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fahed Nasser Mohamed. You wrote: Since there are no reliable independent sources about this person, WP:BLP applies, as does WP:NOTE As above, I would appreciate it if you could please clarify which section of {{blp}} your concluding statement is based on. Please clarify which section of WP:NOTE your concluding statement is based on.

I will thank you in advance for your specific reply. Geo Swan 17:17, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

About everything from WP:BLP, I should say, but I guess the most specific is the "Criticism" section. These articles obviously only consisted of criticism of the subjects, but not "can be sourced to reliable secondary sources", but only to primary sources. In fact, "Editors should also be on the lookout for biased or malicious content about living persons. If someone appears to be pushing an agenda or a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability." While the content was relevant, the sources were one-sided, first party sources without the normal peer review and fact checking of journalistic or scientific works. We would not write an article based solely on the words of one side in a court case. A party writing "we have arrested these people, these are the charges and these are their statements" is not a neutral third party source, as requested by BLP (and WP:NOTE). The lack of such sources for these two persons, compared to the sources that were available for the third AfD, explains why these two have been deleted and the third one has been kept (as was reflected in a number of opinions on the AfD as well). Fram 21:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it can be fairly said that the interpretation of {{blp}} of the nominator is a controversial one. Several experienced administrators have stated their opinion that {{blp}} does not require contributors try to document that allegations are the truth, only that they are verifiable.

The nominator couldn't help but know know his interpretation was controversial. I think it is unfortunate that he was unwilling to try to cooperate to get the policy discrepancy at the center of this dispute resolve, prior to nominating them for deletion.

I am seeking a way to get this policy discrepancy resolved. I know I could request a deletion review now. I would prefer to wait on that request for a deletion review until after the policy discrepancy was resolved.

What advice do you have on the appropriate way to get this discrepancy between competing interpretations of policy resolved?

Regarding the passage you quoted -- are you interested in reading why I disagree with your interpretation of this passage?

Cheers! Geo Swan 22:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

There will always be discrepancies in policy interpretation. The only sources we had for these two articles may be 100% correct, but they are not independent at all. No independent sources have discussed these persons, making it impossible to have a fair, balanced, encyclopedic, independently and reliably sourced biography of these living persons. This is to me the basic meaning of the BLP policy. Having accusations against persons documented to the other party in the dispute, as here, is way better than having accusations made out of thin air (the "easy" BLP cases), but it still is biased content about living persons, without any source to balance or even justify this. If you don't agree with this interpretation of BLP, it may be best if you take it up on the BLP policy talk page, and/or on DRV. Fram 20:13, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Request for deleted content: List of advertising slogans

Greetings, User:Fram. Could you please provide me with a copy of the deleted articles from "List of advertising slogans?" [1] I just need the names of all of the deleted articles, and the copy from all of the deleted articles. If you have any questions or comments, please reply here as I have this on watch. Many thanks. dr.ef.tymac 20:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I've recreated the four articles in your user space at User:Dreftymac/List of advertising slogans (contains links to the other three articles). If there is anything else you need, just let me know! Fram 08:53, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Ome Henk revisited

Hoe gaat het? Remember the Deutsche Telekom anons who were tagging Ome Henk with fake Coren Search Bot copyvio tags and spouting nonsense on the talk page? It seems that it isn't particularly Ome Henk that interests then, just the fake tagging. A DT IP tagged Great Irish Famine and Prison Break today, just the same as with Ome Henk. What a strange hobby! MVG, Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Alles in orde here. Perhaps we should just rangeblock DT? :-) Just kidding, a slightly too large number of editors probably. They are just waiting to find an unattentive admin who mistakenly deletes such article in good faith, something which is bound to happen in the long run. Until then, revert, block, ignore is probably the best way, but the trouble is spotting them of course. Oh well, a few days and they can come back to Ome Henk, when the protection expires. Fram 08:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

rear admiral and/or Rear Admiral, but Rear admiral?

I posted the following on the talk page, but as yet have had no response. Perhaps you can explain it to me?

I've read the above discussions with interest, and I can understand how it could be titled "rear admiral" or "Rear Admiral", but I can not understand how the above discussion resulted in "Rear admiral". The most quoted example is "Rear Admiral X is a rear admiral". "Rear admiral X is a Rear admiral" was never justified, or even advocated, yet that's what the article ended up being called. Can someone explain this to me please? Pdfpdf 14:32, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks in anticipation of your reply, Pdfpdf 12:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

The reason is sadly purely technical. The article title should be read as rear admiral, just like it should be prime minister, but because of how the Wiki software is made, it is automatically changed into Rear admiral and Prime minister. You can see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (technical restrictions)#Lower case first letter for more info on this. It is for this reason that I only propose to move two word titles, and not captain or lieutenant. The content of every article should be ckecked though, so that every line that says "a Captain is" gets changed to "a captain is", and "All Vice Admirals are" to "All vice admirals are".

I hope this makes it a bit clearer.Fram 13:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I hope this makes it a bit clearer. - Yes, thank you. I feared it may be something as silly as that. The article pH gives the desired appearance. (i.e. The article is "really" titled "PH", but it's been made to look like its title is "pH".) Do you think I could "boldly" make a similar change, or would it need discussion? Cheers, Pdfpdf 13:32, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, that definitely needs discussion. This should only be done with terms (mostly company names) that have a lowercase even at the start of a sentence. This is truly the exception. For all normal words, from cat over prime minister to rear admiral, this is not to be done. As a general rule, the title of the article should be the same as it would appear at the start of a sentence, thus starting with an uppercase and the rest in lowercases, except for names and other exceptions. Fram 13:37, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh well. "It seemed like a good idea at the time". Perhaps not such a good idea now. Many thanks for your help. Pdfpdf 14:03, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

No problem, and it was a good idea, but one not encouraged here :-) For readability of discussions: when you reply to a post that is one ':' (one tab) deep, it is easiest if you reply with one '::' deep (preceding your comment with two colons). Always use one colon more than the post you reply to. It is just a custom, not an obligation of course. Fram 14:07, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

If you change all the commissioned ranks you have to change all the noncommissioned and warrant officer ranks as well. Saevurr 20:41, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a link to what categories these are in? I just looked at the category Military ranks, if there are any more similar ones, I'm glad to include them in the discussion. Fram 20:45, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Order of the Omniscient

I see you deleted the page... again! LOL! Perhaps the page could be protected to stop re-creation? -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 15:00, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see you've blocked the user! Maybe that will stop it! -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 15:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Yep, I have little patience with people who vandalise Wikipedia and have no intention of even discussing things. Fram 15:03, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

It seems like that was all they were doing! I noticed a bit of vandalism from 17 October 2007 that had gone unchallenged! I've rectified THAT situation. -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 15:07, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Great, thanks! I usually check older contribs of such vandals as well, but had forgotten it this time. Fram 15:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Notification

I just want to notify you that the copyright issues regarding Ome Henk and your activity regarding this matter are now an arbitration case. Please feel free to post a statement there as well. 217.233.211.230 22:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I've removed this case from ArbCom as they will simply reject it. Michaelbusch 22:30, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. What an utter waste of time... Fram 19:35, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Marc Germain's notability

I've left a question for you on Talk:Marc Germain. -- BTfromLA 00:25, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

my rfa

If you voted in my RFA...

...thank you for your participation. I withdrew with 83 supports, 42 opposes, and 8 neutrals. Your kind words and constructive criticism are very much appreciated. I look forward to using the knowledge I have accrued through the process to better the project. I would like to give special thanks to Tim Vickers and Wikidudeman for their co-nominations.

Thank you again and, best regards. VanTucky ^Talk

This RFA thanks was inspired by Lara❤Love's

Estebo

Why the hell did you delete my page?

Because we are an encyclopedia, not some free wehbhost where you can post whatever you like. Fram 21:43, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

Hi Fram, thanks so much for voicing your support in my successful RfA. I'm humbled to have the community's trust. As I master the ways of the mop and bucket, please don't hesitate to message me for any advice or corrections. Cheers! Spellcast 00:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I first encountered you when I agreed with your successful proposal on album standards in Wikipedia talk:Notability (music). Spellcast 00:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah, that's where! Well, I think I saw your name previously in some other discussions, but supporting me in the WP:MUSIC change didn't hurt your chances :-) Good luck with the mop, and if you need any help or second opinions, feel free to ask. Fram 08:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Azed

Well there was already a section on Jonathan Crowther who is Azed. I have merely expanded it. Minority interest I give you but that's no crime.  SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 10:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Wouldn't it be better if Jonathan Crowther and Azed were merged though? They are one and the same, so... Fram 10:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I see your point. Also Derrick Somerset Macnutt and Ximenes(crossword compiler). I was unware of the former when I created the latter.  SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 10:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Thsoe as well, then. Oh, you can obviously remove the notability tags, I have seen the article linked from Jonathan Crowther and that is quite sufficient. Fram 10:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Ariadna rodriguez

I think you jumped the gun on deleting this article before it could be translated. I'm not an expert in Spanish, but apparently, this person is a very pretty 17 year old model from Panama. Bearian 14:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

From my limited spanish: "Ariadna es una chica de actualmente 17 anos que nacio el 15 de enero del año 1990... Ella es negrita, bembonsita y muy bonita. Actualmente cursa estudios de Diseño de Modas en la universidad panameña de artes Ganexa. Nacio en Panama Ciudad de Panama..."

translates as

"Ariadna is a girl of 17 years with birthday 15 January 1990. She is quite pretty. Currently studies fashion dsign at the Panama Arts University Ganexa. Born in Panama, Panama City"

I see no mention of her being a model? Fram 14:49, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Why was my webcomic page "Final Daylight: Earth" deleted?

Hello, I am the author of the webcomic called 'Final Daylight: Earth' and wondering why my page was deleted? Not only why it was deleted but why I was given almost no warning or wasn't even tagged for speedy deletion or anything? Let me know please... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.242.1.50 (talk) 16:28, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Because it was an article about web content without assertion of significance. It has no assertions of significance, no links to reliable sources, and none of the seven hits for Nuesca plus Final Daylight indicates anything else. Fram 20:50, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

prebilovci page

I'm sorry for creating that paage, lllllllLLLLL (or wathever it was called. I did it because I wanted to check how the new article would look like in the "Prebilovci" page when it is unlocked.

But I have a favour to ask you: Can you chenck into the "Prebilovci massacre" page. I come from the village of Prebilovci, and I know therefor that there is nothing called the Prebilovci massacre. The massacre it consurnes did take plase, but is is not called the Prebilovci massacre. Most of the victims were not from the village of Prebilovci. The way I see it, someone missunderstood something when he/she read about the massacre and decided to give it a name. You will be áble to read more about it in the "Prebilovci" page. My suggestion is that we get rid of the "Prebilovci massacre" page, since there are not even references that talk about that name outside Wikipedia. - justicinwiki —Preceding unsigned comment added by Justiceinwiki (talk • contribs) 19:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Village Pump

I have started a discussion on the Village Pump [2] about inconsistency in sanctions applied. One of the examples I give refers to your decision not to block User Sambure today and how that contrasts with a far less serious offence I committed as a newbie that earnt me an indefinate block. (I'm not referring to your block on Porcupine which I think was more than justified). I thought you should be aware so you can contribute to the discussion if you wish. Thanks. Kelpin (talk) 18:55, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for notifying me. I may head over there later on, first checking my watchlist. Fram (talk) 19:18, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I won't wheelwar, but imo both users were at fault here. Rambutan isn't at his first offence, and I know he just doesn't get it... But IMO 1 month is very harsh here, considering that the other user wasn't blocked. Honnestly I don't know what to do, were both users not blocked. I was willing to hit both on the head with a giant cluestick... Rambutan asked me to review his block, that's why I'm commenting. I'm not disputing the basis for the block, but IMO 1 month is harsh. -- lucasbfr ^talk 20:57, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, he came right off a one week block for trolling[3]. Showing this kind of behaviour only one day later should IMO be prevented with an escalating block, and a 1 week to 1 month escalation doesn't seem unreasonable (and the block has already been reviewed by another admin). If you want to reduce it to two weeks, be my guest. If you want to shorten it even more, please discuss it at AN/I first. As for the other user: assuming he is a newbie, I think some of his behaviour is understandable, even though it was wrong. I have given him a final warning though, and I and several other editors are keeping an eye on him, apparently. More problematic behaviour will swiftly lead to blocks. Fram (talk) 09:11, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I'll let a day or two to give some times for the ashes to fall on the ground, and were I still willing to shorten it I'll bring it to ANI to have some community opinion. I don't want to start any kind of storm because of Rambutan :). -- lucasbfr ^talk 12:50, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Picaroon (t) 21:06, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Helping Hand

Hi Fram - notice in deletion log you're on-line - could you lend a hand. User talk:DatDoo is appealing a block. Could you take a look for me if you have a mo ? Pedro :  Chat  10:21, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Looking into it now. Fram (talk) 10:23, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Sometimes this hour of the day seems to be a bit slim on admins! Pedro :  Chat  10:33, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Kurdistan Workers Party

Hey, I guess there's a mistake here. The source is irrelevant of what's written. I restored the version that represents the source. Regards, Kerem Özcan (talk) 15:48, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Porcupine's block

There's a discussion on AN/I about Porcupine's block; you may wish to weigh in as the blocking admin.

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Porcupine's block

Cheers. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

My apologies I forgot to link to the actual thread once I created it! Really sorry. As I stated there this is definitely not your block that I brought here, but Rambutan's unblock request. -- lucasbfr ^talk 07:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I haven't checked the link yet, will do so immediately, but apologies accepted anyway. Fram (talk) 08:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

My v

Hi. Thanks for your edits (Penthesilea Painter). I don't think I have ever had an article copy-edited within 5 minutes of starting it. Thanks. And thanks for drawing attention to my sticky v. I wonder what's wrong with it. athinaios (talk) 10:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. I was newpage patrolling, came across your article, my eye fell on one typo, so I decided to correct them, as it seemed like a worthwhile article. I'm always grateful to all the people correcting my typos, so it felt good to do it for someone else for a change. Fram (talk) 10:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

original research

Yes, indeed, the women in the occupations article is unreferenced; few articles are born in full only minutes after they are drafted. Do please feel free to add {{cn}} notes; I've begun doing so. --Lquilter (talk) 14:48, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

No, it is the full combination of Occupations, gender roles, and women's history, under that title, which looks like an essay to me. We have articles on Gender role, Equal pay, Feminism and so on. I'm just worried that what you are creating is a synthesis. In that case, even though all the individual sentences and statements may be reliably sourced, the article may still be called "original research". I'm not claiming that it definitely is, only that it gives the appearance of it,since you are throwing together three subjects which are obviously related, but which don't necessarily make one well defined subject. Fram (talk) 14:56, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• I've added a variety of cites in the further reading section specifically on this topic, demonstrating that this is not "original research". Do you have other suggestions to improve the article? --Lquilter (talk) 17:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Sejr

But that still means that it exists! The album is a full lenght studio album by an active existing artist who has a myspace page and a homepage. The album is neither a demo nor bootleg, and the commercial success of the album makes it neither more or less important. TheEsb (talk) 15:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Could you please read or reread WP:NOTE and WP:MUSIC? Existence alone isn't enough, it has to be "noted", it has to be remarked upon by the proffessional media, whether TV, newspaper, music magazines, ... There is no evidence that this record (or this band) has had any coverage outside of some very specific fora / websites. Anyone can create a record nowadays (and a myspace page), that is not sufficient to become encyclopedic, even in an encyclopedia as broad as Wikipedia.Fram (talk) 15:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, ok... Your lack of proper spelling means that you thought it only created three google hits when it in fact creates at least 644 hits. The album is reviewed internationally and can be bought on the web. TheEsb (talk) 15:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

You are right about the spelling error, but I still fail to see any indication of notability. I have let another admin decide on the band article this time, so at least we get a third or fourth opinion on this one. Fram (talk) 15:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Why was BootB deleted?

Dear Fram,

I noticed that you have deleted my page about BootB. I would like to know exactly why? I have checked the criteria for speedy deletion and it does not fall under any of the reasons of speedy deletion. You have removed what I have written very fast after I have made my first draft. Instead of deleting rightaway couldn't you have given me some pointers? I think it is rather unfair and not very motivating for new users that their contributions are being deleted without discussion or decent explanation. I hope you can undo this so that I can have some more time to work on it.

Greetings

Daniel —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vanderstoep (talk • contribs) 16:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

How did the article about a company make any claim to notability in the Wikipedia sense? It was just a puff piece, an advert for a brand new company (launched yesterday!), with text straight from the press release. Once the company gets independent coverage in reliable sources (not reprints of the press release, or very brief mentions of it), it can get an article as a notable company. So it falls under Speedy deletion criteria A7 and G11. Fram (talk) 08:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Fram, thx for clearing this up, now it makes more sense that you have closed it down. If i have more reliable/independent information and want to adjust the information as to make sure that the claim to notability in the wilipedia-sense is fullfilled can I ask you to reinstate the article. Greetings Vanderstoep (talk) 09:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

No problem, give me some links that establish some notability and I'll undelete the article so that you can expand it. Fram (talk) 09:48, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Fram,

I have found some links which I believe establish some notability:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2007/nov/30/digitalmedia.advertising?gusrc=rss&feed=media http://www.livemint.com/2007/11/28162944/New-online-tool-for-brand-mana.html http://www.communicate.ae/node/332 http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/071130/20071130005011.html?.v=1

Could you undelete the article so I can expand it.

Greetings

DanielVanderstoep (talk) 10:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the efforts. I will undelete the page, so you can add the sources and work on it (if needed). While with these sources, the article should not be speedied, it still can be taken to AfD (articles for deletion) if some editor thinks it is still insufficient. In that case, a five day discussion will follow. I don't think it will happen, but you never know of course. Fram 10:11, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Great, thank you Vanderstoep (talk) 10:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Editing 'Malaysia'

Sorry, Fram. But I've encountered a problem with the article 'Malaysia' and doesn't seemed to be able to solve it. Well, if you view all the codes of the page together, you will notice the repetition of "===Post Independence===". It appeared twice, and I tried to remove one, which remove the section too. Can you solve the problem? —Preceding Mhching (talk) 16:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

It looks like you have solved it, at least it doesn't appear twice for me. Thanks for your edits, and again my apologies for the vandalism warning, it did look like you were throwing out whole chunks of text. Fram (talk) 19:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Porcupine

Further to the extensive consensus gathering exercise, I've unblocked him. Wish me luck. --Dweller (talk) 16:56, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Good luck! I hope it works out, and if it doesn't, I won't blame you for your efforts. Fram (talk) 19:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. --Dweller (talk) 21:22, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Deletion Review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Connections Church. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Impact2d (talk) 11:48, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Category: Lists of James Bond characters

I don't understand your edit summary "speedy delete as empty. What's the point"? There are plenty of articles to down-categorise from category:James Bond lists. However, I can't seem to do it while the CSD notice remains on the category. Would you mind removing it, please? - Fayenatic (talk) 13:44, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I didn't oand don't understand the point of the article, which was empty. I also don't understand the problem you have in editing it, the CSD tag shouldn't make that a problem. Are you making a page that lists all the articles in the catgeory James Bond lists? Isn't that kind of redundant? OR are you trying to make a new category? You are calling it a sub-category, but what you created is a list, a normal page, not a category. It should be called Category:Lists of James Bond characters then. Fram (talk) 13:48, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I just realised that I omitted "category:", and have labelled the article db-author. Thanks. - Fayenatic (talk) 13:49, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

No problem, I thought it had to be something like that. Fram (talk) 13:50, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

O Pioneers Split 10"

Your redirect has been reverted. Perhaps it would be best to delete the history so there is nothing to revert to? I (talk) 00:58, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Tried a different solution, hope this works as well. Fram (talk) 08:17, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

jay2k

why did my page get deleted it was a user page as my user name is jay2k Jay2k (talk) 12:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

First, your user name is L.Wadsworth, not Jay2K. Secondly, a User page should be located at User:Jay2k, not at Jay2kj, which is an article. I notice that you have also created the userpage at the correct location: is there any reason that you have two userpages? This may lead to confusion. Fram (talk) 12:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Salting the earth

Regarding your protection of the page Braden tyler macwilliam, I believe that you didn't use either of the recommended methods at Wikipedia:Protected deleted pages. I mention this because the page now shows up here, while no other protected pages do. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 18:36, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I fixed it (it showed up on a list that Betacommand put together of exceedingly short pages) —Random832 04:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you both. I don't do protection of deleted pages that often, and I guess it showed :-( I'll be more careful next time! Fram 08:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Tennisace0227

Dear Fram, My ip adress was blocked for supposed vandalism. my computer has a virus, so i think it could be that. is this going to affect my login in any way? i am trying to clean up my computer, but i have to wipe the hard drive and i dont have time right now to do it. thanks, Tennisace0227 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tennisace0227 (talk • contribs) 22:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

No, a Wikipedia:Autoblock does normally not affect your login. As you have posted on my talk page, you are no longer blocked, so that is also no problem :-) Fram 08:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

HBW chapter references

OK Fram, I've pasted all my references elsewhere. Please delete all the unnecessary pages.Deargan (talk) 13:17, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thankyou

Thanks for closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of planets in Futurama, it was a mess to sort through (with spa's, frivilous reasoning and heated emotions) and I agree with the rationale behind your closure. James086^{Talk | Email} 14:25, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome! I don't like closing such AfD's, but someone has to take them on. One or two a day, and not too many DRV's, is sufficient though :-) Fram 14:27, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

did it occur to you that the comments were running almost 3 to 1 in favor of keep. You're entitled to you own view, but not to overrule consensus to such a degree. If you thought so many of the arguments invalid you should have joined the debate instead . DGG (talk) 09:57, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Excluding the spa's? AfD is not a votecount, but a place for people to discuss if the article meets our guidelines and policies, and to indicate things that may be missing from the article but could, if integrated, make it an acceptable article. When looking at the discussion like that, there was a clear consensus that many people liked the article, but that those looking if the article met our policies and guidelines had to conclude that it should be deleted. You can, of course, always take it to DRV. Fram (talk) 13:06, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Just BTW, the reason I am not currently taking things to DRV is the need to concentrate on the new AfDs. There's a limit to the number of simultaneous discussions I can handle & the current state of AfD already exceeds it. But more generally, and I ask you in a friendly spirit, without regard to this particular article, perhaps the role of a closing admin should be defined as removing clearly inappropriate comments and votes without explanations, and then following the consensus--rather than attempting to judge which are the best arguments. DGG (talk) 17:43, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with a later DRV, I will not complain that it is too late or whatever. I will defend my closure, of course. But current practice is exactly that the closing admin has to judge the strength of the arguments, together with the numbers, and whil in this AfD the numbers indicated a keep, the strength of arguments waas quite overwhelmingly for a delete. From Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators: "Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any). Arguments that contradict policy, are based on opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious, are frequently discounted. For instance, if someone finds the entire page to be a copyright violation, a page is always deleted. If an argument for deletion is that the page lacks sources, but an editor adds the missing references, said argument is no longer relevant." You may disagree with this, but then this should be discussed at that page in general. Fram (talk) 05:38, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

List of planets in Futurama

Hello; this was a useful page for me. Please restore it to my userspace so that I can transwiki it elsewhere. Cheers, Tlogmer ( talk / contributions ) 07:04, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

No problem, created as User talk:Tlogmer/List of planets in Futurama. Remember that for transwikying, you need to link to the history somehow (I'm no expert on transwikying, so perhaps best check the Wikipedia:Transwiki log page (there is some explanation on what to do there). This is needed for copyright reasons (GFDL compliance). Fram (talk) 08:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• I think that you were mistaken on this one. While deletion isn't a vote, consensus was clear. I'd like you to consider looking back over it and seeing if this isn't a case where rules should be ignored to help wikipedia. Thanks! Hobit (talk) 09:23, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Then please list it on WP:DRV, I'm not going to change my decision. Keepers in general thought it informative, useful, couldn't see a reason to delete it, we have space enough, other articles are kept, and so on. Deleters said it violated policy. No one showed that it didn't violate policy and that the delete arguments were invalid. Fram (talk) 09:29, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Can you please help me?

I proposed December 2007 North American ice storm for deletion with a very explicit reason. As a courtesy I advised JForget, the editor who created the article. For some reason another editor, Juliancolton, got involved in the discussion. He went ballistic on my talk page and the article's talk page and demanded I remove the request, and when I didn't he removed it and claimed he's entitled to do so. He threatened to have me banned if I made the request again. I think he's too attached to the article but I'm not sure why because he made very few edits to it. I think my proposal should be open to discussion, but I don't know how to propose it for deletion again. Can you please help? Thank you very much. 209.247.22.166 (talk) 14:49, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I need an administrator to tell this guy that there is no reason to delete December 2007 North American ice storm. I also need him to know that if he puts the tag up again, then it is considered vandalism. Thanks! Juliancolton (talk) 14:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

If you want an administrator to make the decision, then you should let the tag remain and allow the discussion to take place through the normal procedure. 209.247.22.166 (talk) 15:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I have replied to you both on User talk:209.247.22.166. Fram (talk) 15:01, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Paul Gillon

Thanks for your comments. As I understand it, on Articles Needing Translation, we deal with not only articles that are completely in a non-English language, but also articles that have snippets of text in a non-English language. That's why I listed it. Since it was successfully translated, the listing served its intended purpose. So what's your objection? Cbdorsett (talk) 14:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

• You raise excellent points. Long ago, I noticed that the tags and the structure of the page needed attention, and I raised the point. However, nothing happened. So I decided to just work within the existing framework. Hardly anyone complains. I would love to redo the tags, and split the page so that it makes more sense, but I am not an admin and I haven't been schooled in the art of writing tags (not that I can't do it, mind you - I do know how to program). If you care to team up, maybe we can get some support for cleaning up this administrative headache. What do you say? --Cbdorsett (talk) 05:34, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
• I discovered a reason for using only the two tags listed at PNT: Only those two explicitly mention that page. I think the rest should include the same sort of cross-reference in their text. Who would I talk to to get this started? Cbdorsett (talk) 09:18, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

English Potato Famine

Your deletion of English Potato Famine under A3 doesn't make much sense. I suggest restoring it and bringing it to WP:RFD if you want it deleted. --- RockMFR 20:55, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

The history of the article is a copyvio (an unattributed copy of Cornish Potato Famine), and the term is not used in any serious publication and very rarely outside of it, making it a very improbable search term. Add to this the fact that it wasn't created with any good intentions, and there is no reason to keep it and a number of reasons to speedy delete it. I will not redelete it if you restore it, of course, but I won't restore it myself as that would be rather pointless. Fram (talk) 20:39, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Comments during Rijk Van Roog/English Potato Famine hoax

A discussion of comments that I made to you during the Rijk Van Roog/English Potato Famine hoax has been raised as part of my my Request for Adminship (see "Oppose #1"). Could you comment on your reading of the situation.

Thanks, --sony-youth^pléigh 11:15, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

My bad on User:Arrangement Guy

I was dishing out welcome templates like candy to anyone with an empty user talk page yesterday who had edited either the Writer's Strike article or Bee Movie. Most of the time it's a good rule of thumb that, after two weeks, they aren't vandals if their talk page is warning-free, which is the usual problem. If you put the template on both pages next time, I won't repeat the mistake. -- Kendrick7^talk 20:41, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

No problem! Fram (talk) 07:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Dürer

Im disgusted, angry, and amazingly saddened by your notability tag on the woodcut. Go to the FA page and start deleting An Experiment on a Bird in the Air Pump, Campbell's Soup Cans, The Four Stages of Cruelty, Three Studies for Figures at the Base of a Crucifixion if you feel so strongly. Who are you to decide which art work should be included, and which is NN. Ceoil (talk) 16:00, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

This is very bad judgement from you, and shows poor awareness of policy. Ceoil (talk) 16:05, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I see you are Dutch. It was beacause Dürer's german eh ;) I live in den haag, and look, I'm over my bitch fit now; looking back it seems like an honest mistake - I went at looked at some of the new pages, and I can understand how one could get trigger happy. Ceoil (talk) 17:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi. My apologies for the notability tag. I was kind of wondering aloud if we would create articles for every work by every notable artist. An honest question, but to translate this into "is this woodcut by Dürer notable?" was misguided, to say the least. It is not a necessary article, but it is a potentially useful, interesting one about a subject which certainly has gotten quite some attention over the centuries, even if it isn't one of his major black and white works like the Rhino, Adam and Eve, or his self portrait. I'm glad you struck your earlier comments, but I can understand such a first reaction. But I can't forgive you saying that I'm Dutch, when I'm Belgian :-) Keep up the good work, and thanks for discussing this, it's the best way to resolve such things. Fram (talk) 20:26, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I was in Ghent a few weeks back and I noticed (I'm Irish myself) a strange thing going on between the Dutch and the Belgians. Big mistake from me assuming you were Dutch, sorry about that, and for my overreaction. Ceoil (talk) 21:13, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

HS

Hey Fram, I have noticed that u have edited Chail Military School. Most of the vital things were removed including the slangs!! They are significant and should be retained. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Harpreetsingh7 (talk • contribs) 17:03, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable secondary sources for them? They looked completely unverifiable, and being verifiable is one of the core requirements of everything on Wikipedia. I also removed the bio of one alumnus, since he has his own article which tells the story. As for the daily routine: why would you want to include that into an encyclopedia? It is useful info to put on the school website, but completely irrelevant for Wikipedia. Fram (talk) 20:32, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

For reliable sources you may google them (best option) or visit the references provided. Capt. G S Salariya got the highest award while fighting for UN. Your sentence "telling his story" is bit improfessional as he sacrified his life that too for some other country. It is much like nobel laureates who are listed everywhere but their universities and school (including on wiki) provides a special corner for them. This school is very small (in numbers) but is the highest feeder for Indian Armed forces since second world war. My idea was to make it known to general public. We donot have official website yet (Govt of India moves slower than people ;-)). We are developing a website (ref 1) but that too will be by ex-students. In addition, do you know where is worlds highest crocket ground. Now if i mention it in the article that it is in this school you will ask for proof. For this you need to use google too and if you require official nod you should contact limca book of records (guiness didnot mention as they ahve stopped playing international cricket due to scaricity of oxygen!!)

Ceramiaceae

Just to let you know, I have been bold and deleted your redirect from Ceramiaceae to Red algae. Ceramiaceae is one of hundreds of families of red algae, and the red algae article doesn't even mention it. Anyone who types "Ceramiaceae" into the search box and hits Go will likely already know it is a red alga, so for them to end up at a page on red algae that doesn't even mention Ceramiaceae is unhelpful. Better a red link in cases like this. Hesperian 04:07, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Rehan

An article that you have been involved in editing, Rehan, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rehan. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 18:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Khemed

Another editor has added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Khemed, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 22:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC)