User talk:Fram/Archive 18

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Nocturnes rename

Why did you rename Nocturnes Op. 48 (Chopin) to Nocturnes Op. 48? The MOS seems pretty clear that composer names should be added to disambiguate generic piece titles.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:06, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Has anyone else of any fame composed a "Nocturnes Op. 48"? Disambiguation is only needed when there is anything to disambiguate between. Symphony #1 needs to be disambiguated, Cavalleria rusticana not. Fram (talk) 06:32, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
I've now replied at the WP:CM as well, since I note that the move is discussed there as well. Fram (talk) 06:50, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

April 1st

Oh come on, lighten up! :P C.U.T.K.D T | C 11:33, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

*sigh* someone got out of bed the wrong side this morning... C.U.T.K.D T | C 12:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Fram. You have new messages at Drilnoth's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Drilnoth (TC) 13:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Fram. You have new messages at Drilnoth's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Drilnoth (TC) 13:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Fram. You have new messages at Drilnoth's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Is my repeated adding of these annoying? –Drilnoth (TC) 13:20, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I can't speak for Fram, but when I do this, I just replace the datestamp instead of re-adding the template.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

A personal thank you

I want to extend a personal thank you for nominating the baseball anniversary related lists for deletion. Back in November, I did the same thing for rail related anniversaries and I know how grueling of a task that had to be. I highly recommend you take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/July 29 in rail transport for past discussions on this topic. Tavix (talk) 22:55, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Letter focus

Is there any reason not to have a focus letter on a large unwieldy category? I find that it helps me go through random areas of categories that are so big as to be daunting. Just that the category is split up into months doesnt mean that it shouldn't be split up into letters as well. Please rethink your removal of this template as its nothing but a helpful navigational tool and provides no disservice to the category. ThemFromSpace 08:00, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

But it is split in letters as well, there already is a navigation box where you can choose the letter you want (below the two blue boxes, the box labeled "content"). Another box suggesting which letter anyone could take today is overkill. And the "focus letter" gives as reason "So that articles don't remain in this category too long": isn't it slightly more logical to start with these articles that ghave been tagged the longest, if that is your aim, instead of taking on a random letter? I don't mind anyone taking a letter and sourcing whatever they can (the more the better!), but to add a number of lines just to suggest this is overkill and serves no useful purpose, but only clutters the page. If you don't agree though, I suggest you discuss it on the category talk page, per WP:BRD. Fram (talk) 09:23, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

For convenience

(I also posted this on the 'other' page :-)Fram, I truly agree with your sentiment and you find an ally in me; can you just as forecfully put a stop to editors labelling some users as 'Greeks' and using the term in a deragatory manner? As I keep stating, we should never give ethnic labels in a mostly anonymous site such as wikipedia. Otherwise, I think FPS might have a word to say before I take any reverting or proof-supplying action - it seems fair. Also, if that is a 'brutal attack', then how would you describe swearing (using the f word, etc) as FPS had done. I would say that swearing is bullying and my comment was objective under the circumstances. Politis (talk) 15:08, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Swearing is not a comment on the editor, but on the frustration one feels about the situation. Saying "fuck" or "fuck off" may be uncivil (the latter is uncivil), but not a personal attack. As for the labeling of people as Greek: when in a dispute relating to Greece, the impression exists that most people in one faction are coming from a certain angle (in this case, from people with some connection to Greece), while hyperbolically stated the rest of the world thinks differently, then noting this is not a personal attack (or outing or harassment). If people would state that your opinion is invalid because you are a Greek, then that is a personal and/or racist attack. If they would demand that you declare whether you are a Greek or not, then you have every right to tell them to fuck off, since it is your own choice to give any info on your nationality, ethnicity, ... But to notice that, based on language used, editing patterns, or other info people willingly give, a pattern is visible which is relevant for the discussion, is not forbidden, racist, or otherwise actionable. Fram (talk) 19:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


I unreservedly apologise to you for having hinted any such thing. It was my misreading of the situation entirely. Thanks for your patience. I will place this in the appropriate page and delete my comments. Politis (talk) 14:44, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Clutchy Hopkins

I can see you've deleted Clutchy Hopkins in 2007. While the identity of Clutchy Hopkins is definitely not clear or covered by RS, his CDs got a number of reviews in RS: (CD review as published by reputable Danish newsspapper (CD review as published by Russia's most popular and reputable entertainment magazine),,,, Per WP policies non-English sources are acceptable when English language sources are not as good as ones available in other language.

He is even covered by allmusic, which is RS (and moreover, our primary source) on any music topics!!-2024252470&pid=878714&aid=1101596 He's notable for his records, not for his bio. So please restore the article. Netrat (talk) 16:31, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I've restored the page for now, but removed most of the text as unsourced advertising. Please add your sources and good info from it as soon as possible, or the page may be nominated for deletion again. Thanks for explaining the reason for the undeletion so clearly, it helps a lot. Fram (talk) 19:56, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

RfD nomination of Zor, 1997

I have nominated Zor, 1997 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Anshuk (talk) 07:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Oda Jaune

I just deleted this as a prod, but before I did I ran a google search and turned up an awful lot of hits. You're the only Belgian I know, so I thought I'd run the name past you and sound you out. See [1]. Hiding T 22:14, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I have never heard of her, but then again, she's Bulgarian, not Belgian :-) I have restored it anyway, Google News clearly indicates notability to me (but the article is weak on it), but someone mau still take it to AfD of course. Fram (talk) 06:52, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Bulgarian ... Belgian... ah, yes. Um, it was late, that's all I can say. Apologies. Off to hunt a Bulgarian. Hiding T 09:40, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
No need to apologize, such mistakes are amusing (I make enough of them, and worse)! Fram (talk) 09:47, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


Please see notice of proposed technical fix at Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2009_April_6#Template:NYRepresentatives.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:00, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't help the fundamental size problem, so no reason to change my opinion, but thanks for the info and the attempts to do something about it. Fram (talk) 18:51, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


Congrats! :) You deserve this more than me. :) BOZ (talk) 16:14, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing this! As Drilnoth said, you deserve it for all the work on comics articles (and GA's especially), but it's nice to claim my third GA as well :-) Fram (talk) 19:57, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Happy Easter!

Hase mit Ostereiern (2).jpg

On behalf of the Kindness campaign, I just wanted to wish my fellow Wikipedians a Happy Easter! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 07:55, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Michel Vaillant

I have nominated Michel Vaillant for GAN, based on your earlier suggestion. :) (I also nominated Belgian comics a few days ago). Emperor suggested that for Michel, someone needs to add more references to the overview and characters section (if only primary ones to show us what happened where), and Hiding suggested to expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article. I'd be happy to help out with this, as time allows for me. BOZ (talk) 03:54, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Teresa Wong

Hello. The Teresa Wong article you contributed to is now up for deletion - unfairly I feel. Please check out its talk page and see what you think about it. Much appreciated. Cyclotron (talk) 08:35, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

The page is not up for deletion, someone placed a "hangon" tag to a page that had been proposed for deletion earlier, but where the proposed deletion was already removed. Fram (talk) 08:38, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
I am clearly confused then. This Scott Mac person places the notice for deletion on my talk page and I copied it to the talk page of the article but it seems he never actually placed the deletion notice on the article itself? Cyclotron (talk) 08:42, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
The Proposed Deletion Warning on your talk page is from April 5th, when it was indeed nominated for deletion. The page has since been sourced, and the ProD removed. Fram (talk) 08:43, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Chuck Episode Quotes

I appreciate that you're trying to keep the pages cleaned up. However if you can't cite a Wiki policy that specifically says in no uncertain terms the section is not allowed, please don't keep deleting it from those episode pages as it becomes a matter of your personal opinion of what does and does not belong on a Wiki page. The policy you cited had nothing to do with quotes whatsoever. Additionally, the quotes weren't random but drawn specifically from the episodes the pages discuss, and ARE pertinent as they provide examples of the show's writing, character development/interaction and humor. I'd like to avoid escalating things and if you can cite a policy that supports deletion of the section in SPECIFIC terms I have no problem accepting it. But if you keep deleting them without being able to do so I'll have to refer this to the admins on grounds of an edit war. Rather than continuing to make and undo changes, I'm willing to discuss this through the episode talk pages FIRST so we can come to an agreement. Ambaryer (talk) 15:27, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I cited WP:NOTDIRECTORY, which has as it #1: "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as (but not limited to) quotations, aphorisms, or persons (real or fictional). If you want to enter lists of quotations, put them into our sister project Wikiquote." To state that "The policy you cited had nothing to do with quotes whatsoever." seems rather at odds with the actual text of the policy. Furthermore, quotes are copyrighted material: to use them without embedding them in the text, without giving a good reason why these specific quotes are used, is a copyright violation. I have raised the question at Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems#Quotes. Fram (talk) 06:58, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
My apologies, I didn't catch that part when I read through it. However since the issue has been raised I'm going to wait for the Wiki talk response first as I still think this is a valid use of the quotations. Ambaryer (talk) 13:47, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough, and thanks for apologizing and for discussing it, it's always nice to meet reasonable editors. Fram (talk) 13:51, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

ARS Name Change Proposal

Hey Fram. As I understand from your comment in the discussion, it's your belief that the RfC could still help people decide either way. I'm new to this sort of thing (discussing a project's scope and proposing a change) so, like I said in my proposal, I wasn't completely sure how to go about it. In your opinion, should I put the proposal on hold until the RfC is formally closed and is that something that I can even do? I've been watching the conversation closely and decided to bring up the proposal because the conversation has gone from the scope of ARS to canvassing (again) which to me are completely unrelated. Also, I don't see the conversation becoming stagnant before it's closed.

I've seen how you operate throughout Wikipedia and I respect your thoughts and opinions. That being said, I was a slightly offended when you said that my proposal was exactly the wrong way to go about it. I guess I'd just ask that you explain why to me and how to go about things in the future. It's the only way I'm going to learn. Thanks for your time. OlYellerTalktome 15:31, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

For starters, it is a bit bizarre to propose a name change without indicating what the new name should be. But the impression thatI got was that the name change would indicate that the ARS was not alone for articles, but a more general rescue squadron. To have on one hand a discussion to decide whether the ARS is only for articles or also for other categories, and on the other hand a proposal to change the name to indicate the latter, gives the idea that the expansion of the ARS will be pushed through, no matter what people may decide, and mocks the whole RfC. If there will be a consensus that the ARS has a wider scope, then a namechange may be useful: but to start the namechange now is putting the cart before the horse, and is a form of forum shopping, but inside the same forum.
I believe that your intention was good, but the result was bad. Fram (talk) 19:27, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: NPA and canvassing

I have a right to ask for help expanding the article as a member of WP:ARS, I DID NOT, however, "tell them how to vote". I am offended when someone nominates an article that I care deeply about for deletion less than 12 hours after I created it without even trying to improve it, claiming its "un-notable". How would that make you feel? I don't see how I personally attacked him either, all I did was ask a question. TomCat4680 (talk) 19:43, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

You don't think calling specific people "stupid deletionists" is a personal attack? And you already ask for help of the ARS by tagging it for rescue, putting an extra message on the project talk page with "Please help me save Dan Miller (sportscaster) from afd. I really care about this article because I listen to him every week at Lions games. So far its 4 keeps to only 1 delete." is unacceptable canvassing and focuses solely on the votes and not on the potential problems and solutions for the article. AfD's is about the article and how it relates to our policies and guidelines, not saving it by having more keeps than deletes. Fram (talk) 19:54, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Okay I'm sorry for saying that, you're right, I was out of line and maybe a little biased about the topic. But the article has been substantially expanded by several editors, and if you're an admin please close the afd for Dan Miller (sportscaster) per WP:SNOW (5 keeps to 2 deletes). Notability HAS been proven IMO. TomCat4680 (talk) 22:38, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Please also close the afd for Jim Brandstatter per WP:SNOW as well. 7 keeps to 0 deletes except nominators, after substantial expansion by several editors. Notability HAS been proven IMO. TomCat4680 (talk) 22:44, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Fonds Coislin

Thanks for nemoving "Textual Variants of..." into "Textual variants of..." Please remove also Collectio Coisliniana into Fonds Coislin (original French name of collection). Thanks. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 07:42, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Harley Collection also should be renamed, official name is "Harleian Collection". Only in abbreviations in catalogues it is usually written "Harley" (e.g. British Library, Harley 5776). Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 00:19, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Article Deletion Squadron

Hey there! You might be interested in this new venture! The fightback starts here! Yeah! Wheelchair Epidemic (talk) 23:07, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Dong hyun choi

Can you have a look at this? I've been having a half-arsed go at cleanup and tried to move it to Dong Hyun Choi only to find the page protected. Is the new article any different from the old? Does it need moving or deleting? Only you know the answers! pablohablo. 21:06, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

It's basically the same article, so I have protected this version as well. Let's hope they don't try any other variations... Fram (talk) 06:54, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Donald Featherstone

Hi Fram. I see that you tagged the talk page for Donald Featherstone (artist) with the WikiProject Comics banner a few years ago. However, I'm not seeing the connection to comics. Can you explain? I'm tempted to remove the banner, but I wanted to check with you first.

Thanks, GentlemanGhost (talk) 23:28, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I presume I tagged him because he was added to the comics artists category: perhaps that category was incorrect, and then I have no objection to removing both the cat and the project banner of course. Fram (talk) 06:52, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
OK, thanks. As near as I can tell, he is a designer, one might even say sculptor, but not a comic book artist. I'll go ahead and remove the banner. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 17:47, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Clarification of comment

Hi. Is this an accurate interpretation of your comment? It's good advice delivered forcefully, but I'm not sure if it's an actionable warning. Thanks. Flatscan (talk) 03:28, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

My intention was not that I would immediately block Jack if he ever made a reply to A Nobody again (just like I wouldn't block A Nobody for making his essay-reply on AfD's again), but that even minor transgressions could be warned for, and that continued behaviour would be blockable (and that goes for both of them). I'll have a look around the discussion and try to clarify my position if needed (it often turns out that in the morning, comments made yesterday are no longer very relevant, so I'll have to see what happened since). Fram (talk) 06:50, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply, I feel that I have a better understanding. I see that the discussion has been (mercifully) collapsed. Flatscan (talk) 04:15, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Notability of Kate Bennett, D.D.S.

Ambox warning pn.svg

A tag has been placed on Kate Bennett, D.D.S. requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article, which appears to be about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. tedder (talk) 14:44, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


In re [2], what error are you seeing and where? --Pascal666 09:14, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

On Category:Unreferenced BLPs from September 2006, it gave a big red warning for a stray character (sorry, I can't remember which one it was, and template errors can not be found in the history of course). It looks like it has been solved since, with this change[3]. Fram (talk) 09:18, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Ah, sorry. It would have given 'Expression error: Unrecognised punctuation character ","' on any cat with more than 1000 pages. --Pascal666 09:31, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Yep, that was the error. But then I can not have seen it on the September 2006 page, it must have been on one of the recent months. Luckily my bad memory did not send you on a wild goose chase here :-) Fram (talk) 09:36, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Belgian comics

The review for Belgian comics has begun, but it looks like it's going to take some work to get this one promoted. BOZ (talk) 02:14, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll take a look and do whatever I can! Fram (talk) 12:16, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Sounds good; the review is fair in the sense that the reviewer thinks it looks like a fail, but is giving contributors a chance to fix it. BOZ (talk) 19:03, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Austin Romine

Thanks for deleting the article without a warning, thats real considerate--Yankees10 13:51, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

You were warned when you created the article, since it showed a big pink box with "You are re-creating a page that was deleted" and a link to the deletion discussion. You continued to recreate the page despite this, so you shouldn't be surprised that it was deleted again. Fram (talk) 13:56, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Can you at least give me a copy of the deleted article so that I can put it in my sandbox for later use.--Yankees10 22:26, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Article with history is now at User:Yankees10/Austin Romine. Fram (talk) 06:33, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you, and by the way I am going to create it and re-direct the page to New York Yankees minor league players, since that is what is done with minor league baseball players now--Yankees10 13:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Tsar Oak

Can you rename Dąb Car into Tsar Oak? The article is about two oaks of that name. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 19:55, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

You shouldn't create articles about different things with the same name: each article should be about one topic, like Tsar Oak (Poland) and Tsar Oak (Belarus) or something similar. Furthermore, the Bialowieza one was already discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tsar Oak and was merged then. I see nothing in the article to change that decision. Fram (talk) 06:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

All we can find about Belarussian Tsar Oak is this:

"(...)its height is 46 meters, his age more than 800 years", and "in 1963 it was nominated to the status monument of nature".[4] It is all.

According to me it is not enough for the article. It it very difficult to find a something about Belarus in internet. Not too much people use the internet there. What we can say about Polish oak. It was the highest oak in Białowieża Forest. Perhaps it is not enough for the article. But Białowieża Forest it is only one forest in Europe in which some parts are the same like 10 000 years ago. It is only one forest in Europe of that meaning. It is more important forest in Europe. This forest has special status. Maybe not every people is aware how important this forest is for Europe (because it is in Easte Europe, not in Germany or France), but in the future it can be changed (because of European Union). So if a something is the biggest and the highest in Białowieża Forest it deserves for the article. Of course it was too short, but in that case it is possible too find more information. In every case it is not my subject and not field of my interest (I prefer ancient and medieval manuscripts of the Bible, of Aristotle and Plato treatises, and any other old manuscript - it must be old). Sometimes I only try to change subject of my articles, it is all. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 12:25, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

The Polish oak is mentioned with some details in the Forest article anyway, so it's not as if it is hidden from view. As for the Belarussian one, if no more info is available, then it can't have an article, and I see no obvious merge target. Fram (talk) 12:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
It seems to be clear, but I see one exception - Jagiełło Oak. It was not merged because of legend. Believe me every of these merged oaks has legends (sometimes more than one). It does not mean I want merge this article with Białowieża Forest, but I see different reason. This oak, Jagiełło Oak, in the 1st half of 20th century was visited by several Polish writers (one of them received Nobel Prize in 1905 - Quo Vadis) and they were inspired by it. Some of them described this oak in the articles. Some of them took image of this oak in their memory and used it for describing oaks used in their novels. Is it enough? Eliza Orzeszkowa was inspired by this oak. Of course Tsar Oak was bigger and thicker, but Jagiełło Oak had this advantage that was near Białowieża (located only 1,5 km), and access was very easy. Tsar Oak was located about 20 km from Białowieża, and access was difficult because of swamps and muds. Probably no writers or poets had ever visited this oak. So the article about Jagiełło Oak should remain, but not account of legends. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 14:04, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


Thanks, and apologies, misunderstood the purpose of the ARS talk page. JMalky (talk) 09:14, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

No problem! Fram (talk) 09:15, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Your redirection of articles on Wikimedia projects

You're apparently one of those folks whose opinion is so glorious you get to decide on everyone else's behalf if something is "notable" enough for us to read about here. The wikimedia foundation established wikipedias in the official languages and major languages of every nation around the globe and has always sought to foster good relations and promote their growth. While some of these may not have grown as fast as English wikipedia, we also seek to counter systemic bias in anticipation of technilogical advances in the third world. Your actions have been seen as not only snooty in applying your subjective personal judgement on their "notibility' unilaterally and without consultation, but in fact positively backwards from the goals of this project. (talk) 12:36, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

My opinion is not more glorious than that of other people, e.g. those deciding "on everyone eles's behalf" that topic X or Y should have a separate article. We have guidelines and policies, e.g. WP:N and [WP:WEB]], indicating when topics should have separate articles and when not. We also have Wikipedia:Be bold as one of our guiding principles. We don't create or keep articles in anticipation, we have articles after something has become notable. Fram (talk) 12:42, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree, so let's be bold and revert all his sudden removals of all articles he decides are not to his satisfaction. There's something called a talk page where you can discuss this before just blasting in and removing articles! There's something called being reasonable where you can give other contributers who've worked on and are continuing to work on the articles a chance to find evidence of notability that you may be satisfied! Jeez, talk about a nuclear approach! Greenman (talk) 21:24, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

On the same topic, I'm wondering if you looked at the links I provided at the end of the AfD. There are clearly real sources, in electronic form and available now, that cover this material. From your close it looks like you either missed that or didn't look at them. I may be away for a while, sorry if I don't respond quickly Hobit (talk) 18:46, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Spaceships of Eve Online

Hello! Please undelete the edit history for the purpose of helping in the merge to the redirect location. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 16:31, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

this would be very helpful, thank you. Ikip (talk) 17:05, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
If i had thought that a merge was the outcome of the discussion, I would not have deleted the article. Fram (talk) 18:52, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Please see my reply below. I see no reason not to undelete the edit history in this instance. Given the strong support for a keep or merge, it would be a reasonable compromise. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 18:54, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Given your contentious views of the Article Rescue Squad do you not see a bit of conflict in closing articles tagged by them that are rather borderline? -- Banjeboi 20:45, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't base my closes on whether they are tagged by the ARS or not, as would be clear from my contributions. I closed the two last remaining debates from that day, and one of them happened to be ARS tagged, and the other (I think, I didn't really check) wasn't. The were the last remaining ones because they weren't clear decisions, and someone, preferably an admin with some experience, has to decide one way or the other. I have also closed a number of relisted debates, some as keep, others as delete, and I haven't gotten the faintest idea if these were ARS tagged or not either.
Apart from that, I don't have "contentious views of the ARS", I have problems with the inability of some people active on the ARS talk page to act against or even recognise canvassing, and the habit of some people to use the ARS as a keep-vote gathering place. But many, probably most, editors in the ARS use it as it was intended, to tag and improve articles which are on AfD but have real potential. Fram (talk) 06:27, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Well I appreciate your response even if we must agree to disagree on other issues. -- Banjeboi 12:51, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

asymmetrical standards

"This means that the delete opinions have more weight since the keep opinions have failed to substantiate their positive (the deletes can't prove a negative, of course). Fram (talk) 09:21, 6 May 2009 (UTC)" You then are setting up a higher bar for keeping an article: the deletes, not having anything to prove, don't have to prove anything, the keeps to. This is not in agreement with wither reason of deletion policy, which is that if nothing can be proven either way, the default is to keep. Further, citing a previous non-consensus and then arging that since nothing has changed this should not be a non-consensus as well, seems self-contradictory.

normally, i would prefer to go to deletion review with a stronger underlying article (I consider this borderline) In fact, I seem to always wait until other people take it to deletion review, so I know there will be some support there. DGG (talk) 18:25, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
No, those wanting to delete have to show that, as far as can be judged, the article fails some essential policy or guideline. However, it is obviously impossibleto prove that no sources whatsoever exist. In this case though, the previous discussions ended in no consensus partly because people wanted to keep it because the sources were supposed to be out there. Certainly for a Western, current, popular culture article, such sources, if they exist, are readily available to enough people (fans, but also interested editors). If in the longer run (as here) no such sources are actually presented, and the sources that are given in the AfD but not in the article turn out to be more or less randomly picked (with books like "Synthetic Worlds", present in the sources provided by two different keepers, which have no info at all on the vehicles), then the value of the keep arguments starts to become weaker, and the delete opinions gain in weight.
To put it differently; despite the claims that there are sufficient sources, nothing has changed in the article since the previous AfDs, indicating that these sources are perhaps not so widespread: the article has not changed, so the arguments in favour are weakened.
Apart from that, I don't believe that deletion policy is like you describe it: if the keep arguments can not be proven, then the validity of the delete arguments is irrelevant. Imagine a case of verifiability: the keepers state that X existed, the deleters that X didn't. Neither can prove their point, then the article is deleted as unverifiable, even when the number of keeps and deletes is equal. The situation is different of course with notability discussions, when one side argues that the sources are sufficient, and the other side that they aren't: then a no consensus is the correct result. But that is not the case here: the discussion is whether sources about the subject exist or not, and for such claims, stating that they exist without any evidence is insufficient. Fram (talk) 18:50, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
The article had some references and other references were brought up in the discussion by Hobit among others, which is why a majority of participants aregued to either keep or merge and even some of the deletes were not opposed to a merge. Even the nominator responded to Ikip's strong keep asking if a merge would be a fair compromise and both Randomran and Hapia Dragon who commented regularly against the keeps, both had "merge" as their main stances. Anyway, for that reason, I again request a history undeletion. Thanks! Best, --A NobodyMy talk 18:53, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
The article had no independent reliable sources, and as said in the deletion debate and with some more explanation above, the sources provided by e.g. Hobit were not relevant for the article at all, but reached through a simple Amazon search and not checked any further. If such poor sources is what all of you base your keep on, then it is time to rethink your position. Fram (talk) 19:07, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
If there wasn't edit warring going on with the article during the AfD, I would have been more encouraged to add some to the article as well. But anyway, it is not accurate to suspect that no reliable sources exist. Interviews, for example, such as here, provide out of universe commentary that could be used for a development section: "We wanted all NPC and player ships to leave wrecks, and to add more ship variety. Shipwrecks will be salvageable for parts from which you can create new ship upgrades, called Rigs, and that should add new, mainly defensive, twists to your ships." Sifting through such extensive coverage of the game as found at IGN, there are enough comments with the various reviews, previews, and interviews to either build development and reception sections, or to at least justify a history undeletion so that we can use what was there per WP:PRESERVE and merge to the main article then utilizing the sources on IGN and elsewhere. Given that this was not a unanimous delete or even a majority delete and that there's no issues of libel or anything nefarious involved, undeleting the history would be the right way to go, because we have everything to gain and nothing to lose. The best case scenario is we either have some information worth merging or maybe a basis for an expansion based on the out of universe sources that multiple editors across four AfDs have asserted exist. Regards, --A NobodyMy talk 19:18, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
I have userfied it to User:A Nobody/Spaceships of Eve Online, you are free to turn it into an acceptable article there. Fram (talk) 19:28, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
I would still rather you reconsider and close as "no consensus", as just today, even we have an article in a reliable source on a cake modelled after one of the space ships from the game. Yes, some people even sort of got to "eat" one of the spaceships from the game! ;) Best, --A NobodyMy talk 02:19, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
My view of what are reliable sources and significant coverage differs from yours, as has been seen in previous debates as well. Fram (talk) 06:29, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
It is also different from the majority of participants in that discussion who wanted to either keep or merge the article. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 06:30, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, there are people who consider books that don't even mention spaceships in Eve online as reliable sources for an article on spaceships in Eve online. Fram (talk) 06:33, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
I and the others consider the books that do mention spaceships in Eve online as reliable sources for this article and even so, when a majority of established editors, including a few admins, argue to keep or merge and even the nominator proposes a merge as a compromise, there is just no consensus to delete. We only go with the minority opinion when there's some serious pressing issue like libel concerning a living person that necessitates a need to delete the edit history regardless if the majority wants it kept. We have nothing pressing here that justifies a deletion when there's no consensus for that. Here, there was no pressing need to do that and in fact doing so went against what the community actually wanted. Anyway, though, when you try some searches with names of specific ships from the game, such as here, additional coverage in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject also comes up. One has to try a variety of searches to really get at all the stuff that's available and after all, it's not as if Google covers all reliable sources in existence. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 06:51, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) The page is in your userspace, perhaps there you can achieve what all thosepeople wanting to keep didn't do after the previous AfD's, i.e. find and add significant coverage from reliable independent sources to the article. This coverage was not in the article and not presented during the AfD. It is not the job of the closing admin to check if there may be good sources anyway, the closing admin has to weigh the arguments provided, and those arguments, including the sources given by the keep proponents, were clearly insufficient. Votecounting has no bearing on this, so all discussion of majority vs. minority is irrelevant (and you only have a majority when you include the merges, more people wanted to delete than to keep the article). I would prefer it if you either continued on your new version and posted that when it is finished (and sufficiently different from the old one), or started a DRV about the closure of the AfD and the article as it was back then. TO continue this discussion here seems rather pointless. Fram (talk) 06:56, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

If we seriously went by the arguments, as I said in my initial comment in the AfD, the deletes ranged from over the top WP:IDONTLIKEIT (even with swearing) to part of a "too many articles campaign" that never considers the actual article under discussion to saying okay, well, maybe compromise as a merge, which leaves only the refuted claim of it being a game guide and the general disagreement about sourcing. Thirteen editors called to keep and another five to merge versus thirteen to delete and one to redirect, and even then when we get away from the bolded text, even the nominator wasn't opposed to a merge as a compromise, which means the support for something other than deletion was clearly the majority stance with many of the delete positions being woefully off base. If anything, as the discussion progressed, the keep stance seemed to persuade more of those entering into the discussion later. In any event, when an article has potential of any kind, even if there's just a redirect location, then per WP:PRESERVE, we don't delete the edit history. We don't make things harder for our editors to improve content that they believe can eventually be improved. This is as clear a case of a no consensus as we've had as of late and it shouldn't have to come to a DRV, but if you don't wish to discuss it here further, okay, but the fact that a few editors beyond me and who surely don't always comment when I challenge a questionable close should be indicative that delete and redirect really did lack consensus support in this particular case. I'll keep improving the userfied article for now, but this is an instant where I'm not the only one who can see we lacked a consensus to delete here. Anyway, I've said my peace for now. So, take care. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 07:12, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Clarification on the closing of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James while John had had had had had had had had had had had a better effect on the teacher

In your closing you said "The result was Keep but preferably merge whenever a good target is decided upon. This is a notable example of an interesting topic, but it would be better placed and avoid redundancy in a larger article about the topic with a number of examples".

There is an editor on the article's talk page(the same one who nominated the article) that seems to think that this closing requires a merge. To me I interpret "preferably merge whenever a good target is decided upon" to mean that consensus on the given article's talk page should decide how, when and if it is merged. Could you please clarify your position here: talk:Had_had_had_had_had_had_had_had_had_had_had#mergers? Thank you. Chillum 23:34, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Smiley.svg Thank you thank you for closing those AfDs. I appreciate it. Ikip (talk) 21:37, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Smurfs in other languages

We feel that this category is of high cultural importance. It was something we were researching before we even discovered it on Wikipedia. The interesting thing is how different languages formulate the word for Smurf. eg The original French - Schtroumpfs was altered for the German market as it seemed too much like their word for sock/stocking. The Italian language reasoning is also fascinating.

A new development that we are particularly interested in is how new countries and autonomy-seeking regions are developing their own versions of the word. We were involved in symposium in Slovakia, where it was stated by several cultural figures that they were particularly keen to break away from the Czech cultural identity and this meant creating their own pop-cultural references. More recently, the Scots language dictionary based at Edinburgh University developed a word (Stoorums) in conjunction with an artistic group for an event celebrating Robert Burns' 250th anniversary. I believe they are also trying to re-instate this section.

We hope that this section will be kept on, as it is forming the basis for a lot of critical discussion in the Art department at London Metropolitan University. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:53, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

You can see all the different language versions by checking the bottom of the left sidebar on the Smrufs page, giving all the interwiki links. Apart from that , the section was mainly unsourced and gave WP:UNDUE weight to a minor aspect of the Smurfs. But it is best if you take this up on the talk page of the article, where everyone interested can give their opinion. Fram (talk) 11:21, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, just worked out which Talk page you mean. Will continue the discussion there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:49, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar notice

Resilient Barnstar.png The Resilient Barnstar
For having to put up with various users in the long-running battle between "it's interesting" and Wikipedia policy. Stifle (talk) 13:22, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Fram (talk) 13:44, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I've amended this at the request of the user I named. Stifle (talk) 10:04, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
That's probably better, I can imagine that I wouldn't really appreciate someone naming me in a similar barnstar either. Fram (talk) 10:14, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Use of Quotes

Hi Fram, point to me the policy that you are citing that relates to quotes. I cannot find any mention of it other than an interpretation of NOTDirectory, which again does not specify the elimination of quote sections. I checked your Villagepump discussion and saw very few participants. Does that even come close to a consensus on the issue? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 00:53, 27 May 2009 (UTC).

Well, WP:NOTDIR starts with "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as (but not limited to) quotations". WP:UNDUE relates to what quotes to include: why these quotes and not any others? What do they represent? Why are they significant, representative, noteworthy? WP:NPS is a relevant guideline: "Fair use allows us to quote short sections from copyrighted primary sources, if relevant to explaining the topic of an article." The "if relevant" part is what is at stake here. IF you only give quotes, without context, they don't explain anything, they just illustrate. This is not fair use. Similar text can be found in WP:NFC: "Brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea." The article currently does not indicate which point is illustrated, the text does not establish context for anything, does not attribute anything. The short discussion was only a reaffirmation of my position on this, not the first, last and definitive discussion on the subject. Fram (talk) 08:24, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
I can see that your rationale is attributed to a variety of style guidelines, but as you have already determined that your position is intractable, albeit your slight concession to "discussion", there is very little that other editors can do other than provide a needlessly contrived statement to link the quotes. In the article that was under review, One of Our Aircraft is Missing, the quotes represent a historical view that delves into the reasoning behind the Dutch resistance in the Second World War. The film was clearly a propaganda tool and the quotes were limited to one exchange and was cited to a source. The original author of the article has now revised the "plot" to incorporate the "quotes." As a sop to the "deletionist" streak that this challenge represented with a broad statement such as "random quotes dont belong on Wikipedia" (sic), I had already moved the aforementioned quotes to Wikiquotes. The author that made the revisions is a well-known historian of the British writer-director-producer team of Michael Powell and Emeric Pressburger which immediately aroused my attention as his work is impeccably researched and has led to a number of comprehensive articles in Wikipedia revolving around the legendary Powell/Pressburger team. Might I suggest that instead of one editor being the arbiter of the "quotes" conundrum, that a clearly defined style note be considered before more of the crusade stirs up similar contentious exchanges between established "regulars". FWiW Bzuk (talk) 11:26, 27 May 2009 (UTC).
The new version of the article is not "needlessly contrived" but provides the essential info needed to inform the reader of the significance of these quotes. There was no indication at all why these quotes were selected and not any of the other possible ones. In my experience, in most cases no decent explanation is possible, it is just personal preference for some quotes without any significance. In this particular case, there apparently was a reason to pick these quotes. Problem solved! Fram (talk) 11:58, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
As you say, problem solved, this time. Unless I or other readers missed the very obvious statements embodied in the quotes, then a reasoning should and could be provided. However, quotes that are self-evident should not be summarily dismissed in a "broad brush" campaign to eliminate quotes. Having an "crusader" about (forgive the over-the-top hyperbole) is not conducive to editing, especially when the long-time editors involved have an impeccable track record of creating and developing articles. I reiterate that if the quotes section is to be a continuing controversial issue, then a clearly enunciated statement as to the use of quotes should be instituted. In looking at the rationale that was provided and efforts to engage others in the villagepump, only a few editors expressed interest in the subject. That alone indicates that continuing a campaign made be of dubious value. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:21, 27 May 2009 (UTC).

Michel Vaillant GA

Michel Vaillant is now up for review. Hopefully this one will go more like Hergé and less like Belgian comics. :) BOZ (talk) 20:01, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Got anything for it? :) BOZ (talk) 00:30, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. But do you mind to explain/help?

Hi, I am still new to Wiki and still trying to figure all about it. I tried reposting the article, but as usual, someone comes along to bring it down. It would helpful if you could explain what is exactly wrong with what was posted. Or at least point me in the right direction. I need to know why, not "Don't do that again" etc. Cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chg1985 (talkcontribs) 08:43, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

You have recreated the page Aspire for Life that was deleted after the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aspire for Life. You can appeal that discussion with the closing admin at User talk:MBisanz. Fram (talk) 08:48, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Regarding your deletion of Guido den Broeder's userspace

I've restored his userspace as U2 of the criteria for speedy deletion is explicitly for userpages of users who do not exist, and while Guido cannot edit the account still continues to exist. Please do not re-delete. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 10:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Does a banned user exist? Perhaps, I interpreted it differently... Anyway, what's the benefit of undeleting these pages? They are not linked from anyweher, conatin no content, will never be of any use to anyone... Wasn't undeleting them not just a waste of time for policy sake? Fram (talk) 11:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
No, because the user in question has asked for them to be restored. Regardless of whether he is banned or not it is not appropriate to simply delete his userspace - remember of course that Wikipedia has no limit to the amount of pages it can store. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 12:04, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
So you are making edits on behalf of a banned user? Please check WP:BAN. Your argument has no value, I have not deleted these pages because we are running out of space, but because they serve no purpose whatsoever. Could you please indicate what the possible benefit for Wikipedia can be in retaining these pages? I know and understand that talk pages need to be kept normally, if only because they contain contributions by other users. But I don't see anything in these pages that would merit keeping them and carrying out a request of a banned user for it. Fram (talk) 12:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
If my argument has no value then it is obvious I'm not going to dissuade you. Have a wonderific day. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 12:47, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Well, you can call it a strawman instead of having no value, but the end result is the same. You could have claimed that WP:NPOV doesn't apply to userspace and it would be equally unapplicable. I have not deleted these pages for the reason you give in "remember of course that Wikipedia has no limit to the amount of pages it can store." If you can't be bothered to seriously discuss your edits on behalf of a banned user, then perhaps you shouldn't have done them in the first place. Fram (talk) 12:52, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

If someone retired would you delete all their pages?RlevseTalk 20:17, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

No, because that editor can unretire anytime he or she wants. A banned user doesn't have that option. Fram (talk) 06:55, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


I have no idea what/why you guys are going on about, and don't have time to investigate, but I dropped a note here to draw eyes. Please put down the tools for now, and discuss it there. rootology/equality 12:52, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Knock it off. Unless Guido is also banned on the other Wikimedia projects linked on that page, it seems rather petty to delete it, since it is linked in Guido's sig. Thatcher 13:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
    • He is indef blocked on the Dutch Wikipedia a well, and can hardly be blocked on Wikisage, which he created and maintains. Why should we keep a link to his own website around on every page he signed? Fram (talk) 13:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Stop right now

Go here[5]. rootology/equality 13:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Why dou you start a new section when I haven't done anything since your last post? You are giving the impression to any casual reader that I continued some behaviour since your previous post, whicc is clearly incorrect. Fram (talk) 13:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
He's mistaken my re-deletions for yours. You can remove this thread if you feel it incorrectly victimises you. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 13:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Oh no, as long as the section makes clear what happened, I have no problem with it. It just came rather out of the blue, and whatever previous mistakes I may have made in this delete-undelete debacle, continuing after his FYI was not one of them, so I was unpleasantly surprised by it. But thanks for pointing it out, it is a nice gesture after I was rather abrupt with your previous posts. Fram (talk) 13:19, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for User:Guido den Broeder/Visit

An editor has asked for a deletion review of User:Guido den Broeder/Visit. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. — Aitias // discussion 15:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

AfD closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicktoons Summer Beach House (2nd nomination)

Hello, I believe that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicktoons Summer Beach House (2nd nomination) should have been relisted for further discussion rather than closed as delete. I understand your position, but the talk was about 50/50 so far and it looks as if it was basically closed per WP:NOEFFORT. Another week to accept some response from people would not have hurt here. ZabMilenko 10:16, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

There were enough participants, and enough time had passed (AfD was extended from 5 to 7 days recently). It wa closed not only per noeffort: the delete opinions were valid per WP:N, the merge/keep opinions were invalid because they assumed notability but did not show any. It's not a case of noeffort, it's a case of noevidence. This may have been due to noeffort, but that's only one possible explanation. Fram (talk) 10:18, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Well I am going to take your word for it just in case I might be missing something, but it still felt a bit premature. I'll just let it go. See you around the wiki. ZabMilenko 10:38, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


Almost three years ago you created a redirect from Charlton-on-Otmoor to Otmoor. I propose that this redirect be deleted as it prevents the creation of a separate article about Charlton-on-Otmoor village. As you created the redirect I think you deserve to know about the proposal so that you can comment if you wish.

Otmoor is a large area of open land with considerable historic and ecological interest, and its article should be developed with relevant content. Charlton-on-Otmoor is a village on one edge of that moor, the "Otmoor" article contains almost no content about the village, and it would be confusing to add any. Charlton is the largest of the "seven towns of Otmoor", most of the seven now have their own articles, and Charlton is the only one that has a redirect to "Otmoor" instead. Charlton deserves its own article like any other English village. Motacilla (talk) 12:07, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Declined Speedy Deletion: 1610s in archaeology

Hello Fram, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I declined the speedy deletion of 1610s in archaeology - a page you tagged - because: redlinking just one of the whole group by speedy deletion is inappropriate; use WP:AFD Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any queries, please let me know. Ale_Jrbtalk 11:07, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I am not redlinking "just one of the group", I have already also tagged 1650s and 1660s from the same series. I can not find your text in the CSD criteria, so your (templated?) text of "please review" is rather inappropriate. Fram (talk) 11:11, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Arsenal123456 Sockpuppets

I found User talk:Man u123456 who may be another sockpuppet.--The Legendary Sky Attacker 09:42, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, definitely same user, blocked as well (master account not yet indef blocked since this one was created before my final warning). If you notice any others, feel free to drop me a note. If I don't respond quickly, WP:AIV may be faster. Fram (talk) 09:46, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

If you block his IP, he won't be able to create any more puppets.--The Legendary Sky Attacker 09:49, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I have stopped account creation from this IP, but the last one was created before I did this. If new ones appear, a checkuser may be needed to see if some IP range block or somethiong similar may be needed. I don't know the actual IP address, only checkusers have that ability, not admins (to protect privacy as much as possible). Fram (talk) 09:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Michel Vaillant redux

Hey there,

Sorry we couldn't get this one up to GA. I told another user about it, and he has been hard at work on the article - we may be able to re-nom very soon! BOZ (talk) 07:12, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Jacques Brotchi

Updated DYK query On June 17, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Jacques Brotchi, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 02:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: Gdb subpages

Didn't even realize there was an mfd. Just figured it's pretty common practice to delete a banned user's subpages. fter all, the user's banned, they're not gonna use them. Wizardman 15:41, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


Go to the discussion page of Dutch people to see why i have changed your changes made to the list of Dutch people under the pictures. MvdB21 (talk) 09:45, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

  • I am sorry i confused the Dutch page with the English page. I have corrected my mistake. Cheers MvdB21 (talk) 09:48, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

May i know the reason please?

Hai, Thanks for editing the article Erwadi, and making it encylopedic. may i know why the refernces from Quran are being deleted there?

The Quran is no evidence, it is an indication of why you (or many people) believe him to be still alive and able to work miracles. The relevant encyclopedic fact (if theer are references for this) is that he is believed (or claimed) to be working miracles and curing diseases, not whether he is still alive according to the Quran. When you sue the same Quran verse three times in one article, it comes across as preaching, not as presenting a neutral, encyclopedic biography. Considering that it ius actually an article about a village, the Quran verses are even less relevant. Fram (talk) 12:55, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Nifty Archive deletion

What specific evidence of the notability of the Nifty Archive can I provide that would convince you and the administrators of Wikipedia to reverse the deletion decision? No one operating the Nifty Archive site was contacted to provide any information or contribute to the discussion. The Nifty Archive collection has been used for academic research studies about sexuality and for at least two theatrical productions. It has launched the careers of a number of published authors. NiftyOrg (talk) 01:38, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

If you have any evidence published in reliable, independent sources (see WP:RS for more info on this), then it has a chance. this is one source which may contribute to establishing notability for the archive. This is another. 06:48, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Where should I report the references? Here? I do not have a clear understanding from the deletion discussion whether the problem was the type of notability or the sources? Do you want proof that Nifty was created in 1992 or its age is not considered notable? Do you want proof that Nifty has been cited in academic work or that is not notable? NiftyOrg (talk) 15:49, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

As far as the age, the site originally was hosted as an FTP site on It was referenced in numerous USENET postings in the hierarchy. For instance, this thread from 1995 mentioning both the FTP and gopher access. Or this file from 1994 on mentioning the FTP site. NiftyOrg (talk) 16:06, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

A few more references in USENET posts here and here.

This posting and this posting document the move from the original site to the initial webhosting site. NiftyOrg (talk) 17:01, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

The Nifty Archive has received requests from faculty and students in sociology, psychology and library science departments at universities around the world for assistance with research. These have been private communications that often are not cited. Nifty is referenced in the proceedings from a conference about Sexuality on the Net. NiftyOrg (talk) 17:36, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

This newsletter references the production Nifty, which was a dramatic reading of gay erotic stories from the Nifty Archive at the Bailiwick Repertory Theater in Chicago. NiftyOrg (talk) 17:52, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

To put it bluntly (and oversimplified), we are not interested in what Nifty is, how old it is, and so on: we are only interested in the attention it received in reliable, independent sources, so not their own pages or people, not usenet postings, not something otherwise unknown, but things like the sources I provided: known newspapers, books by known publishers, peer reviewed journals, ... Fram (talk) 19:37, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Please use I iso WE, others find info from Usenet a possible source. Just like Nifty itself there are also Wiki users that know the time without WWW. That you only rely on WWW doesn't say that everyone only relies on WWW. Usenet and Gopher used to be POSSIBLE reliable sources. Notabillity is not only measured because articles on WWW/http exist. Court rulings and likewise info exists but I'm still trying to get it online so people can use it as source. You also mention "known newspapers" - what is known, is that to you,to US readers or other English speaking people around (eg England).
When I have all info available and controlable (and meeting WP guidelines) I'll republish the article. IMHO the site IS notable as it was one of the 1st sites of its kind (from the pre WWW era) and it was one of the reasons that in the US some laws were changed and later overthrown. If that's not notable what the heck is.....
Some Wikipedians (not referring to you) want to have such articles removed because it is related to GAY, and Wiki is the last place where that should be a reason to ban the article. So when I have all info in place and checkable AND it meets the WP guidelines I'll reopen the lemma. Tks and bibi JanT (talk) 13:46, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


I have responded to your proposed deletion of my article - List of films which share their name with a title of a song. If you wish to continue the argument click here. Thank you --Feeling free (talk) 14:30, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your co-operation. See discussion again --Feeling free (talk) 15:07, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Improvements notice board

OK, I finally started an idea I mentioned on the Comics project talk page. :) Feel free to have a go, do whatever you like to make it look better/more functional/whatever, or offer suggestions. BOZ (talk) 14:29, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

The Moon is Blue

From WP:CAPS intro: "In general, each word in English titles of books, films, and other works takes an initial capital, except for articles ("a", "an", "the"), the word "to" as part of an infinitive, prepositions and coordinating conjunctions shorter than five letters (e.g., "on", "from", "and", "with"), unless they begin or end a title or subtitle. Examples: A New Kind of Science, Ghost in the Shell, To Be or Not to Be." So it looks as if The Moon is Blue is the correct title, not the one you gave. Fram (talk) 06:48, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

So under what category from that list does "is" fall? I say none, as "is" is a verb in word and context, and verbs are capitalized. EdokterTalk 21:10, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
I guess I misread it... Fram (talk) 06:32, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
No sweat. It's a common MOS "violation". EdokterTalk 20:43, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Could you please explain further...

Could you please explain why you moved moved Abdul Razaq (Taliban Deputy Minister of Defense) to Abdul Razaq?

Yes, I see you cite a "manual of style: naming conventions". It took me a while to find the guidelin you probably meant. WP:naming conventions, right? Have you ever considered placing the appropriate wikilink right in your edit summary? I am sure I am not the only participant who would appreciate this courtesy.

Given that there are literally dozens of Abdul Razaqs surely a disambiguated name is absolutely essential? Geo Swan (talk) 00:09, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

There was no article at Abdul Razaq at all. Not even a redirect! At least now there is one, about a person with that name. The same as happens with Abdul Razzaq. And with Abdul Razak. It was moved half a year ago, without any problems or complaints until now. It is great that you added a hatnote, but that solves the problems that may have existed. And the WP:NC is a policy, not a guideline. At the moment, Abdul Razaq is the only article with that spelling, so no need to have a further disambiguation. Fram (talk) 06:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Abdul Razak, Abdul Razzaq, Abdul Razak, are transliterations. They are transliterations of the same original Arabic name. It is a mistake to treat them as distinct names. It is appropriate to treat them as if they were all transliterated identically.
For Chinese there are standardized transliteration systems. The Wade-Giles system was formerly the standard system for transliterating Chinese into English. There were similar systems for transliterating into French, and other European languages. English language newspapers almost always use the Pinyin system. So Chinese words are almost always transliterated consistently.
Arabic words are not transliterated consistently. There is no standardized transliteration system. Every time someone named Abdul Razak has his name transliterated into English it is likely it will be transliterated differently. So Abdul Razaq absolutely does require disambiguation. Geo Swan (talk) 21:16, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Political parties move

Discussion moved to Talk:Political parties in Belgium#Naming conventions - Altenmann >t 03:00, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Paul Biegel

Updated DYK query On July 2, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Paul Biegel, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Giants27 (

c|s) 14:35, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Nice work, thank you. I hope you don't mind my having made a few small edits. Groeten, (talk) 18:48, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Not at all, thanks! Fram (talk) 06:22, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Regarding this image.


I came across this image today, the uploader claims to released it under public domain but I am not sure about it, I believe that claim is false, however, I haven't found any source to verify that yet. The uploader of this image is Unusualboi90 (talk · contribs), whom I suspect to be sock puppet of NepaliBoy7 (talk · contribs) previously blocked for sockpuppetry. Latter has a history of violating copyright guidelines, his talk page is evidence for that. FatDuy (talk · contribs) and UserNepal (talk · contribs) are also suspected sock puppet of the same.

I am not good at images guidelines, therefore I wanted your help on this as you are an administrator. I hope you will look into this.

Thank you

Hitro 13:10, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I've passed this one to an administrator on Commons, I am not active there. Fram (talk) 13:24, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks For that!!! :) Hitro 13:25, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

José Luis Munuera

I see that you have earlier made an article about Jean-David Morvan. I just made an article about José Luis Munuera myself. I was pretty surprised when someone managed to nominate the article for speedy (sic!) deletion. I hope you could comment on the nomination, which shows nothing but a total ignorance about the subject! --Oddeivind (talk) 21:23, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the article. I have removed the speedy (of course) and started a discussion with the nominator. In the future, you can always go to the talk page of the person that placed the speedy tag and (politely, of course :-) ) explain why the tag is wrong. Some taggers are pretty stubborn, but some are fairly reasonable and have no trouble correcting their mistake. Fram (talk) 06:36, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for removing the tag! I never quite understood why it was placed there, as the article, as you also says, from the very beginning quite explicitly stated why the biographed person is significant. --Oddeivind (talk) 06:45, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Roy McCardell

Updated DYK query On July 10, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Roy McCardell, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
BorgQueen (talk) 02:52, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Yang Guangxian

Updated DYK query On July 12, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Yang Guangxian, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 03:36, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Jean-Claude Mézières

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found some concerns with the referencing which you can see at Talk:Jean-Claude Mézières/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:46, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fujiwara Manami

As you may have seen, I closed this as delete; besides the articles, I got rid of the template, the image, and an article on the entire family — I reasoned that, if none of these people were real, the family that they composed was surely a hoax as well. Have you begun a sock nomination for the creators? Nyttend (talk) 20:42, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

No, I just indef blocked the two editors (or one sockmaster) involved. I have no evidence that another accounbt is involved as well, so any SPI will probably be refused anyway. Fram (talk) 07:01, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Adding source

Hi, I added source to Ibrahim Al-Mudhaf one of my statemen in Kuwait. Couldn't find a good sources in English. I found many arabic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xetad (talkcontribs) 19:31, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from Crustal tsunami

Hello Fram, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Crustal tsunami has been removed. It was removed by Rascal the Peaceful with the following edit summary '(This is described as a crustal tsunami and it explains what it is, thus making this article invalid for deletion (This is my opinion. You can restore the template if you think i was wrong, ok?))'. Please consider discussing your concerns with Rascal the Peaceful before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 00:00, 25 August 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)

AfD nomination of Cold Y Generation

Ambox warning pn.svg
An editor has nominated Cold Y Generation, an article which you have created or worked on, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

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

You may also edit the article during the discussion to address the nominator's concerns but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. --Law Lord (talk) 01:56, 28 August 2009 (UTC)