Jump to content

User talk:Fram/Archive 35

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 30←Archive 33Archive 34Archive 35Archive 36Archive 37→Archive 40

GA delistings

Fram, I was wondering whether you'd mind if I regularized the Talk:Kadmat Island and Talk:Kaunakes pages by putting your delisting comments onto a formal individual GA reassessment for each. This would also allow an Article History section to be started, which will link to the listing and delisting reviews. As it stands now, it's a bit of a mess. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:37, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

No problem, I'm not very good with the more formal aspects of these. Fram (talk) 06:35, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
Great, thanks. I'll also take care of Talk:Sacred Jackfruit Tree while I'm at it. Glad you're keeping an eye out for these. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:08, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Thomas Detry

On 3 September 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Thomas Detry, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that golfer Thomas Detry broke the Challenge Tour record for largest winning margin with his 12-shot win at the 2016 Bridgestone Challenge? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Thomas Detry. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Thomas Detry), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 00:01, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Arbitration Case opened

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man.

Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man/Evidence.

Please add your evidence by September 17, 2016, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.

For non-parties who wish to opt out of further notifications for this case please remove yourself from the list held here

For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:04, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Time sink

Hey Fram. Thanks, just a heads-up, you will find that attempting to discuss things with certain users will rapidly become a timesink as the last word principle seems to apply. You're better off just keeping the quality of the main page up. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:36, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

True, but I try to get my reply in at least once. After that, it depends on the quality of the responses I get. I'm discussing things with WMF people at the moment in another discussion, so I am used to timesinks and fruitless discussions, but it's sometimes amazing how many people on the sidelines you can convince even if the person you are discussing things with remains stubborn. Fram (talk) 16:39, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
That's a fair point. Having dealt with the unbelievable attempts to provide misleading or incorrect information to our readers at the ref desks, and trying to remedy that, I've discovered that timesinks exist across a lot of Wikipedia, and that some people are just here for the social aspects. I thought we had WP:NOTFACEBOOK (oo, we do!) but perhaps I'm wrong. In any case, cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:48, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

"Social aspects", on wikipedia? More like the anti social aspects...♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:23, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Arbitration evidence

The Arbitration Committee has asked that evidence presentations be kept to around 500 words and 50 diffs. Your presentation is over 620 words. Please edit your section to focus on the most relevant evidence. If you wish to submit over-length evidence, you must first obtain the agreement of the arbitrators by posting a request on the /Evidence talk page. For the Arbitration Committee, Amortias (T)(C) 11:08, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

I notice that you have removed evidence provided by an IP, 188.220.246.23, at The Rambling Man's Arbitration hearing and then blocked the IP's account. Would you care to explain? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:01, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Ban evasion. Note also how IP 188.220.246.23 put his evidence in the section for 86.168.124.54 (whose evidence was deleted repeatedly (not by me) and the IP blocked by Drmies). See the block log for 188.220.246.23, where mine is the fourth block in a month, all for the same reason. This should tell you all there is to know. Note the advice there: "Do not engage in their discussions. Do not feed the trolls. Simply Revert, block, ignore. " The editor is banned since 2011. Finally, the "evidence" was about a main page article (so not DYK / ITN / ref desk), concerning edits between the banned editor and FPaS, not TRM. You can still read the evidence in the history, if you think there's something there or if you feel that I have hidden any evidence relating to TRM or otherwise was acting in an involved capacity. Fram (talk) 10:10, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
No, that's a reasonable explanation. I just thought it strange that you were removing evidence when I would have expected that to be a job for the Clerk. It would certainly be wrong for me to remove your evidence, for example :) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:35, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Oh, if the only reason had been "not about this case", then I would have left it to a clerk. But WP:DENY is best done as fast as possible, to make it less interesting for the banned user to continue to post things. Fram (talk) 10:43, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

DYK

Hi Fram, I'm dont normally maintain DYK hooks - but there was a notice on WP:AN that queue 1 has a hole in it, apparently from your edit; I've commented out this line for now - feel free to address in any way that is appropriate if you want to. Best regards, — xaosflux Talk 15:03, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Fram (talk) 16:17, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection

Hello, Fram. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.

Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.

In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:

  • Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
  • A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.

Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:47, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Category:Adjutant Generals of Illinois has been nominated for discussion

Category:Adjutant Generals of Illinois, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Bearcat (talk) 09:44, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Pax

It has been suggested that we take our differences to Arbcom but I do not think that appropriate. It states there "The Arbitration Committee only deals with the most serious, entrenched, or persistent disputes and cases of rule-breaking, where all other reasonable means have failed" and I doubt we are anywhere near that. Anyway, it would be a distraction and a great waste of time when I would prefer to be building an encyclopedia.

I think you do a useful service at DYK but I don't like the way you treat other editors when you find errors. You have been sniping at me for some time on the DYK discussion page. I think some of your statements about me both inaccurate and exaggerated but I have chosen to react little until just over a week ago when I thought you treated MPJ-DK unfairly. My thread "Vanity" could be construed as being a personal attack on you, but your evidence to the TRM case predated that and I consider it was a personal attack on me.

So here is an offer. If you stop referring to me in a derogatory manner at the DYK discussion page and elsewhere, I will stop reciprocating. What do you think? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:04, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

"I have chosen to react little until just over a week ago when I thought you treated MPJ-DK unfairly. My thread "Vanity" could be construed as being a personal attack on you, but your evidence to the TRM case predated that and I consider it was a personal attack on me." The thread "vanity" wsa started by you, discussing two examples: the Grobbelaar hook, which had nothing to do with MPJ-DK, and a hook from you from 2014. It's a bit hard to see how that has anything to do with me supposedly treating MPJ-DK unfairly. It looked and looks a lot more like you feeling that you were treated unfairly. My evidence at the ArbCom case? Quoting a clear personal attack by you, which you then repeated in the evidence section as well. If pointing out that you make personal attacks, with evidence of such an attack, is in itself a personal attack, then you don't know what ArbCom cases are about.
With Ritchie333 posting the link to that editor review of yours from 2014, I note that there already you tried to "defend" yourself with utterly irrelevant questions only intended to poison the well: in that case, whether I had a Wikipediocracy account, in this case my status on Jimbo Wales' talk page. In both cases, you decided that a refusal to answer irrelevant questions is admitting that the answer is "yes". If you can't see the problem with that tactic (and conclusion), then there is little hope left to have a meaningful discussion with you. Even in your "pax" offering here, all I see is "you started it" and "you attacked me and I refrained from replying" and similar holier-than-thou statements. A genuine pax offering doesn't read like "I'm better than you, but I am willing to give you a second chance".
Seeing that the problems you cause at DYK go back since 2013-2014 (perhaps earlier, I haven't checked), I do think we are well into the "serious, entrenched and persistent dispute" area.
As for how I treat editors, you can look at e.g. the reaction of MPJ-DK in the "Corrected error in hook on Main Page, then removed it completely as it turns out to be wrong" section: "What the? I'm at a loss for words for such an f'up. Mighty be time to hang up the tights." Now compare it to the reaction of the editor who reviewed this hook. Fram (talk) 14:22, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

The Rambling Man arbitration proposed decision posted

A proposed decision has been posted in the open The Rambling Man arbitration page. Please review this decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. If you are not a party, you may opt out of further notifications regarding this case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man/Mass Message List. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:36, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Male artists

Thanks for spotting me - I try to eliminate any I'm not sure about/have checked, but one or two sneak through from time to time. (Don't know what happened with Louise Abbéma, though - I was sure I'd excluded her each time.) --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 21:54, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Paralympics

Per your suggestion, I have created an RfC on the Paralympics. I am not certain whether an non-admin is permitted to do so though. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:41, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Everyone can start an RfC, as far as I am aware (and concerned). Policy is not created by admins, we are only supposed to uphold it. Fram (talk) 07:57, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

archives

Good point[1]. Would there be a way to reword it to cases where there is a selection process, and/or material that is highlighted in some manner by the archive maintainers? One example is Chronicling America from the LoC, that has a selection process for newspapers "representing that state's regional history, geographic coverage, and events of the particular time period being covered."[2] -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 10:08, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

I think that would become too complicated to correctly describe in a notability guideline (or essay). Fram (talk) 10:11, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
Let's stick to essay-level for now ;) I'd propose something like:
A periodical archived at a major library or institution is generally not an indication of notability. Many archives are not selective in what periodicals they archive. However, periodicals highlighted in an archive via a selection process may be an indication of notability. For example, the US Library of Congress is not selective in what periodicals they archive, but the LoC hosted project Chronicling America is a selected archive of "historic newspapers".
-- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 10:40, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Shueisha

Someone requested move protection on this article at WP:RFPP, so I did that. If you think it's excessive, feel free to undo. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 16:22, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

No, that vandal is quite persistent so protection may well be warranted. 16:23, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Arbitration case request declined

The Arbitration Committee has declined the Fram arbitration case request. For the Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 00:13, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Upstairs, Downstairs

Hi. Thanks for your attention to the sheaf of minor character articles, recently created. I was mulling over whether to create a giant multi-AFD for these, but I guess you're right to prod them first. The creator's clearly a fan of the series and editing in good faith, but they're mostly unreferenced, none of them notable enough per WP:GNG for a separate article, and should be redirects to a list-of-characters article at best. If it does go to AFD, I will support redirect. Wikishovel (talk) 09:15, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I have skipped a few for some characters with 20 or so episodes, perhaps they should get deleted as well but that is less clear. But these I have prodded are really very minor characters, I hope that a prod will suffice but I can't see them being kept at AfD. Fram (talk) 09:19, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Archive

Would you mind if I archived your talk page? It goes back nearly two years. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:41, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, you're right, I hadn't noticed that it was this big again. You are free to archive it, and otherwise I will do it myself, whichever you prefer. Fram (talk) 12:53, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
Done! Thanks for the note. Fram (talk) 14:07, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

uploading further screen shots

I want to upload further screen shots to show the character of Cyril Bassington-Bassington and Mr. Blumenfield. ok ? --ColeB34 (talk) 15:06, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Mr. Blumenfield is a guest character in 2 episodes of the TV series only, why should we even have an article on him? Cyril Bassington isn't even a recurring character in the TV series, he only appears in one episode. At the very most, these belong in a list of characters. No need to upload screen shots. Fram (talk) 08:18, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Talk:LW6/8/GA2

Fram, I noticed that you wrapped up the B1, B2, and B3 classification GAR today. This is just a friendly reminder that you have another GAR open that affects over a dozen articles in the same subject area. I have no idea what, if any, work has been done on the various articles since you opened the assessment eight months ago; you will doubtless check them before proceeding. Thanks, and best of luck. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:21, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I planned on doing them today, but of course you had no way of knowing that. Fram (talk) 05:27, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
I see you delisted the ten L classifications. Any thoughts about the three other articles covered by that nomination: Para-alpine skiing, Para-alpine skiing classification, and Para-Nordic skiing classification? They're still listed as being reassessed. No rush, but something should be done with them relatively soon. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:48, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
The only good thing about this reassessment is that it has now been concluded, eight months after it was initiated.
The bad things is your complete disregard for the GA process that the community has adopted for reviewing GAs. You take no notice of the GA criteria and have not adopted the instructions for reassessment. Having taken on this reassessment, you should have given the other party the opportunity to fix any problems you identified. "Remember, the aim is not to delist the article, but to fix it." You have an ongoing issue with the editor involved in this reassessment. Please in future put any GA reassessment that involves such an editor up for community reassessment, rather than acting, as in this case, as prosecutor, judge, jury and executioner. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:36, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
Your view on my GA reviews has been discussed before. You were utterly wrong then, and again now. I have listed my reasons for delisting the article. A GA article should be well written (I identified problems with this), Verifiable with no original research (I identified clear errors), and Broad in its coverage (I identified problems here as well, especially with 3b, "it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail"). These criticisms were present in my initial listing (e.g. "poorly written collections of seemingly random facts" and "Overcapitalization" (and "wrong and inconsistent capitalization") were mentioned then, and are still problems now. I noted sentences like ""Skiers in this class may injure themselves while skiing. " in my initial review, and they are still present (and noted in my eventual delisting). "the 7.4 km race" was mentioned in my initial review, and still present. What I did wrong was give them way too much time to correct these problems. But the end result, the delisting of these articles, is correct, as they clearly aren't GA articles and no serious effort to get them to that level has been done. 09:14, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Sure, but the main point I was making was in the last sentence. In the case of Nvvchar, a community reassessment would have been much better. You gave him no opportunity to make improvements and just seemed to be targeting your victim until you achieved your objective. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:07, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
A formal reassessment for articles incorrectly promoted hours or days before is extreme overkill. Reassessments are for articles which no longer meet the GA criteria, not for articles which never met them. Fram (talk) 09:23, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi. I'm just letting you know, since you made this edit, that you're not supposed to remove articles from topics unless they were deleted or merged into another article. Please remember that the next time you do article reviews involving articles that are part of topics. GamerPro64 14:47, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I noticed that no other FTs had articles below GA in their template, so I thought that such removal was standard. Fram (talk) 09:02, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Marc Sleen

On 10 November 2016, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Marc Sleen, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Stephen 05:02, 10 November 2016 (UTC)


Page deletion

My page 'claire edmondson' was deleted due to a copyright infringement, was wondering what I can do to restore it? Putting the whole link from freethebid.com, instead of just a link to the website? Please let me know, as I need this page up and running asap. Thanks!

MerMarr (talk) 17:10, 10 November 2016 (UTC)M

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins

Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

A new user right for New Page Patrollers

Hi Fram.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Stop making wrong harmful generalizing statements

Stop making wrong harmful generalizing statements about me, like you did at several occasions on my talkpage. You stated that I made too many bogus explanations. It was shown that your generalization was wrong for every single example, and you were asked to refrain from making harmful generalizations. Later you continued saying that I [Sander.v.Ginkel] routinely adds incorrect information, without mentioning where you found incorrect data on articles. Even if you dislike a Wikipedia user, keep it fair and honest. Sander.v.Ginkel (Talk) 20:01, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

I explained my statements repeatedly. Nothing was shown to be incorrect, you simply made up fanciful explanations of why you e.g. added a source to articles, when the subjects of these articles weren't included in these sources. Incorrect sources, incorrect birth years, incorrect "last appearances" in competitions, claiming "current" clubs based on information from 2011, ... Yes, plenty incorrect information in those articles you created, and all of it mentioned at length on your talk page. Fram (talk) 20:16, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Adding data without a reference is something else than adding incorrect information. So like I said, mind your sentences. Sander.v.Ginkel (Talk) 08:27, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Adding a reference as if it partains to the subject, when in reality it is not about the subject at all, is incorrect information. "Adding data without a reference" was not in my list above, so please read and understand before you write. Fram (talk) 09:01, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
@Fram: I think you can not read yourself. incorrect information is information that is wrong, not all information without a reference is incorrect. someone who routinely uses false references and adds incorrect information (what you're saying) is different from someone who routinely uses false references and adds information without a referece, or someone who routinely uses false references for adding their information. If you really don't understand that this is different, I don't know you should be am administrator. Sander.v.Ginkel (Talk) 09:13, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
For the last time, I have not listed "information without a reference" in my above list of examples of incorrect information. Incorrect information was "incorrect birth years, incorrect "last appearances" in competitions, claiming "current" clubs based on information from 2011, ..." in my post above. You are making strawman arguments, claiming that I said something I didn't and then arguing why that fabrications of yours is false and makes me a bad admin. Fram (talk) 09:49, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Again, stop making false stamements!! You mean a wrong birth year in a complete wrong article because I didn't finish it (and you replied within minutes because you wanted to do that). Oww.. you mean the incorrect "last appearances" of the person that looked like another person... And third, if I state in the articles that it is from 2011 the information is outdated, not incorrect. So yes adds incorrect information is wrong and routinely adds incorrect information is totally wrong. Sander.v.Ginkel (Talk) 10:09, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
You wrote Ahmed Badr on 21.35 17 November, and stopped editing it 21.36 on 17 November. After I started editing it the next day, yuo again edited it twice at 09.02 on 18 November. I corrected the birth year on 10.48 on 18 November. No idea what you mean with "a complete wrong article", no idea why you write articles you don't finish and then think that that is an acceptable excuse (it's not as if I edited it in the middle of your edits, you had moved on to other articles by then), and no idea what the "you replied within minutes" is supposed to be about. Fram (talk) 10:25, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
You probably know who I mean, it was Patricia del Soto. Like I said of Ahmed Badr, was a typo after having added the same year of birth here. Are you still not seeing that you sentence routinely adds incorrect information is wrong? Sander.v.Ginkel (Talk) 10:38, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
So I give one example of you adding a wrong year of birth (Badr), you add a second (Del Soto) and a third (the 2004 template), and then you claim with a straight face "Are you still not seeing that you sentence routinely adds incorrect information is wrong?"? Speechless... Fram (talk) 10:49, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Badr and 2004 template was the same error and typo, I fixed it right away when someone told me. Del Soto was an unfinshed article. So this is what you call routinely adds incorrect information. Like I said before multiple times, stay kind and fair and mind your statements. Sander.v.Ginkel (Talk) 10:57, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
You finished editing Del Soto on 12.42 the 21st. After some other edits, you created Olga Domenech on 13.34 the same day. I first edited Del Soto at 13.44 that day, and posted about it on your user talk page on 13.49. Nothing here suggests that this was an unfinished article, you had moved on to other articles; and nothing warrants your "(and you replied within minutes because you wanted to do that)" claim. It was more than an hour after your last edit to the article and at a time you had started creating other articles already. Fram (talk) 11:05, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Everybody will agree this is not a finished article, the dob in the infobox is correct, on other places it had to be corrected. But I've never seen point #5 and #6 at WP:CALM, so I'll do #8 Sometimes you just need to walk away. Do not let an edit war supersede your personal Wikipedia time.. I think you should do the same. Sander.v.Ginkel (Talk) 11:16, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
So, you leave an article unfinished and go on to create other articles instead, and this is not the kind of editing that may be commented upon? It is actually bad that someone points out what you did there? If you want to leave articles unfinished for a while, use your sandbox or draft space, but don't pollute the main space with them. Fram (talk) 11:24, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
We discussed this issue already. This section is about something else. Sander.v.Ginkel (Talk) 14:03, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
I was discussing Ahmed Bahr (among other things), you were the one that introduced Patricia del Soto here in this discussion. Now that your commnts boomerang, this section is suddenly about "something else". Basically, what you seem to be saying "if I exclude all examples you have given so far, I can say that you have not given any examples so far" or something similar. Which is obviously true but not really a good basis to have a discussion. Fram (talk) 15:09, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Fram. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Third warning, stop making harmfull statements about me

This time at User talk:ThiagoSimoes where you wrote: I have had too many discussions with you now where you have shown unwillingness or incapability to read even the most basic things correctly. I've never shown unwillingness or incapability to read. If you continue to harm me without a good reason you may be blocked from editing. Sander.v.Ginkel (Talk) 10:24, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Please read "Stop making wrong harmful generalizing statements" above, it contains enough evidence for my claims and thorourhly refutes your "I have never". These comments may be harmful, but they are not "without a good reason". Fram (talk) 10:27, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
If you refer to something, make it clear. Don't say see above. Please show me my unwillingness or incapability to read including basic things. Sander.v.Ginkel (Talk) 10:42, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Let's see, I'm not to complain about your "unwillingness to read", I refer you to a section above, and you are unwilling to read it. Right... Fram (talk) 10:46, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
I replied to every single statement you made. So don't say "unwillingness to read".Sander.v.Ginkel (Talk) 10:54, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Many of your replies don't seem to be about what I actually wrote though, repeating incorrect claims again and again (like your belief that I equated unsourced information with incorrect information). Fram (talk) 11:01, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Category:10th-century BC establishments in Israel has been nominated for discussion

Category:10th-century BC establishments in Israel, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. GreyShark (dibra) 14:16, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

AfD

Why are you calling this AfD (WP:Articles for deletion/2016 Copa Sudamericana Finals: disruptive, unwarranted and disrespectful? I nominated it for AfD because it's a copy of 2016 Copa Sudamericana. Sander.v.Ginkel (Talk) 09:40, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

I am calling it disruptive, unwarranted and disrespectful because I consider it disruptive, unwarranted and disrespectful. The fact that everyone agreed that it was a clear Keep shows the "unwarranted" aspect. The fact that you chose to do this at a time when emotions are still raw and many, many thousands of peole read the articles about these events is the "disrespectful" aspect. "Oh, they all died so we won't have a final, then I guess we don't need this article any longer, bye!", that's the message that AfD note gives to people coming to the article. And an AfD that is unwarranted and disrespectful, well that's rather disruptive in my book. The two articles clearly are not copies of each other, although they contain some identical information. Fram (talk) 10:19, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Please read next time, and the reason why I nominated it. I said it because it's a copy of the main page. There are many incoming links because the link is at the page of the flight crash, otherwise 2016 Copa Sudamericana would have get the incoming links. All replies said that the finals are notable, yes I agree, but's already covered at the main page. Smartyllama (talk · contribs) wrote As the FInals of a major tournament, they satisfy WP:NFOOTY and WP:SPORTSEVENT even if they were cancelled. See also 1946 FIFA World Cup, which was cancelled as well, but there was enough in reliable sources and notable enough to write an article about it. So the fact that it was (maybe) ultimately cancelled is irrelevant. If it satisfied notability before it was cancelled, it still does. Well bad example as 1946 FIFA World Cup is a redirect, but I would believe it can become an article, but there would never be the article 1946 FIFA World Cup final. Because of that I made it a merge proposal, with exactly the same reasons, also disruptive, unwarranted and disrespectful?Sander.v.Ginkel (Talk) 10:26, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
The whole of the 1946 WC was cancelled, so we had no idea who would play the final, no winner would be announced, and so on. Not really convincing as an argument. On a different note, I just removed part of your changes at 2020 Summer Olympics opening ceremony (and I love that you are editing this, seems kind of inconsistent as it might still get cancelled)[3]. Please see WP:NPOV and similar policies and guidelines. Sentences like "this expensive, but jaw-dropping, feat" have no place in Wikipedia: and the announcement of a company that they would like to present this spectacle at a ceremony, without any indication that the organizers are in any way interested, is something that belongs in an article about the company (if notable), but not at the ceremony. But I'll drop a note at your talk page about this, as I now see where you got this from, which only makes it worse. Fram (talk) 10:35, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Sure, of course. Please screen my whole editory history and shoot at everything you don't like. Oh no, you're doing already. Sander.v.Ginkel (Talk) 10:38, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
That's the problem, your whole editing history needs screening because way too many of your edits are problematic. It's not what I don't like, it's everything that you do that is against policy and guidelines. Fram (talk) 10:40, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Edit

By performing this, please also clean up the other pages where the templates are linked to with LST. Sander.v.Ginkel (Talk) 21:46, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Don't be silly Sander.v.Ginkel, no-one is under any obligation to fix all the problems of Wikipedia. In fact, now you're aware of such an issue, you could do it yourself!!! Amazing! Have a great evening! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:51, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
@The Rambling Man: Not in this case. Fram acts before a consensus is reachead regarding to the templates at templates for discussion. That is a really bad practice for an administrator. Sander.v.Ginkel (Talk) 22:01, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
You can't expect one editor to fix up all the problems across Wikipedia from one specific change. If your comment was pointed and meant to say "don't make this change", that's a different matter. Either way, don't expect others to do the work for you, and don't use tacit threats to enable your personal position. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:04, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Wait for consensus (again)

As an administrator you should now really well not to act before a consensus is reached. So stop acting like you did already twice at List of 2011 UCI Women's Teams and riders, before a consensus where you are yourself involved in, is reached. Sander.v.Ginkel (Talk) 23:04, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

The discussion is about whether the templates will be deleted or not. The discussion does not mandate that if kept, the templates must be used. People are free to do what I have done even if the templates are kept. My edits were obvious improvements of that page. Fram (talk) 05:32, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Upon checking, you were still reintroducing errors to that page, so I have restored my version. Apparently it isn't that easy to get it right with all these templates? Fram (talk) 05:35, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

There are complains about you at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

You are warned several times regarding your way of communicating. As you continued doing so with the most recent statment being that all I said was a load of crap, it has been reported. See Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents for the notification. Sander.v.Ginkel (Talk) 10:45, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Noted. Fram (talk) 10:46, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Question

How is Betty Campbell notable? Note that Kudpung also deleted it. Dat GuyTalkContribs 11:26, 8 December 2016 (UTC) [4][5] Fram (talk) 11:28, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Request pull deleted article

Hi Fram, i'm trying to help a newcomer on the dutch wikipedia. apparently he created an article Microdermabrasie on the English wikipedia but in Dutch language. You (correctly) deleted the page, but can you pull it out of the graveyard and put it on the Dutch wikipedia? You can put it on my "kladblok (sketch page)" which is this page and/or to the newcomers kladblok which is here: [6]. Thanks for your help! Regards Saschaporsche (talk) 11:54, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Done! Fram (talk) 12:06, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the speedy help! Saschaporsche (talk) 12:10, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Prize for Best foreign comics publisher listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Prize for Best foreign comics publisher. Since you had some involvement with the Prize for Best foreign comics publisher redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Si Trew (talk) 10:28, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Prize for Best French comics publisher listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Prize for Best French comics publisher. Since you had some involvement with the Prize for Best French comics publisher redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Si Trew (talk) 10:28, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Peter van Straaten

On 10 December 2016, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Peter van Straaten, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:47, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Year of birth/death not corresponding with references

Hi Fram, I noticed that several of your articles have not the year of birth of death as in the reference you listed. This might be a typo or information copied from somewhere else. As this is crucial information of a person it might be good you take a look at it. Also of you say according to other sources in an article, you should list them. The articles I tagged are with these issues are: Pierdomenico Baccalario, Andrea di Cosimo Camillo Gavasetti, Pierre-Marie Gault de Saint-Germain, Franz Gareis, José García Hidalgo, Juan Galván Jiménez, José Galofré y Coma, Gaspare Galliari, Bernardino Galliari. Thanks, Sander.v.Ginkel (Talk) 13:58, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Fram, I see you fixed most of the listed articles above. However I see that the dates/years in many occasions were wrong in the articles. To let you know, I just tagged some articles where you listed a year of birth/death without a reference. Thanks, Sander.v.Ginkel (Talk) 11:52, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
"Most"? I thought I did them all. "Many occasions were wrong"? Two. I'll take a look at the articles you tagged. I thought though that you were first going to correct the errors listed at WP:ANI? Fram (talk) 12:01, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
You didn't do Pierdomenico Baccalario. Yes, I'm busy with it~, but these were the articles I already listed before (see the discussion). And I have another question, you created many articles where you copied text from this book. I believe you that the book is in the public domain, but where can I see that such a book is in the public domain? And does that mean we can also copy text from for instance https://www.tasnimnews.com/en to Wikipedia pages? Thanks, Sander.v.Ginkel (Talk) 12:12, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I saw now that I missed that one. As for PD, for a UK book that is life of the authors + 70. So every book (well, there are a few exceptions, but this isn't one of them) where the author(s) have died before 1 January 1946 is PD. Michael Bryan (the original author) died in 1821, and the two editors: Robert Edmund Graves died in 1922, and Walter Armstrong (art historian) died in 1918. Furthermore, the book is included in some reliable free websites as having no restrictions, e.g. from Cornell University. Fram (talk) 12:28, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Tasnimnews is not public domain. Whether the license allows copying of text is not immediately clear to me (I don't know the ins and outs of all licenses), but it would rarely be useful to copy Iranian news articles verbatim to an encyclopedia. Quoting from them, "according to Tasnimnews blablabla" may of course be perfectly acceptable (assuming they are reliable, I haven't looked deeper into this). Fram (talk) 12:31, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for you clear answer. That helps :). So if I find for instance some day some old book about sportspeople it could help expanding Wikipedia. Yeah, TasnimNews is a bit different. It's one of the biggest news agencies of Iran, but it publish everything under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. As I move many images from this website to Commons I see several articles. It's not about copying whole articles, but when doing so it might be helpfull copying crucial statements about certain news aspects to Wikipedia, without having it to rewrite it into other sentences. Sander.v.Ginkel (Talk) 12:47, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Just be aware of WP:PLAGIARISM. When you copy text (or only minimally change it), you always need to make it clear that you haven't written the text, and of course indicate who did it. That you are allowed to copy some text doesn't mean that you are allowed to claim it as your own, even implicitly (I don't think that was your plan, so I'm not accusing you, just explaining things). Fram (talk) 12:50, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Mass rollback

Regarding this discussion at AN/I, you can find a mass rollback script here. Cheers, --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 17:00, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Mariana da Silva Machado

Hello. As you have doubts about my edits, I prefer from now that you edit the articles and not me, in order to not to say that I commit violations of any kind on articles. Also, I want to clarify that I did not start those articles about naturalized footballers, I just complemented them according to the information I manage. Regarding footballers from Equatorial Guinea, I only started articles of footballers of Equatoguinean descent, who are senior international players and who have nothing to hide. Right now, I'm seeing some articles with wrong information, i.e. Mariana da Silva Machado. There it says she was born in 1994. That's not true. My main reference is Federação Paulista de Futebol. It's not a social network, but a football federation from an important Brazilian state. They report she was born in 1989.Women's footballers listed in "M", currently registered is Sao Paulo State clubs (click on "Mariana da Silva Machado") I have another source, Diário da Região, an online newspaper from São José do Rio Preto. On 23 September 2015, its journalist Ozair Júnior wrote: "The dream of being at the Rio de Janeiro Olympic Games is close for midfielder Mariana da Silva Machado, 26 years old. Carioca (citizen from Rio de Janeiro), raised in Cidade de Deus, the player who since 2012 plays for Rio Preto, was naturalized by Equatorial Guinea and has just been called to defend the country's national team in the two decisive duels against South Africa, on October 3 and 18".Diário da Região news If Mariana were born in 1994, she would be 26 just in 2020, but we are in 2016 yet. I kindly ask you to consider these sources. I do not want to violate anything, but I also do not want any lies to go around on the articles. Thank you.--MonFrontieres (talk) 23:42, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

You have Mariana da Silva Machado, born 30/07/1989, in Brasil. And you have Mariana Isabel Machado Silva, born 24 February 1994, in EG. That one source linking the two isn't really sufficient, certainly not when a source like [7] lists her as "nationality:Brazilian". Considering the track record of the Equatorian Guineans, your investigative journalism may well be correct, but ultimately Wikipedia is not the place for investigative journalism, certainly not for such delicate things as accusing people of fraud. WP:BLPCRIME and the remainder of the BLP policy are very strict on this. Fram (talk) 07:37, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

What should I do to proof Mariana Isabel Machado Silva doesn't exist?--MonFrontieres (talk) 14:43, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

No idea, she exists for FIFA and the like, so it will be very hard for you to prove it. Basically, you need a better source than that. So far, I haven't seen any that would be remotely good enough. Fram (talk) 14:47, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Better source? I gave you different sources from Brazil, where the player was born and raised. Was journalist Ozair Júnior lying about her story? Were Brazilian Foootball Confederation lying about her date of birth? Were Federação Paulista de Futebol lying about her place of birth? So Brazilian people lie about a Brazilian footballer, and Equatorial Guinea, a country which always play clean in football, says the truth and then FIFA and the like believe them. It makes a lot of sense...--MonFrontieres (talk) 15:19, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
You have sources about one, and you have sources about the other. What you don't have are good enough sources linking both together. As long as those are missing, we must treat them as two separate people (there are enough examples on Wikipedia of people with nearly the same name and age, in the same sport, who were confused but turned out to be two separate people anyway). Being probably or most likely right is in a case like this not good enough for Wikipedia, sorry. Fram (talk) 15:28, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
I just found the proof. In the last paragraph of Diário da Regiao 2015 source, Mariana da Silva Machado told to the journalist: “Em 2012 fui campeã da Copa da África, mas depois me machuquei e na última convocação não pude ir” (“In 2012 I was champion of African Cup, but after that I got injured and in the last call I could not go”).[8] In Equatorial Guinea 2012 African Cup squad there is no Mariana da Silva Machado, but Mariana Isabel Machado Silva, but Mariana da Silva Machado claims she was African champion in 2012. Well, what's your opinion now? Is it still insufficient?--MonFrontieres (talk) 15:41, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
That's better, but even then you need to present the two sides (dates of birth and so on) neutrally, as if both can be correct. It is not our place to declare the Brazilian dates correct and the FIFA ones incorrect, and even less to declare any intention of false play or anything similar. Fram (talk) 15:47, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Where can I present the two sides neutrally, as if both can be correct?--MonFrontieres (talk) 15:54, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Well, as an Equatorial Guinea side, I found this [9], but they talk about Mariana da Silva Machado, not Mariana Isabel Machado Silva. Then, on the CAF List of Players of Equatorial Guinea 2012 AWCN, they put that Mariana Isabel Machado Silva is a midfielder,[10] which it is casually the same position as Mariana da Silva Machado.--MonFrontieres (talk) 16:01, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

  • Another source from Equatorial Guinea. Guinea Ecuatorial Press, the official web page of the Government of the Republic of Equatorial Guinea. They talk about the 2012 Africa Cup semi-final against Cameroon, where Mariana (according to CAF report of tournament and subsequently this match, Mariana Isabel Machado Silva) is named as one of the Equatorial Guinea starters in that match. News of the match If you click on "click image to enlarge and see the rest of the photographs", then go to the image 7 of 9 andyou will see Mariana Isabel Machado Silva in the typical 11 starter players photo (the third in the row below, number 7) and you will note seeing her face it's the same person with Mariana da Silva Machado.Extracted photo from Guinea Ecuatorial Press

When I say "presenting neutrally", I mean something like Name (born date X (source 1, 2) or date Y (source 3, 4) is a Brazilian(source 5) naturalized EG(source6) player... (sources 1-6 don't need to be all different, including the source that links the two is of course best here). The same goes if you want to include the two names. Don't add any commentary (indications that date X or Y is correct, or that something is done to mislead or whatever), just present the facts side by side, even if you personally believe one to be true and the other to be false. Fram (talk) 17:11, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Okay. With whom in Wikipedia should I present all this to be analyzed?--MonFrontieres (talk) 17:25, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
No idea what you mean here. If you want to write the article, you either edit it directly, or suggest your changes on the talk page of the article. If you don't agree with my proposal and want your version to become the article, then you can contact WP:BLPN, the BLP noticeboard, to get further input. Fram (talk) 17:27, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Seasons' greetings

I received this message from a stranger "Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!"
This made me think about our relationship, and so I am wishing you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year! We seem often to be in disagreement but have a common objective - we both seek to improve Wikipedia, and it would be much better if we worked in harmony rather than enmity. So here's wishing you a peaceful and harmonious 2017, a year when perhaps we can all co-operate within the DYK project and Wikipedia more generally.
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:57, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry, merry!

From the icy Canajian north; to you and yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 04:21, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

SvG clean-up

See User:Aymatth2/SvG clean-up. I do not have the technical skills to write scripts, or the managerial skills to coordinate the task, but think it somehow must be done. Aymatth2 (talk) 23:39, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

And in relation to this, I put this note on ANI for more people to see the clean-up discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts Precious bodily fluids 08:00, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Betty Campbell

— Maile (talk) 00:02, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Reference errors on 10 January

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:19, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

In case you didn´t know

and find it interesting, you were mentioned here: [11]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:16, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Not sure what Captain Occam is trying to prove (In that quote, I'm discussing a talk page comment about someone, not what we should do in the main space), but I can't be bothered to enter that user talk page discussion. Why some people still try to discuss general principles on that page is beyond me. Fram (talk) 10:28, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) A fundamental misunderstanding add to the nature of power? O Fortuna!...Imperatrix mundi. 10:49, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

New Wikiproject!

Hello, Fram! I saw you recently edited a page related to the Green party and green politics. There is a new WikiProject that has been formed - WikiProject Green Politics and I thought this might be something you'd be interested in joining! So please head on over to the project page and take a look! Thanks for your time. Me-123567-Me (talk) 18:24, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Ways to improve Home Credit

Ways to improve Home Credit

Hi, I'm Gab4gab. Fram, thanks for creating Home Credit!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Current sources are not independent. Notability requires significant coverage by multiple sources that are completely independent of the subject. The sources used in the Czech article do seem to contain significant coverage that is independent.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Gab4gab (talk) 18:57, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Carltheo Zeitschel

I have put it back in as part of my fiddling with the template qualifiers, I have no real lasting opinion on it being there, so if you want to remove it I wont argue (actually I will go edit my link to be a perm diff anyway). But it does serve a useful example of the hoops to jump through to remove a single problematic word. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:32, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I saw it, and have already converted it to a purely enwiki template (since this has more information than the Wikidata one). Fram (talk) 16:33, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

January 2017

Stop icon This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on others again, as you did at John S. Duncan, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. In this edit summary, you called me a 'vandal'. Do that again and I'll take you to ANI to ask for sanctions against you. RexxS (talk) 13:12, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

If you don't want to be called a vandal, then don't vandalize articles just to keep your precious Wikidata template in it, and don't make false edit summaries.
Furthermore, learn either to read or to report honestly on what you have read. I did not call you a vandal, I said that "your edit" was "vandalism", which is exactly what you want me to do according to your oh so scary only warning: "comment on content, not on contributors". Your edit vandalized the article, removing information under the false guise of "expansion" and adding a duplicate website to the article infobox at the same time.
Please start improving enwiki (if you edit enwiki) instead of using enwiki to promote Wikidata (rather ineffectively, but that's beside the point). Fram (talk) 13:18, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

At John S. Duncan, you claimed that you "expanded infobox even further", while in reality, in your zeal to have the Wikidata infobox, you actually removed information (the alma mater), while at the same time displaying the website twice in the infobox. Please leave articles where the infobox is working correctly alone instead of making them worse. Don't disrupt Wikipedia to make your point. Fram (talk) 05:33, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for showing yet again that you are not interested in improving enwiki, but just in promoting the Wikidata infobox. You removed information from the infobox which had been in the article long before this edit war, and which was easily sourceable. You also just happened to only remove information from the infobox but not from the article, as if the same information is more problematic in an infobox than in an article. Or as if you only care about getting your infobox on the article, and not about the actual article itself. Stop it. Leave the article alone and go do some actual work improving either enwiki (here) or Wikidata (there). Fram (talk) 13:29, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

My edit to John S. Duncan did not duplicate the website and both of us know that. I would have spotted such a glaring problem when previewing the page prior to saving. The issue arose because of an update to the template that I've since fixed.
The 'Alma mater' of John S. Duncan is completely unsourced and has no place in an infobox until a source is provided. It does go to show the hypocrisy of complaining about Wikidata being "unsourced and unreliable", when the Wikidata version of the infobox filters out the unsourced information, while you merrily added it without a thought of how anybody could verify that information. Really ironic. --RexxS (talk) 13:45, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Liar. (Yes, you may now take me to ANI for this terrible personal attack. Doesn't change the fact that you are a liar (and a terrible one at that). The update to the infobox happened hours before your change to the article. I have responded about your other points (and quite obvioius motivation) at your talk page and at the article talk page, no need to post it a third time here. If you are not interested in making enwiki better, find another place to play on. And if you are interested in improving enwiki, then perhaps start showing it again, as the last few days you seem more interested in making articles worse than better. Fram (talk) 13:53, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Restore article

I will not restore the article on this 16-year old member of the Duma. It was alreday deleted after an AfD a few months ago anyway. I note that some of your other articles, Alexey Kosmynin and The Green Elephant 2, are correctly up for deletion as well. Please don't write articles about non notable subjects, and certainly don't write articles which aren't factual. Fram (talk) 16:19, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello, exist a problem in several articles and verbets of Wikipedia and Wiktionary in Portuguese, English and Spanish!

Was be saying that comic strip, charge and cartoon are synonymous, when, in really, are different things!

Below, the explanations of that are the comic strips, charges and cartoons:

  • Comic strip: comics of short duration with the charts disposed and organized in form of a strip, how the proper name already implies. The comic strips may or may not be humoristic and contains strong critics for the social values. There are three types of comic strips: the daily strips, which are usually published in small quantities and in black and white because of the rhythm of publication (although there are still some in color), the Sunday boards, which are usually published in large quantities and always filling a page of a newspaper or magazine and in color (although there are still some in black and white) and the yonkomas, which are comic strips of Japanese origin and have four vertical vignettes. The term comes from the American English, comic strip and means comics strip.
  • Charge: humoristic comics of short duration and that contains strong critics of the people and things of the contemporaneity. The term comes from the Franco Belgian French, charger and means load or exagere.
  • Cartoon: humoristic comics of short duration and that contains strong critics of the daily to daily situations. Because of the similarities between the first animation short films and the cartoons printed and published in newspapers, magazines and books from the epoch, the animated drawing also is called of cartoon (or, unabbreviated, animated cartoon), be or not humoristic. The same thing happens in Italian and German, where they are called cartone animato and animierter Cartoon, respectively. The term comes from the British English, cartoon and this of the Italian, cartone and means large piece of paper, sketch, study, draft or anteproject.


Here they here the articles and verbets for be revised in the respective idioms: https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tira_de_banda_desenhada, https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/charge, https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartoon, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comic_strip, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Editorial_cartoon, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartoon, https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tira_de_prensa, https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exageraci%C3%B3n_burlesca, https://pt.wiktionary.org/wiki/tira_cômica, https://pt.wiktionary.org/wiki/charge, https://pt.wiktionary.org/wiki/cartum, https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/comic_strip, https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/charge, https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/cartoon, https://es.wiktionary.org/wiki/tira_cómica, https://es.wiktionary.org/wiki/charge and https://es.wiktionary.org/wiki/cartón!

Including and principally, the certain is that the Wikipedia articles (described soon above!) should receive the following names in each idiom: Tira de banda desenhada, Charge and Cartum (desenho humorístico) - in Portuguese, Comic strip, Charge (humoristic drawing) and Cartoon - in English and Tira de historieta, Charge (dibujo humorístico) and Cartón (dibujo humorístico) - in Spanish!

Remembering and highlighting that the caricature has nothing to do with the other three because isn't a form of comic: is, simply, a humoristic exaggerated drawing of something or someone, be real or not, does not even have texts!

And well, as you can see, the cartoon isn't a type of comic strip, neither the charge is a type of cartoon, if possible, please, warn to your fellow editors to make the changes, very thanks since now for all attention and interest and a hug!

Saviochristi (talk) Saviochristi (talk) 00:55, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

I can do little about the situtaion at Portuguese and Spanish Wikipedia, and in English I have never seen the term "charge" for a kind of comic. Do you have good reliable sources that this is used in English at all? Fram (talk) 08:19, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
I see you also added this to Wiktionary. Please undo your changes there, I can't find any evidence that "charge" has this meaning in English. Fram (talk) 08:22, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

A request

Howdy. Recommend you unblock Cassianto, as the post he's been blocked for restoring, wasn't his post at all. GoodDay (talk) 13:57, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

He explicitly restored a blatant personal attack (it's not as if it was hidden in some large revision). What does it matter if he restored his own personal attack or an attack originally made by someone else? If the only purpose of an edit is putting back a personal attack, then it is making a personal attack, and WP:NPA applies to that editor. Fram (talk) 14:04, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Fram, this was a poor block and I request that you undo it promptly. His last block was poor as well, and it's not appropriate for you to cite it as part of your rationale for blocking this time. You've chosen to make an example of Cassianto without considering the bigger picture and the other actors, as if his actions are isolated and not a byproduct of a large-scale disruption around infoboxes that involves lots of "civil incivility" and content creators being harangued all over the project. This is the same thing that happened with his last block, and why it was undone—it's akin to walking onto a battlefield and deciding to arrest a single person because they fired a shot at someone. --Laser brain (talk) 14:52, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Feel free to suggest who else to block. I have warned Davey2010 for his behaviour, and Giano's original PA was stale (too old to block for), certainly considering that he didn't attempt to reinsert his comment. His last block was undone as a "last chance saloon", not as a "nothing happened, bad block". Then, and now, Cassianto has made it quite clear that he has no problem with the block remaining in place and doesn't plan to appeal it. No indication that he understands which part of his conduct was problematic (more likely, he understands it but doesn't care, Cassianto isn't stupid) and more importantly that anything would change after the unblock. So no, I don't plan to unblock, despite all attempts from people who opposed the previous block as well to get this one swiftly overturned as well. Fram (talk) 15:06, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Very concerned about who (possibly logged out) inputed as 86.190.109.246 at the Infobox-discussion-question. GoodDay (talk) 18:26, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

If you have suspicions about who did this, and believe his edits were somehow problematic, you are free to open an WP:SPI. Not much I can or want to do about an IP who made two good edits and nothing else. Fram (talk) 19:01, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
If any administrator blocks Cassianto, then his fans will start harassing the blocking administrator. Marvellous Spider-Man 04:00, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Sushila Aggarwal

As administrator you can see the content of this page. If you can give the details about the content then I can understand the editor's interests in editing wikipedia. All his visible edits in last 4 years are linked to one party. --Marvellous Spider-Man 13:22, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

That was a page for an Indian candidate politician. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sushila Aggarwal is about the subject. Fram (talk) 13:29, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes, but can I know the content? Is it mentioned which party she belongs, her place of contesting election, any relatives? --Marvellous Spider-Man 13:32, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Party: Indian National Congress Ward No.256 Yamuna Vihar under Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) spouse = Ajay Aggarwal

Administrators' newsletter - February 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.

Administrator changes

NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67
Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
  • Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
  • The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.

Arbitration

Obituaries

  • JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.
Discuss this newsletter • Subscribe • Archive

13:36, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:2017 establishments in the United Arab Emirates

A tag has been placed on Category:2017 establishments in the United Arab Emirates requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and it is not presently under discussion at Categories for discussion, or at disambiguation categories.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. AusLondonder (talk) 15:38, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Memphis Red Sox

Hello, Fram! I edit regularly from a dynamic IP but focus almost solely on Negro league baseball. I'm scratching my head right now over what to do about Memphis Red Sox. Where do I begin to see what happened if it was a copyright infringement and how do I go about to get it restored without the c/i? Even if it was a c/i, I'm sure I have edited it since its creation (it was created long before I came along), so I was wondering if I could see the parts that weren't c/i. How does this work at this point? Rgrds. --64.85.216.59 (talk) 15:52, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

The article had the copyvio right from the start, and the copied paragraph remained virtually unchanged. (In the article at the time of deletion, there were four lines of text, and two of those were striaght copies). Recreating it from scratch will be easier and safer than restoring it and trying to remove the copyvio.

If you want to create it but can't, as an IP, you can post a version here and I'll create it, crediting you in the edit summary. Fram (talk) 15:59, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

The references were
  • Conrads, D.; Wulf, S.; Burns, K.; O'neil, B. (2010). I Was Right On Time. Simon & Schuster. p. 69. ISBN 9781439127469. Retrieved 2015-06-22.
  • Mills, P. 'Memphis Red Sox', Negro League Baseball (2002) Retrieved July 25, 2005.
  • Peterson, Robert W. Only The Ball Was White, (New York: Prentice-Hall Englewood-Cliffs, 1970)
Thanks for the quick reply! I can recreate through a draft article and then put it up at WP:RM (I've done it a few times as you can tell and can move it through pretty quick). The part I am worried about losing is the infobox (unless I never got around to this team), can you post that here so I can copy it? It may seem trivial, but it would save me some time. Thanks, --64.85.216.59 (talk) 16:14, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
No problem, the infobox can't be copyrighted in any case.


Memphis Red Sox
Information
League
LocationMemphis, Tennessee
Ballpark
  • Martin Park (1924–1930)
Established1923
Disbanded1962

SVG - Pan American Games

Sources for the Pan American Games have been difficult to find so I've been removing those categories for most articles. Given the stringent sourcing expected for the SVG articles, what should I do in a case like Abel Driggs Santos? I didn't find a source to indicate that he won a medal, yet his name is included in the templates at the bottom of the article. The template doesn't have sources. I remember at least one other article like this that I edited, so it's not just a one-time instance. Thanks --Tbennert (talk) 17:15, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

If you really can't verify it, I would simply remove the templates. If you want to go the extra mile, you can add a section on the talk page indicating that you removed these and asking for help in sourcing this, but this isn't necessary. If this means that you would need to remove the only claim to notability, then leaving it in draft space to be deleted may be the better option. For Driggs, I note that this is not the case (he competed at the Olympics).
Specifically for this case, the problem is that his name is sometimes said to be Driggs, and sometimes Drigg. I can find some (reliable?) references for his Panam medal as Drigg[15], and perhaps more reliable here[16]. Fram (talk) 17:28, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Why?

Why this? Well you may ask, and the answer is Big Thumb Syndrome on iPad while lying in bed and scrolling down watchlists. Note the time -- 4.10 this morning. I think I can count on one had the number of edits I have made at that hour in 13 years. Blush. Cheers Moriori (talk) 19:45, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

:-D No worries, thanks for the explanation! Fram (talk) 21:10, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

@Moriori: FYI, I looked into this recently after a similar mishap and found an option to customise the watchlist to prevent this happening. Andrew D. (talk) 12:07, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Please stop moving back articles to draft space

Please stop moving SvG articles back to the draft space while they don't have SvG issues. As you have been in fight with him for a while, it would be better to let othters do the job. MFriedman (talk) 10:50, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

"While they don't have SvG issues". Have you checked? The one that moved them to mainspace clearly didn't, as explained at WP:AN (issues found in the articles after they were moved back to mainspace ranged from BLPs without a single source about the subject, to copyvios). "it would be better to let othters do the job. " Do you volunteer? Until then, I'll just continue with the moves. Fram (talk) 10:52, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
As you can see I'm already for a long time on the volunteer list. You did clearly did not check the articles when moving them back to the draft space. And yes I did check and moved some of them already back. MFriedman (talk) 10:57, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
"You did clearly did not check the articles when moving them back to the draft space. " No, I don't need to. The onus is on the people moving them to the mainspace to check the articles, not just "I move them to the mainspace without any checks and you need to check them before we can move them back". In that case they shouldn't have been moved to draftspace in the first place. You are free to move articles to the mainspace after you have checked and corrected them. I only move the articles back from editors who didn't do the necessary checks, not all articles no matter who moved them. Fram (talk) 10:59, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
I came here to make a similar point. You moved back to draft space Ryan Patterson, an article that I completely rewrote, heavily referenced and prepared for dyk months ago before it got moved to the draft space for the first time and bears virtually no resemblance to the SvG original article. - Basement12 (T.C) 14:45, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Such articles can be moved immediately back to mainspace by editors looking at articles individually. The problem was that we had editors moving SvG articles to the mainspace en masse, without the necessary checks; they have all been reversed, the good with the bad. Obviously yours was one of the good ones, the move to draft says nothing about the qualities of the articles. Some 16,000 articles have been moved to draft, and some 800 I think have been moved back to draft for being indiscriminately moved to the mainspace. Fram (talk) 14:48, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Understood, I hadn't seen the problem with the mass moves back to mainspace. Just somewhat frustrating that if I hadn't spotted it the clock may have run out an the draft article been deleted. I'm not aware that there is an easy way to see which of SvG's articles I may have developed and now are lingering in drafts - Basement12 (T.C) 15:45, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
If you would belatedly find some articles which have been deleted, you can always ask any admin to WP:REFUND them; if the reasons for the mass-deletion don't apply to the page, there shouldn't be any trouble to have it restored. Fram (talk) 15:56, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
@Basement12:: I think you can find all articles which you ever edited and which have now been moved to draftspace here. Hope this helps! Fram (talk) 16:17, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
  • For what its worth, there was one I moved back to mainspace from draft when it had precisely 2 editors, SvG and me. And two diffs (although I think someone else has done it now). Being subsequently aware of the SvG issues I did give it the once over before moving it back (ironically due to a finger slip I put it in the WP space first) as I think the subject probably passes the threshold for notability - insofar as its not eligible for speedy deletion given they do have a claim of significance. The problem I have now is I cant remember who the hell is it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:54, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Just a comment after having seen the latest at ANI, and to say I think Fram is exactly right here. The onus is on editors moving these articles back into mainspace to check them properly. If an editor is seen to not be doing that and moving articles with exactly the same problems they had originally, then they're just recreating the same problems we had to start with and their moves can not be trusted - and they should all be reverted back to Draft again. If some good ones get moved back to draft in that process, those individual ones can again be moved back to mainspace by an editor who checks properly. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:56, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

You may want to consider returning all of MFriedman's moves to draftspace. Jorn Winkelhorst (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and Frederique Janssen (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (two of his most recent moves) were not properly checked. — JJMC89 (T·C) 19:00, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Canada men's national volleyball team

what must be done to the pages of the players before they can be moved back to the mainspace?Theo649 (talk) 22:00, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Check whether the sources are about the subject of the article, and not about another person (or simply don't work)
  • Check all facts given in the article, and either remove or source anything not correctly referenced yet
  • Also check the infobox and categories, which often contain other information than the actual text
  • If there is more text than just a very basic list of achievements, check it for copyright violations
  • Be extra alert for BLP violations (accusation of drug abuse or other negative elements)
  • Players of the national senior volleyball team will probably be notable, so an extra check for notability may be unnecessary; but for many SvG articles this is needed as well

If you want to, you can check and move some articles and ask me whether I see any remaining problems. This though is not necessary or obligatory of course. Fram (talk) 07:58, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Only so you know

You beat me to this. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:46, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I've reverted them again, and have left a note on their talk page. Fram (talk) 07:21, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

On creation protection of Victor Mochere

I wanted to request creation of a page on Victor Mochere, a renown Kenyan Author, blogger, scholar, influencer and entrepreneur but apparently you have protected it from creation. I would like to request you to allow the page be created. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DennisMbaro (talk • contribs) 08:39, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

I see no evidence that he is notable, please provide some reliable independent sources about him to show that he satisfies WP:ANYBIO. Fram (talk) 07:35, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1980 establishments in Slovenia

A tag has been placed on Category:1980 establishments in Slovenia requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and it is not presently under discussion at Categories for discussion, or at disambiguation categories.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. AusLondonder (talk) 04:18, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

SvG

Hi,

I do a bit of New Page Patrolling and I've come across the SvG case. As MFreidman is moving some pages into the mainspace at the moment they're showing up in the feed and I've been reviewing them to prevent an unnecessary backlog building up. Just checking - is that okay?

Thanks,

DrStrauss talk 13:58, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, at the moment they seem to be doing an okay job in reviewing these and moving them back, after a (very) rocky start. Fram (talk) 14:33, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, there is a big backlog of draft articles once they have been moved into the mainspace which don't seem to be speedied - is the plan to do this at the end of the operation? Regards, DrStrauss talk 14:57, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Normally, all remaining SvG drafts should be speedy deleted 90 days after they have been moved to draft space. No idea yet how many or how few this will be, we had some editors trying to mass move them back without making the necessary checks and changes, but this seems to have improved. Fram (talk) 15:02, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

February 2017

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Questionable blocks by Fram. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:22, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

A break

Fram, no kidding, but the number of people I've heard talking about you negatively, whether on here or by email, has increased dramatically in recent months. Now you've always monitored content and always strived for accuracy and identifying errors. That's fair enough. The problem is, you seem to live to pick holes in people's articles on wikipedia and seem to enjoy pushing others around. It wouldn't be so bad if you produced content yourself and got on with your own thing, but regularly checked and complained about the odd article. But your intentions are questionable, and I think you forget that contributors contribute for free and have their own feelings, which you obviously couldn't care less about. I suggest you back off a little, try to go back to producing content yourself and take it easy for a while. I'm convinced that if you don't it's only a matter of time before people try to get you apprehended on here as you're steadily building a big group of people who object to how you operate.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:34, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't really care about how people think about me. Every time it has been brought to ANI (see the thread right above) or to ArbCom, it has turned out that most people either agree with my actions or at least can see the merit in them, even if they would have done it differently (like blocking Singora indef instead of for a month). That some echo chambers reinforce their belief that I am evil is obvious, but either they will turn out to be the majority opinion, and then so be it, or they will see (again; like in the discussion above) that while they agree with each other, they hardly represent the general opinion at enwiki. Fram (talk) 08:58, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Question

Hi Fram. Can you provide clarification why Dangmei Grace was moved back to Draft? Hmlarson (talk) 19:08, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Because the version I moved back [17] had only one source, which produced a 404 error (page not found), so it was in reality an unsourced BLP. No SvG articles should be moved back to mainspace without a working source confirming the basic facts in the article. I see that you have now added three sources (just like you corrected most other articles incorrectly moved from draft by the same editor). Things like her date of birth and the starting year for the national team (2014) are still unsourced though (we have had problems with SvG articles with incorrect dates of birth as well). Fram (talk) 07:53, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

So this is a thing...

List of Elm cultivars, hybrids and hybrid cultivars TimothyJosephWood 16:33, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Michael Cole (public relations)

G4. Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion This applies to sufficiently identical copies, having any title, of a page deleted via its most recent deletion discussion. It excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version, pages to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies, and content that has been moved to user space or converted to a draft for explicit improvement (but not simply to circumvent Wikipedia's deletion policy). This criterion also does not cover content undeleted via a deletion review or that was deleted via proposed deletion or speedy deletion (although in that case the previous speedy criterion, or other speedy criteria, may apply).

The talk page made it clear that the article you deleted was not substantially identical to the previous deleted version. It is therefore not eligible for G4 and you need to restore it. The subject is clearly notable and the substantial coverage in the many reliable sources present make a nonsense of any argument that it does not meet GNG. --RexxS (talk) 15:16, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Bye, RexxS, thanks for dropping by. No idea why you feel the need to raise GNG. Please read WP:BLPDELETE instead. If you don't agree after reading that, then feel free to take it to WP:DRV. Fram (talk) 15:20, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
You're welcome. Perhaps you might read BLPDELETE:
  • "Page deletion is normally a last resort. If a dispute centers around a page's inclusion (e.g., because of questionable notability or where the subject has requested deletion), this is addressed via deletion discussions rather than by summary deletion. Summary deletion is appropriate when the page contains unsourced negative material or is written non-neutrally, and when this cannot readily be rewritten or restored to an earlier version of an acceptable standard. The deleting administrator should be prepared to explain the action to others, by e-mail if the material is sensitive."
Nothing there that supports your summary deletion. Although "questionable notability" might be a reason that went through your head, hence my noting WP:GNG - understand now?
Read WP:BEFORE, and check if you are compliant with that. See if these help:
Solid and substantial sourcing. G4 doesn't apply. Save us all the fuss and restore it now. --RexxS (talk) 15:46, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I'll spend my time discussing this with genuinely interested editors capable of reading a policy until the end, instead of coincidentally stopping right before the relevant parts. "After the deletion, any administrator may choose to protect it against re-creation. Even if the page is not protected against re-creation, it should not be re-created unless a consensus is demonstrated in support of re-creation." Emphasis mine. Please don't post on my talk page again and only bother yourself with my edits if you are very certain that they are problematic. WP:BEFORE, just like WP:GNG is totally irrelevant here. Feel free to take this to WP:DRV or (if you really want to experience a boomerang) WP:ANI, but don't waste my time here any further. Fram (talk) 15:56, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)I'd be interested to know how a source that describes its subject as a "bouffant-haired front-man" in its opening sentence could be considered a suitable source for a BLP. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:12, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
-) Fram (talk) 17
14, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Allright, using that smiley as the start of my line had unintended consequences :-D Fram (talk) 17:15, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

REDIRECT Gaspar Gevartius

I think you are incredebily rude that you did not discuss this change of name, no respect at all for the author. Your party!--Carolus (talk) 12:29, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't recall you showing any respect the last time we interacted. And the name you created (twice) doesn't exist anywhere but in pages you edited here. Instead of complaining about not being consulted, make sure that your edits have some basis in reality. Fram (talk) 12:33, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Redirects

Yes, sorry! I was trying to create various redirects (common search terms one might use in trying to find the article) and couldn't figure out how to switch it back when I was done, so I just left the name as the closest I could to the original. Thanks for changing it back though, I wasn't sure who to reach out to to switch it for me.

Thanks for assuming good faith, that was very kind of you :) Trafalk09 (talk) 03:02, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Well that is a first

For me anyway. Hello F. You and Non-dropframe added tags to the Shemira (The Guarding) at almost the same time - I was adding a speedy but I was a few seconds too slow or we would have three choices of what to do with the article :-) The two of you might want to put your heads together and decide which one to go with. Thanks for your efforts and your time. MarnetteD|Talk 17:02, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

I guess it will be a snow delete in 24 hours time anyway, so perhaps we can just leave it as it is? Otherwise feel free to remove the prod and let the AfD run its course. It's the first time I have seen such a simultaneous double / triple deletion course as well! Fram (talk) 17:23, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Leaving them both is fine by me. I didn't know if there was any protocol in this situation so I thought I'd ask. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 18:41, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
I don't really know whether this situation has been written down anywhere either. But as predicted it has now been snow deleted anyway. Fram (talk) 07:33, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Joyce Pring

Hi  Fram, I noticed you placed BLPProd on Joyce Pring page, but I've added WP:A7 as I believe that article does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject. Can you please advise if next time I should (or can) remove BLPPROD tag and replace it with speedy deletion tag or I should always leave BLPPROD ? Thanks Jone Rohne Nester (talk) 09:19, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
As a TV/Radio host, they likely do not qualify for A7 - which is usually interpreted pretty broadly re 'importance' or 'significance'. But it is subjective depending on who picks it up. Actually after following a rabbit hole and ending up here - it appears A7 is being judged a bit more rigourously now. So forget anything I just said. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:43, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
When you place a speedy tag on an article which already has a BLPprod, you should always leave the BLPprod in place. A reviewing editor may decline the speedy, but the BLPprod would still be valid. Having said that, I was in doubt to speedy delete it, but wasn't completely certain, so I didn't. But it's a close call and I can't blame you for putting that tag on it. Fram (talk) 09:53, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Well noted,thanks for your help, appreciate it Jone Rohne Nester (talk) 12:14, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
I redirected it. It's an easy way for an admin to "cop out" of speedying, and preserves the article's history too. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:46, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Gender

Hi, I think most people presume you're male. A few people seem sure that you're female, which I was surprised at. I understand if you don't want to identify either way though as it doesn't really matter, to me you're just "Fram", but either way, saying that you have a "tiny cock" isn't polite!♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:12, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) ...what about small hands, though....? ;) — O Fortuna! Imperatrix mundi. 14:23, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Biologically speaking, as a female that would be broadly correct given what develops into what. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:30, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
They could be confusing "Fram" with "Fran" (eg: Fran Godfrey). Personally I just think of the automotive filter factory just off the M4 near Llantrisant. (Is it still there?) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:35, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Statement at Case requests page

Hi, Fram. I'm an arbitration clerk, which means I help manage and administer the arbitration process (on behalf of the committee). Thank you for making a statement in an arbitration request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case. However, we ask all participants and commentators to limit the size of their initial statements to 500 words. Your statement significantly exceeds this limit. Please reduce the length of your statement when you are next online. If the case is accepted, you will have the opportunity to present more evidence; and concise, factual statements are much more likely to be understood and to influence the decisions of the Arbitrators.

Requests for extensions of the word limit may be made either in your statement or by email to the Committee through this link or arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org if email is not available through your account.

For the Arbitration Committee, Amortias (T)(C) 21:58, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

My deepest apologies, Fram

I agree with everything you say. I think the long term solution will be to have an Anglican Wiki where anyone can write an article about any clergyman. It will never be as good as Wikipedia which I hope will continue long enough to reverse its current bias towards popular culture. Bashereyre (talk) 17:02, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lodewijk van Velthem, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Brabant. 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) 11:09, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Hey

A new user, User:Arsi786 has been blanking sections on the growth of religion article and has been adding unsourced information to other articles, such as that about Khatri. Reverting him does not slow him down or cause him to discuss why he's blanking sections. Administrator intervention would be appreciated.--Jobas (talk) 17:48, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

How is Ethan Ulm not notable?!!

He is a representative of Farmington in a association about the Nigerian dwarf goat and he has won multiple awards as a master showman in the Nationals for NDGA. He lives in the town and even owns a farm. So he represents the town of Farmington Illinois in a national association. I bet you haven't even been to the town. Elu7886 (talk) 09:46, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

I assume NDGA is the 'Nigerian Dwarf Goat Association'? I look forward to Fram's reply. (I feel I should add, this was in a 'I am breaking out the popcorn' way, even assuming the NGDA was a real thing. With apologies to Fram) Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:47, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
Please check WP:ANYBIO. The only Ethan Ulm in Farmington is a boy who is thrilled to receive Star Wars Gifts, not a farm owner. Please take your vandalism elsewhere or you will be blocked. Fram (talk) 09:55, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

are you saying that he is not representing his state and town in the association for Nigerian dwarf goats? It is considered a great honor Elu7886 (talk) 10:05, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

You have been blocked. Please come back when you are a bit older and understand that this is an encyclopedia, not a place to post a page about yourself or a close friend. Fram (talk) 10:21, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Arbitration request

Your request for arbitration has been declined. For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 19:51, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Plural of genus

The plural of "genus" is "genera". DuncanHill (talk) 10:59, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! My Latin is a little bit rusty. Fram (talk) 11:32, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Classic line: 'With a langwidge like hic haec hoc,' said Wiliam bitterly, 'it's no wonder the Romans became extinct...' :D — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 12:52, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
:-) I never read a Just William book, despite reading lots of English books. I always tought the Romans became extinct due to the treatment Obelix gave them again and again. (Have you ever seen the Gary Larson cartoon with "The real reason the dinosaurs became extinct"? That's a classic as well!) Fram (talk) 12:59, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
I'd forgotten that :) having a crafty smoke behind the mangrove swamp! — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 13:02, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

SvG clean-up ends at last

This is due for tomorrow. Do you want to pull the plug and wipe out all the drafts? It is just a question of running Twinkle's batch delete tool with User:Aymatth2/SvG clean-up/BLP 0 as input. That will delete all draft articles and draft redirects. If you are not comfortable with it, I will ask someone else to do the deed. But first I will ask user:JJMC89 to rerun his script to build a list of who moved what. I think it is best to do that before wiping out the drafts. I suggest that you and I can handle the audit, concentrating first on the high-volume article restorers. I will make separate lists of articles they restored, which can be annotated with problems found. A redlink, typically meaning the article was moved to mainspace than back to draft, counts as a problem. 10 articles per high-volume restorer should be enough to show up consistent lack of checking if it exists. If I think I have found a rogue editor I will ask you to confirm, and vice-versa, then the articles restored by that editor can be deleted from mainspace. Comments? Aymatth2 (talk) 19:04, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Aymatth2, I've scheduled the script to run at 00:07, 25 April 2017 (UTC). — JJMC89 (T·C) 20:02, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
JJMC89 Thank you very much for that. Aymatth2 (talk) 22:54, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
FYI, during my move log patrol I noticed User:Arielslytherin has done a large volume of restores over the past several hours or so. I saw that you (Fram) had placed a prior warning on their talk page that these restores may be suspect. – Train2104 (t • c) 01:47, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Large indeed. If spot checks show Arielslytherin has not been checking them, they will all get deleted. I assume they know that. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:27, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
User:Aymatth2/SvG clean-up/Moves updated. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:24, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
@JJMC89: That is great. Thank you for that. Aymatth2 (talk) 10:10, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
@Fram: Do you care to pull the plug on the remaining draft stubs that nobody bothered to restore? Twinkle batch delete using User:Aymatth2/SvG clean-up/BLP 0 as input. If you are not comfortable with launching it, maybe MusikAnimal would do the deed. :~) Aymatth2 (talk) 10:10, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
I will start splitting out the lists for audit. It looks a lot better than I feared. Aymatth2 (talk) 10:10, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for taking care of this. I'ld rather not do this, as some people may mistakenly claim this as a breach of WP:INVOLVED. I do support the deletions though (also of all moves by Beatley, by the way, even if they still are in mainspace). Fram (talk) 11:27, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I fully understand – I thought you might be uncomfortable. But I would really appreciate your help on the audit. See User:Aymatth2/SvG clean-up/Audit notes#Working lists. The idea is to check a sample (10 or so) of articles moved by each high-volume editor and add a comment for any problems found – or not found. It should be extremely obvious where editors have been moving without checking, and then we just bulk-delete all the articles they moved back to mainspace. The point is not to find "serious errors" so much as to find unchecked moves. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:05, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

@MusikAnimal: May I ask you to please wipe out the remaining SvG drafts? The easiest way seems to be to run the Twinkle batch delete using User:Aymatth2/SvG clean-up/BLP 0 as input. This will also delete draft redirects to mainspace, which I think is a good thing. I can't imagine that any mainspace articles use them, as in [[draft:John Doe|John Doe]], but if they do it will just turn into an easily-fixed redlink. Thanks in advance, Aymatth2 (talk) 13:20, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

@MusikAnimal: Done. All drafts wiped out. Thanks anyway – I know how busy you are. Aymatth2 (talk) 11:41, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you to everyone involved! This is a bit annoying, as it comes across as ungrateful, but it seems that some drafts still remain (apart from the ones created by SvG in draft space after the start of the whole case). Something like Draft:Petar Tomašević, Draft:Ailish Nolan (New Zealand artistic gymnast), ... It's a short list only, everything older than 8 December 2016 here I think. Fram (talk) 11:49, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Excluding redirects I think the list is:

I would be inclined to just nuke them all under the umbrella of the Original Decision. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:42, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

  • I am off for a 10-day vacation tomorrow. I will have internet and probably will use it, but am not sure I want to start anything ambitious. I feel the audit needs a push to clear out the articles moved by the rogue editors, but have lost energy and interest. Any ideas on how to get new recruits for the last shove? Aymatth2 (talk) 23:32, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

ORCP

Could I ask you to comment on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll#Ritchie333:_April_18.2C_2017? Even if it's "0/10 - you must be joking", at least that's up-front and honest. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:14, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Thank you for your kind words. Denisarona (talk) 11:38, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

YouTube

Hi Fram. I've been reading WP:YOUTUBE again and I just wanted to clarify with you that there is no blanket ban as such on linking to YouTube videos on one's User Page or Talk Page. Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:40, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

No, there is no blanket ban. There is a ban on linking to potential copyright violations, i.e. nearly everything not uploaded through an official channel (official channel of a TV company, record company, or artist, usually). So you are free to use the latter sort, as long as you are very careful not to link again to anything that is not clearly official and unproblematic. I hope that this is what you meant, and not "there is no blanket ban so I'll reinstate all youtube links on these pages again"? Fram (talk) 07:54, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
I also didn't mean "there is no blanket ban so I'll add YouTube links to lots of other user's pages and talk pages", etc. As you are the only person who has complained about YouYube links on my user and talk pages in over 10 years, I thought you'd be the best person to clarify exactly what policy is on this matter. Looking at WP:YOUTUBE again, it doesn't seem to say anything at all about User page and Talk pages? It seems to be simply describing policy for article space, such as to support article content and in External links sections. Does the concept of "External links" for YouTube links extend across all pages, including user space? If so I think this should be openly stated somewhere, preferably at WP:YOUTUBE. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:09, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Please read WP:LINKVIO, which is about all pages, not just articles, and about all such links, not just Youtube. "However, if you know or reasonably suspect that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work. An example would be linking to a site hosting the lyrics of many popular songs without permission from their copyright holders. Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States (Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry [1]). Linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on Wikipedia and its editors." I have also clarified this in WP:ELNEVER just now, but basically LINKVIO is the reason. That no one has complained in ten years is too bad, as this has been tolerated for too long despite clearly being against our policies. Fram (talk) 09:23, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. Ah yes, tolerance. It seems this all depends on my own personal "reasonable suspicions" and if I don't have any, that's fine. Thanks for citing "United States (Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry ". But I really have no idea how close this case is to any case that has involved Wikipedia and YouTube. In fact, as I previously asked, has there ever been a legal challenge from a copyright holder because of a YouTube link on Wikipedia? I'd be very interested to know. I think it's wholly laudable to be motivated by legal concerns, but I think many people are motivated more by a desire to stop Wikipedia becoming the next Facebook? I might want to re-add this link. That looks a very safe bet to me? What do you think? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:42, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Our policies are not based on "has their ever been a case" or even "would we be legally in problems". Many of our policies on e.g. copyright are more strict than is probably legally necessary. So your questions are beside the point. If you want to edit on enwiki, you need to follow enwiki policies, no matter if you like them or see the point of them or not (you are free to try to change policies you don't agree with, of course, but I doubt that getting permission for people to link to copyright violations will fly). Like I said, youtube channels which seem to be by the performer or original broadcaster are acceptable, most other ones are not (public domain material may be put on youtube by anyone, but most youtube material is definitely not public domain). The case you linked here is thus acceptable. Fram (talk) 09:51, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I understand that. Which is why I was a little surprised that you offered a real legal case in support. I started to wonder if YouTube videos could, or should, be treated like photographs, where we have to get explicit permission from the copyright holder before we can use them? I guess OTRS would crumble and sink into oblivion under the weight of such a mechanism. And we'd still face the problem of a poster assuming they had copyright when, in fact, they did not? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:19, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
I simply quoted WP:LINKVIO, I didn't go looking for a case which may or may not support this. As for your comparison with photographs, you can't use fair use photographs in your user space either, and these get routinely removed. Why would you try to get permission of a copyright holder to link to a youtube page where their work is republished without permission? These links aren't needed, they are just decoration, and you would very rarely get permission from, say, Captain Beefheart's estate and the BBC to link to someone else's upload of his performance on their show. I doubt that OTRS would crumble, it seems more likely that, if you would bombard them with requests, they would strongly urge you to stop wasting their time with these and just stop using youtube links at all. Fram (talk) 11:27, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
My suggestion was for the use of links to YouTube videos in article mainspace, not on User pages or User Talk pages. Sorry if that wasn't clear. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:31, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Jeepers

Here is a picture of a mongoose for you to look at (if you want)

Well that got a little involved. I hope you're not mad at me for taking up your time. I recognize that it is not really very important either way. I guess I should have gone to law school and sometimes that gets the better of me. Herostratus (talk) 18:54, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Fram, I got a question--I would have asked Moonriddengirl, but that account doesn't seem so active anymore. Perhaps you or one of your talk page stalkers know this. I'm looking at a long list of manuscripts for a particular medieval text--when I say long, I mean really long. Besides the obvious question of what the point of listing it in an article would be (I'm not sure about that), can we borrow such a list? It will be impossible to paraphrase it; it could be abbreviated, by listing only numbers of manuscript in any particular location, but that takes away from any usefulness the list might have. I'd link the book via Google but I can't--I trust that you know what such a list looks like. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 17:00, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, such a list can be included here. Any comments accompanying the list (anything beyond the very bare facts, like location or library number or so) may of course not be copied, but a list of facts without any opinion or real creativity may be copied (clearly identifying where you got the list from is of course necessary and basic courtesy, but I guess that was clear). Fram (talk) 17:57, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
(Stalk) See here for a thread that has some clear explanations. Short version: Length of list is not an issue in the US (it may be elsewhere). In the US what counts is subjective vs objective criteria. A 'list of manuscripts located at X' is not subjective and so not copyrightable in the US. A 'list of top 100 most interesting manuscripts' would be. Outside the US, effort in list creation can be taken into account depending on your location in the world. (Linked discussion is why my userpage contains bad shark films). Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:53, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Rafael Quintero (diver)

Why Rafael Quintero (diver) was deleted? He's a Olympian and CAC games bronze (or silver I don't remember) medalist. As far I know that's considered notable. Seriesphile (talk · ctb) 02:00, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

We had an editor who had created thousands of badly sourced very short articles on sportspeople with lots of incorrect information in them. These were, after a community discussion, all moved to draft space where they had 90 days to be corrected, after which they all were deleted. Everyone is free to create an article on these people (if they are notable, but an Olympiahn is notable so no problem there) with good sources and correct information. The deletion had nothing to do with Rafael Quitntero, but only with the creator of the article and the quality of it. Fram (talk) 06:39, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Fram, you should be honest and tell this editor, who obviously wants to fix the problem, that they can ask the actual deleting editor; Ymblanter for the page to be restored to their sandbox so they can edit it to mainspace. And why is Ymblanter NOT identified on the warning page? (System flaw) That is why you are being contacted. Your omission of this advice is an additional nail you are trying to drive into this content to misdirect instead of letting it get restored. Trackinfo (talk) 08:06, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Please indicate what bits of my reply were not honest or misdirecting, or retract your personal attack. Next time you want to comment here, just add your positive advice instead of launching unfounded accusations. Fram (talk) 08:12, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
What other term would you like to use, incomplete, misleading, deceptive? You should know the procedure by which this editor can restore the content they obviously wrote to you to get restored; the content you worked so hard to delete. You did NOT tell them how to restore it. This is an accurate description of your action and more specifically, non action. Trackinfo (talk) 08:47, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
No, they wrote to me asking what happened, and I told them what happened, and made it abundantly clear that this doesn't mean that we don't want an article about Quintero and that Quintero is notable. The remainder is your interpretation and bad faith at work. Please stay off my talk page if you only come here to fight lost battles. Fram (talk) 08:52, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for explaining to me why it was deleted and sorry for the late reply. I noticed someone created the article again but when it was deleted it had more content, can you restore that missing content? Seriesphile (talk · ctb) 04:38, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

RfC

When you decide to get back to framing the RfC, I'd be glad to help. I'll be limited in my time on-wiki for two or three weeks but should have more time after that. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:58, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm thinking about how it can best be organised. Fram (talk) 07:46, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Rewriting NCYC

Since you expressed interest in this issue, you may want to check out the discussion I started at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Cycling#Tightening_up_of_WP:NCYC. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:48, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

For your contributions and attitude, please accept this wiki-kitty :)

Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:55, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Jan Baptist Barbe

Even the sole source that you rely on for all your articles, i.e. Bryan, calls this artist Jan Baptist Barbe, so don't understand why you insist on giving this Flemish artist a French name. RKD also give him his proper Flemish name. Unlike you, I have done extensive research for this article and the majority of sources use the Flemish name. Please revert this back to its proper title.2A02A03F (talk) 09:01, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

RKD is a Dutch site. The name Jean-Baptiste Barbé is commonly used in many (even recent) English sources, see e.g. this or this
He is called Jean-Baptiste Barbé by the Met[18], the National Gallery of Victoria[19], the National Galleries of Scotland
It is also used in some relevant Dutch language sources by the way, like this book, or the Rijksmuseum, but in Dutch he is more commonly known as Jan-Baptist. Per WP:COMMONNAME, we look at the English sources though, not the Dutch ones.
While there are also sources using Jan-Baptist, I don't get the impression that the majority of English language sources ues that version at all.
And why do you insist on using "Middle Dutch" as the language of the sources? This is completely wrong. Fram (talk) 09:33, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

EJustice

About this note... I was grateful that you stepped up and did the close, but I was a little bummed that you didn't try to craft something that would allow the much-discussed follow-up discussion between EdChem and EJustice on EJustice's talk page. And your note makes it clear that you intend to enforce the indef strictly. Would you please review the AN thread and consider some flexibility to allow EJustice to participate in the review at their Talk page? You will see there was substantial support for that discussion to happen. (I am not optimistic that EJustice will learn anything and their initial response to EdChem made me even less optimistic..... but trying is good) Jytdog (talk) 08:44, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

  • They can review the work of their students off-wiki, and if any student needs a copy of a deleted page that student can ask for it. I see no reason to on the one hand indef block them, but on the other hand allow them to continue the course (which is the cause of the problems in the first place) on their talk page. Reviewing what lead to the block is part of discussing the block: reviewing the course and the works of the students is not. Fram (talk) 09:10, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for replying. What EdChem proposed to do (actually at AE here) was: Wikipedia can be a jungle of overlapping policies and guidelines with unexpected pitfalls, and it can also be very unfriendly. I admire your courage in trying to do a 180 student project as your first foray onto WP, it was brave... but, to be frank, it was not wise. The design you chose was always going to conflict with how Wikipedia operates, and I could point out how many of the problems could have been avoided. I would be willing to have the discussion in a sub-page of your user space, because I think what I would say is relevant to others and I prefer open communication... but I would also be willing to ask that other users not comment in the discussion, restricting their views / comments etc to the talk page. I would also be willing to include Ryan from WikiEd, if you like, and to delay it until after the assessment etc is dealt with (Ryan will be very busy until summer anyway). Please let me know what you think..
As I understand it the purpose was not grading students or finishing the course at all, but rather a kind of debrief/review of how this course went so wrong. I admire EdChem for being willing to do this - it is really an example of somebody stepping up and trying to go the extra mile, and it would be great if this could be supported. And transparent to the community, as EdChem wanted. Everybody can potentially learn from this. Jytdog (talk) 21:55, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Ah, that part falls under "why were you blocked", i.e. what went wrong and what should be done differently to have any chance of an unblock. An analysis of which things were (most) objectionable, most opoosite to community norms and expectations (both actions and replies), and stuff like that. That kind of review seems perfectly acceptable to me, a review of the work of students (which I thought was intended) is not. Fram (talk) 06:43, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Yay! If you would be so kind as to clarify/amend the note you left on EJustice's talk page, that would be great. I wrote here because it seemed to me that the note disallowed this planned activity. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 12:54, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

History section redirects

What would you like to discuss? The Transhumanist 09:10, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

(Another reply is waiting for you on my talk page. The Transhumanist 09:22, 24 May 2017 (UTC))

An another subject...

You wouldn't happen to be a JavaScript programmer, would you? The Transhumanist 10:36, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

No ;-) Fram (talk) 10:38, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Wow, that was quick!

You can delete them 500 at a time?

Nice.

Thank you. The Transhumanist 13:11, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

First time I have used that tool. Yes, admins have a special page where they can mass-delete pages made by oone editor or with one pattern in the name or so. Which is very, very handy in cases like this one. We still have to check that we only delete the right pages (so not "everything ever created by the transhumanist", which would be quite a few pages too much :-) ) Fram (talk) 13:13, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
That would make me weep. Thanks for the careful clean up. Well, it's back to manual redirects for me for awhile. The Transhumanist 13:25, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

OK, deleted the last three of that group. If I have accidentally deleted a page which shouldn't have been deleted, feel free to ask me (or any other admin) to restore that page of course, you can point them to this response if I'm not around. The only ones that should be deleted are the "History of" redirects created very recently. Thanks for being understanding and cooperative! Fram (talk) 13:15, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out the relevant guidelines and discussions. If you ever need any help with anything, let me know. The Transhumanist 13:25, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Cour for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Cour 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/Cour 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.  Sandstein  20:33, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Prod of Alrahim Wright III (musician)

Hi, I just wanted to let you know the article creator removed the prod tag you placed on Alrahim Wright III (musician). I have tagged it for WP:G6 as an evasion of salt at Alrahim Wright III. I know I'm probably reaching with this so feel free to bring it to AfD. —KuyaBriBriTalk 15:13, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Tennis PRODs

I saw that you prodded a bunch of Challenger doubles tournaments with the reasoning that they are not notable. According to Wikipedia:WikiProject Tennis/Article guidelines#Tournament, any men's Challenger tournament is notable, including singles and doubles events. Only qualification tournaments are not notable. You can go back all the way to the 2009 version of the Challenger Tour and see that there is an article for pretty much every single doubles tournament since then. I don't believe that these articles should be deleted. Adamtt9 (talk) 02:56, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

I'll take one or two to AfD then. Project guidelines like that are not generally accepted guidelines, and the coverage for the doubles at a Challenger tournament is minimal. Fram (talk) 06:41, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Composer missing now

You deleted Diether de la Motte, a respected composer, de:Diether de la Motte. The link is missing now. If I ever looked at the article, I don't remember, so I can't tell anything about its quality. What can be done? I could translate from German, but really have enough things to do. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:45, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Someone will create it someday, there is no deadline. The deletion was part of a mass deletion of articles by the same banned editor; many of the articles had serious quality issues (most were machine translations with minor cleanup). I left a few articles which had significant improvements afterwards, but most were too close to their original state to be left around. I am still buy with the deletions though. In any case, the deletion had nothing to do with the notability of the subject, and was only related to problems with the creator of the article. Fram (talk) 12:48, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Johannes Rösing

Hallo Fram. Why did you delete the entry Johannes Rösing? --Moppemolle (talk) 14:09, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Because it was created by an editor who was previously banned from Wikipedia, and used a sockpuppet account to edit here anyway (until this was discovered). And because that sockpuppet account created many poor articles (machine translated, without checking the sources or relevance of the contents) anyway. In general, we may delete articles created by socks of blocked users on sight, unless they have been significantly improved by other editors, which wasn't the case here (some cleanup and so on, but nothing fundamental).
The deletion has nothing to do with the subject of the article, and anyone may create a new article on the subject (if it is a notable subject) at any time and without needing permission or whatnot. Fram (talk) 14:15, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Category:2nd century BC in Tunisia has been nominated for discussion

Category:2nd century BC in Tunisia, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:22, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Personal Attacks

If you are engaged in doing something about the civility problems. This thread needs admin attention. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:25, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

I am looking at that one, but I have more problem with unprovoked "for laughs" attacks and offensive jokes than with upset people overreacting. E.g. it is strictly forbidden to call someone a liar here, but in many cases the actual lie is more problematic than the more obvious rule-breaking reply pointing out the lie. Even so, I was already close to give Joefromrandb (or whatever their name is) a warning or block, depending on thier history. Fram (talk) 11:48, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
The problem from my POV (and which Joe's history is a good example of) is that since 2012/2013 the tolerance/acceptance of medium-to-serious incivility/PA's has increased - without any corresponding drop in the written policies on user conduct. Editors & Admins are more accepting of abuse and the policies do not accurately reflect the user-experience if an editor makes a report based on them. I have been harping on about it for awhile, but either the policies need to be altered to reflect what is likely to happen when someone reports incivility and personal attacks, or admins as a group need to start actually enforcing the policies as they are written. I have generally lost confidence that either options are going to ever take place. To use Joe as an example - a look at his contribution history shows his behaviour has not significantly changed in any way since 2012 - he still uses personal attacks, incivility and edit-warring. However the number of reports of his behaviour at noticeboards has dropped significantly - likely because its not seen as an effective resolution. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:48, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Geographic refimprove

Template:Geographic refimprove has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 12:59, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Ping request

I haven't been following the Carolus discussion, but I notice you've been trying to work with them to try to get their sourcing up to snuff. If you come across any Catholic clerics, would you mind pinging me or posting on my talk page? I'm relatively good at getting bishops from non-English speaking regions up to be at least a somewhat presentable stub that complies with NPOV, V, and copyright policy, and the only way I normally come across them is through the new pages feed. Thanks in advance. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:25, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

I'll try to remember it! Fram (talk) 06:50, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Proposed delation of Raúl Ruiz Bautista

Dear Fram: I have read your message about Raúl Ruiz Bautista article, it said “Unclear why he would be notable, anyone can self-publish a book and donate it to libraries”. I think you could have been a little partial in your judgement: • The article main reason is the Ixtapa-Tlacotepec road initiative and construction. Think that High Mixtec, Oaxaca State indigenous towns was living in the same poorness and isolation like colonial times at half twenty Century (1950). The Federal Mexican government and the Oaxaca State government not did nothing for these people. • Thanks to the Raúl’s initiative and unceasing works, the own indigenous peoples began to build the road, meanwhile Raúl got at Mexico Capital tools, materials, and in a moment budget for the construction that, developed in hard conditions, it endure three decades, but by this road, other advancements (step by step, clean water, health services, electricity, for instance) went to the High Mixtec named in that way, because it’s a very mountainous province. • Raúl wasn’t a writer at his studio. His book is not only an autobiography, it’s an eighty-year archive with documents about the road and the indigenous people and towns history through the XX Century. If you read the San Juan Achiutla article, in it said that the contemporary historical notes about this town and region, exist thanks to the Raúl´s book, because is a detailed set of records that what happened about this progress endeavor. That’s the cause the book subtitle refers a micro-history (in Mexico it is an history branch) At the same article said that at San Juan Achiutla doesn’t exist archive where research the town and people past. The same happen with other towns (you can review other Oaxaca towns articles to check it, from here the book’s social relevance, It’s a social memory too. (If you read Spanish or someone could do it for you, you can verify it, the book can be downloaded from external links) • The road wasn’t the Panama Chanel or Suez, not the Trans-Siberian railroad or San Francisco bridge, only a road that came to change poor indigenous towns and people life. Raúl wasn´t Lenin, Bolivar or Hamilton, but he worked free for his countrymen, he is micro-history part. • The same article is at Wikipedia in Spanish from July 14, 2011, It’s a translation. Fram, I will appreciate if you ponder your verdict, but if you take the delation decision, I’ll tray not have attachments about it. By other hand, as you notice English isn't my native language, please, if you wish, grade my English at the article from 1 to 10 to have an apraisal. It'll be useful for me. Thanks in advance. Best Regards. Eduardo Ruiz Mondragón (talk) 15:59, 15 June 2017 (UTC)Eduardo Ruiz Mondragón

What you need are [WP:RS|reliable, independent sources]] about Bautista, not just mentions (like libraries that hold the book that has been donated to it), unreliable websites (like Wikipedia), ... That an excessively long Wikipedia article about a rather small village mentions him a few times is no claim to notability. Many people do good work day in day out, but that has no bearing on whether they can have an article on English Wikipedia. WP:BIO is the guideline for who can be included, and who can't, and so far it looks as if Bautista doesn't meet the requirements to be included. Fram (talk) 06:37, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

helping to tackle vandalism.

hey Fram, i saw you too reverting the edits by this IP adress making intentionally false edits in the demographics of multiple city articles. I like to ask if you could give me the Rollback feature. I am engaged in this project for quite some time and especially in recent months active and like to contribute a lot. This feature would help. greetings --Joobo (talk) 14:51, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

You can best request this through Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Rollback, the people there know better what is required to get this permission. Fram (talk) 10:28, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Art museums, Art Galleries, and categorization

I saw your talk page post here[20] and I have also come up wrong categoziations done by that editor and others of late. Let me ask a few questions before getting back to that.

What is the difference between a art gallery and a art museum. Is it that the former will sell art not just have it on display?
I've seen some articles, American University Museum and Mesa Arts Center that seem to be in both though the article content says only one like American that says clearly museum. In that case shouldn't only museum categories be on that page. Sorry to say, I may have added to the mistakes with a edit of my own. That's partly why I'm posting here. I'd like some clarification before diving further into these articles.

I've been running across rampant miscategorization of late. Editor Look2See1 has done some of it, like categorizing minor league team baseball player categories into Sportspeople from and putting Shopping Mall established categories in retail companies categories or Musical groups disestablishments in arts organizations disestablishment categories for examples, plus other editor subcategorize restaurant categories as retail. FYI I am fixing up the design categories you brought to Look2See's attention. I may be wrong, but I don't think this editor is interested in fixing his mistakes. Write back to me here with your thoughts. I'll keep an eye out for your reply though my reply might be slow. The US Open golf is on television this weekend and I'm preparing my latest ebook for publication....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:35, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

The difference isn't always clear, and I usually went with what the article claimed. Usually, a museum has a permanent collection and doesn't sell works of art: a gallery has temporary exhibitions only, and sells the work. A gallery may also be a space for new talents to display their work in a temporary exhibition without there being an intent to sell works. But, like I said, the difference isn't always clear and not always realy important. They usually aren't design companies though ;-) 10:33, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Fram, I think there needs to be a discussion somewhere about User Look2See and his categorization edits. He is making many wrong edits and complaints are piling up on his talk page. I just found this[21] where he categorized a art gallery as a retail company. I'm sorry to say there are hundreds of bad edits by this editor....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:49, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
And I forgot edits like this[22] and others where he subcategorized Art galleries disestablished categories as Retail companies....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:31, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
It doesn't actually say that, or at least not nearly so categorically. "Gallery" is pretty ambiguous as to what an organization actually does in both (all) continents. See Grey Art Gallery (American museum) etc. Johnbod (talk) 01:54, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Daniel Hayes

Could you look back in? I saw you mentioned this on BLPN in April, and we've got some PR flack turning the article back into hagiography. I discovered why at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive253#Daniel_Hayes he seemed to be getting younger all the time - the press release you uncovered is from 2011, consistent with the original 1985 birth date but not the 1989 one the flacks are pushing now. Pinkbeast (talk) 05:20, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I have reverted and posted a warning. Fram (talk) 07:19, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello Fram the issue with the date of birth is now coming to our attention for the first time. We would like to fix it by deleting the date of birth completely from the page. As you can see this gentleman has been on Wikipedia since 2002 and has several media articles published about his work. We believe that there is a better way to get the issues resolved than the constant reverting for almost one year by PINKBEAST of every single edit that has been made on this page. Please advise how we can proceed to delete the date of birth we do not understand the trail of messages from PINKBEAST about promotional language the information used in the last edit come from valid sources including media articles and the IMDB bio. Thanks in advance — Preceding unsigned comment added by NANGA (talk • contribs) 07:28, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Following up with facts. The following two media articles about Daniel Hayes confirm that he is 28 years old based on the date of birth 1989 if Wikipedia still disagrees with his date of birth despite all the articles and references provided we would like to delete his date of birth and keep the rest of the accurate changes that have been made so there is no more issue. Whatever will please you let us know! The articles were listed in the references you deleted many times when you reverted the content http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/honey-badger-documentary-1.4040156 and http://en.rodexo.com/2017/03/25/mississauga-boxer-daniel-hayes-stars-in-award-winning-documentary-toronto/07:57, 26 June 2017 (UTC)NANGA (talk)

He isn't the first would-be star to falsify his date of birth (making it younger than it was), but while other media outlets may uncritically have believed that new claim, it is obvious that it isn't true. Wikipedia is not the place where fake reality may be formed or promoted. The page has been used for promotion of the person for way too long. Whatever will please me is that only actual, neutral true facts get posted, not his (or his managements) poor attempts to make him look younger and more promising, nor the attempts to give him a fake sporting career with utterly unverifiable results, which nearly got him to the Olympics (on paper, not in reality).
If you and others involved with Hayes would start making "accurate changes" for a change, I would be pleased.
Please read WP:COI and in the future don't edit the article any further, but put your requests at the talk page of the article instead, where uninvolved editors can take a look and judge them on their merits. Fram (talk) 08:11, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Message to Fram - Based on the type comments we are reading we prefer to keep things tasteful and respectful by communicating with a Wikipedia Administrator on this matter. We are redoing the editing of the page without the date of birth which seems to be the main concern in order to comply with the notes received from Fram about the Wikipedia guidelines. We do not need to respond to someone calling our feedback to your request "junk" or making unfounded accusations about a falsified birth date. The legal term for these comments is slander but our goal here is to comply with the guidelines by redoing the edit. This type of verbal abuse has no place on Wikipedia. Thanks for being attentive 08:37, 26 June 2017 (UTC)NANGA (talk)

Redo the edit to Daniel Hayes and you will be blocked. And for the record, I am a Wikipedia administrator. And all evidence points to a 1986 birth date... Fram (talk) 08:48, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Courtesy FYI

I have moved your and Drmies comments inside the hat at AN as its really not going to go anywhere now Broeder has been rebanned by the community. Beating Arbcom members about the head for silly decisions they make in public, while amusing (and probably justified) to onlookers, isnt going to serve any purpose long term. If you feel it should continue, feel free to revert me. But I think we both know all its doing is rubbing salt in the wound. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:18, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

No problem! Fram (talk) 08:22, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Reconsider Deletion of page for Joao Maleck

Regarding wiki page of Joao Maleck:

Can you please re-evaluate your decision please. This player is a major prospect for the Mexican football federation. Many people are searching this player up. And the wiki page will help give knowledge of who this player. He's in F.C. Porto B not the U-18. I will appreciate it if you reconsider there's many player with pages that haven't debuted with first team and have pages. But thank you for listening. Acorona619 (talk) 05:15, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Normally, there shouldn't be any pages for players who haven't played with the first team yet. These get, when someone spots them, routinely deleted at AfD. Fram (talk) 06:48, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I understand but will you reconsider ? Acorona619 (talk) 21:31, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Mobile and Wikidata description update

Fram, a few months ago I said I needed to so some homework and get back to you.

Apologies for the delay. For a time there I didn't have anything to share, but now, a few things have happened and I thought it kind to reply.

First, a recent change to the mobile web version of Wikipedia now puts the infobox after the introduction paragraph. This change was mentioned as another approach to improving the readability of content on mobile during the Rfc. It has had some additional positive effects like improving performance.

Second, the Wikidata edits on watchlists concern has seen a significant update thanks to WMDE. Wikidata items associated with an article can be (optionally) enabled for the enhanced watchlist/recent changes view. (More info) It too was mentioned as a technical 'blocker' of sorts.

The Readers web team doesn't have any stated near-term plans for Wikidata descriptions. Structured data might make things easier on this front in the future. The Android app recently saw the feature of editing descriptions on mobile for a few languages.

In the mid to long distance I hear tell that there's some major work coming for mobile web in general. Draft documentation is on MediaWiki.org. Discussions around short descriptions will be part of that conversation. I have a bug in my ear to make sure. :) Again, sorry for the delay and let me know if you have any questions. CKoerner (WMF) (talk) 17:26, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

@CKoerner (WMF): thanks for the update. I have seen the update to the watchlists and recent changes (and commented at the technical village pump). It was requested, so I guess for some people it will be useful, but to me it doesn't change a thing. First, there is a delay between the change and when it appears here on recent changes, so at least for recent changes purposes it is rather useless to include Wikidata (at the default recent changes setting, not a single Wikidata change appeared). Apparently there still is the issue that in some (but too many) cases, the latest Wikidata change simply doesn't appear in our watchlists / recent changes anyway. And of course most of the changes are an utter mystery judging from the description: if it would at least give the label of the changed property, instead of saying that "P131" was changed, we would know a bit more. Now, for every WD change, we would need to go to the actual diff for no reason at all.
Ideal would be, if Wikidata needs to be used here at all, that we only were informed about changes that actually have an impact on what appears in enwiki (i.e. properties actually used somewhere in enwiki), and not everything else. As it stands, the Wikidata changes in the watchlist are a huge timesink for very little actual benefit, and I (and most others apparently) don't use them.
Please, whatever you do, don't reintroduce English labels or descriptions taken from Wikidata anywhere on enwiki without having clear approval through a RfC held on enwiki (not at mediawiki or phabricator). At the moment, these things get vandalized way too often and reverted very, very slowly (I'm keeping an eye on a few labels to relatively high-profile pages that were vandalized last week and for the most part remain uncorrected, and have long dropped of the recent changes lists at Wikidata). Wikidata simply isn't ready to be used here. Fram (talk) 07:29, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
To give but one example, the label of Gaddafi was changed more than two days ago. Try this on enwiki and you will be reverted in minutes at the most. On Wikidata, no one notices this.[23] You will need to find a way to get the quality of Wikidata, including its vandal fighting but also its sourcing and BLP policy, up to scratch before a further rollout of Wikidata data to enwiki (in any form) should be contemplated. Fram (talk) 14:36, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
[24]. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:18, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
Fram, thank you for the response. I'll do my best to work with the community processes and encourage the folks I work with to as well. I agree visibility and attention are needed. If I can pick your brain for a moment, How much do you think this is complicated by the sheer number of editors on English Wikipedia vs those on Wikidata? It's still a newer, smaller community. Bringing more eyes to examples like you share seems important for the success of Wikidata - as a separate project and one that supports other projects. CKoerner (WMF) (talk) 15:41, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Did you ever think...

...of running for ArbCom? There are number of current Arbs who have shown themselves to be almost completely clueless (and somewhat tone deaf as well) by their recent actions and the opinions they have expressed. I don't always agree with you, but you appear to me to be a person who speaks their mind clearly and in a straight-forward manner, and who obviously knows their way around the project. You also seem to care about the encyclopedia, and about our purpose here being to build that encyclopedia, so that other ancillary activities should never take precedence over that primary one.

I don't know how many others would agree with me, but I'd certainly vote for you, were you to run. In any case, you've got half a year to think about it, if you haven't done so already. Best, Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:56, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. My main problem is that I don't have the necesssary time to spend on this. Second problem is that I don't want to identify myself to the WMF, there are some people there I absolutely don't trust (though the worst ones have gone). Third problem is that I have made too many enemies around here probably to have a realistic chance of success, although that is of course hard to judge without actually trying it! Fram (talk) 06:51, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
OK, fair enough! Thanks for the response. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:26, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
If you are including me as one of the "enemies" you have made, you can count me out. I have come to the conclusion that criticising the behaviour of other editors is unproductive and unhelpful and I don't intend to do it again. I actually think you would make a useful member of ArbCom, and I would probably vote for you myself. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:40, 6 July 2017 (UTC).
You'd get my vote too, and do consider the fact that some of the incumbent bunch of incompetents were voted in with next to zero votes. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:47, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks (both of you). In retrospect, "enemies" was too strong a word, I meant people I have antagonised, rubbed the wrong way, treaed more harshly than they thought they deserved, etcetera. Some will be able to look beyond that (and may still oppose me anyway), some will oppose me simply out of spite. In any case, my first two reasons are sadly still enough to rule me out as a candidate, at least at this time. But I presume it won't be too hard to find candidates who are better than some of the current ArbCom members anyway. Fram (talk) 11:03, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
FYI, you do have to be willing to sign this NDA, but you no longer have to identify to the foundation. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:08, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
And one of the more boneheaded ideas of the WMF that was. 'You don't have to identify to us, but you can anonymously sign this NDA which is completely unenforceable and would be laughed at in the event of any actual data breach'. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:19, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Caterina Parigi

I thought I might have been pushing it a bit far with this one, to be honest...I think what decided it for me was a.) the presence of a contemporary source and b.) the absolute paucity of anything being written about Italian women painters of that period. Ah, well. I'll weigh in, but if it's taken down it won't be the end of the world. :-) --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 12:36, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I have created in a distant past 100s of articles on artists from Bryan's Dictionary (mainly men in that book), but I skipped the ones that really had nothing going for them, like many engravers. I'm all for including all notable women artists, but we shouldn't overbalance it by including every women who has ever created anything. By the way, I would love to know more about Margaretha Van Eyck, sister to the famous Van Eycks and said to have been an artist as well (probably illumination), but no further information seems to exist sadly... Fram (talk) 12:41, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
I seem to recall reading once that several of the Breughel women were painters as well, but don't recall seeing much of anything available about any of them, last I checked. Though it was a while ago, and I find scholarship has been changing considerably since then. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 14:03, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Mayken Verhulst, mother-in-law to P. Breugel the Elder, was a painter, and her daughter / his wife probably as well. There are many records of female Flemish painters, but most were miniature painters apparently, and very little of their work has been identified. It can at least be safely assumed that much of the "studio" work of their family was partly their work, but some of them were clearly more than just that. Fram (talk) 14:08, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
That's the same case with a lot of the French painters I've found in the Dictionary of Pastellists Before 1800 as well - a lot of the women are listed as miniaturists as well as possible pastellists. Not surprising, but what is surprising to me is the numbers that he's turned up - lots of people I've never heard of before. And while many of them are minor, it seems to me there's quite a bit of room for further scholarship on the subject of many. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 14:25, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
True. We just shouldn't be the ones pushing for such scholarship, but the ones reflecting it, and so be somewhat conservative in who we include. But that is obviously a hard line to draw (I have in the past created articles for politicians who technically are clearly notable, but about whom I now wonder why I ever bothered as they are largely forgotten during their career already...) Fram (talk) 14:28, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Yeah...you'll get no argument from me on that point. I tend to be a bit more liberal in my tendencies, but I find a lot of it comes down to my gut...if I see something that I don't think is ever going to be expandable, then maybe it's best to leave it aside. In this particular case I plead late-night editing as something which clouded my judgment. :-) --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 14:52, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Incidentally, thanks for spotting the ringer in Marie Parrocel. I admit that when I saw the picture it didn't look as though it was something I'd expect from a professional of that era. But as I've seen worse - plenty worse - in museums I didn't question it too thoroughly. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 15:05, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Violence articles

FYI that CU has linked the accounts associated with the violence articles to a university, see: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Black Women and The Prison System. I just sent the article matching that user to AfD as OR and an essay. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:14, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Carolus

Just FYI: I discontinue to contribute to WP:EN on topics of nobility because of the presence of Carolus. I have tried the last week to add value by correct false information, mostly introduced by him. Now that he starts reverting my corrections e.g. on the Belgian ducal family of Ursel because he reverts my corrections based on the most recent and reliable sources on this family with the reason that he can't verify them because for him "pushing your own vieuws away based on the Non-accessible EPN" [sic], there is no point in contributing anymore for me. On Belgian nobility the Etat présent de la noblesse belge (1960-2015) is the most notable and reliable source but he doesn't dispose of them (like I do) and thus he deletes/reverts my corrections. As I have said before, my library contains thousands of volumes on European nobility, he has almost nothing. (My reputation being knowledgeable on Dutch and Belgian nobility is well known and confirmed; on Dutch nobility I am even the main contributor on WP:NL, having added hundreds of articles on them, resulting after months of work in the List of Dutch noble families.) Now it is over for me here, also because I seem to be up for being blocked (although I admit I was not aware of the severe policy on edit wars here). Best regards, Paul Brussel (talk) 20:55, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Llammakey

You know, I was already dealing with Llammakey's personal attack. I removed it and warned him, and asked him a question about it on his talk page, to decide if I needed to do anything else. Did you block because you felt this was inadequate, or because you didn't know I was already dealing with it? --Floquenbeam (talk) 11:53, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, you warned him, and his response was [25]"...: I don't apologize to abusers", basically repeating the personal attack: his reply after this at the ANI discussoion[26] only continued the same line of personal attacks. Your followup had little to do with the actual personal attack or with his two reactions to your post. So it didn't look as if you (or anyone else) was actually dealing with this (or else was dealing with it in a rather inadequate way indeed). Feel free to bring this up at WP:ANI, but I doubt you'll find many admins who think that a 24-hour block for these comments is in any way problematic or overkill. Fram (talk) 12:05, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
OK. But you should probably pursue the question I asked on his talk page; it's regarding whether this was just a momentary indiscretion based on common knowledge (in which case I'd have liked to see if my approach stopped things), or a shot in the dark, or some kind of off-wiki opposition research (in which case a 24 hour block is inadequate). I'll wash my hands of the whole thing, but you should follow up on that; a simple 24 hour block with no follow thru would be a fairly stupid way to handle it. Not sure why you think I'd want to run to ANI to cause a lot of drama; perhaps that's how you'd handle it, I don't know. I don't plan to pursue it further, knowing it's in your capable hands. --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:15, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Usually, when people come to complain about a block and it doesn't get reversed, the complainant goes to ANI. Anyway, I'll inquire further about the "daughter" thing but it seems like a shot in the dark kind of comment to me. Fram (talk) 12:22, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

race

Hi Fram, reading at the Administrators' noticeboard/Incident page I came to the following content:

Just on the contrary, I implied Anglicized Indian usually have some personality flaw and does not get used to community-based systems very good. Feel free to call that racist, but against Anglicized Indians rather than against non-Anglicized Indians. I sincerely believe you have some flaws on understanding the world, thus when other tell some good thing about you you'll focus on the bad part. --146.96.252.3 (talk) 19:48, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

I enjoyed my interpretation as a cultural criticism of "Anglicized" ie: England being hierarchical, authoritarian, and "not get used to community-based systems".

Much to my surprise, that was followed by: IP blocked for 3 months (not longer as it is an IP) for that blatantly racist personal attack. Fram (talk) 06:07, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

This may be similar to criticizing the effect of French culture on people in Louisiana, not a racist topic. It might be enlightening to ask 146.96.252.3 whether they are criticizing the culture of "Anglicized Indians" or people of "Anglo-Indian" decent. Dougmcdonell (talk) 22:39, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

"Anglicized Indian usually have some personality flaw" and similar statements is not a criticism of culture. Fram (talk) 12:39, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Category:9th century in the Carolingian Empire has been nominated for discussion

Category:9th century in the Carolingian Empire, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:26, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

FYI

Could you please join the discussion at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Appeal_of_community_sanctions_placed_on_User:Barts1a Twitbookspacetube 12:31, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Category:1908 establishments in Poland has been nominated for discussion

Category:1908 establishments in Poland, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:24, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Fram/Archive_35&oldid=1110806511"