User talk:Fram/Archive 33

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


Mellie Uyldert

Thank you so much for your contributions to this page. I can't seem to find links to any of her work. Are you aware of any places to buy or online concordances?

Thanks again :)

Mammynuns (talk) 19:55, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Everard t'Serclaes

Howdy. Could you move Everard 't Serclaes to Everard t'Serclaes? The latter is the correct spelling. Thanks! Oreo Priest talk 09:36, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. I moved, and restored the history of the t'Serclaes page (which was actually older than the wrong name page). Fram (talk) 09:46, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Great! Thanks again. Oreo Priest talk 09:53, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Refactoring comments

I kinda remember your opinion about refactoring comments,(WP:REFACTOR) I wanted to know if you have warned other user about misinterpreting sources and WP:COPYVIO, and the user refactors that warning/message on their talk. Are they allowed to do that? OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 17:22, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Normally not, no. They can remove messages, they can change the header, they can move the position of the message, and they can make purely cosmetical changes (if you have a message with a big "stop" image, they are probably allowed to remove that image. But that's about it. Anything that changes the meaning or tone of a post made by someone else is basically forbidden. I don't know what situation this refers to, so I'm talking in general here. Fram (talk) 07:26, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of my page

Hi Fram, I created the page Joseph Thomas M. today and I have received a message from you saying it appears to be in the list of pages to be deleted. 1) If I remove the achievements section since I do not have a certificate for the same, will the page still be under the list of pages to be deleted. 2) Will my work on Sandbox appear to other users? Thank you in advance. Ankitha Shetty (talk) 10:40, 3 December 2014 (UTC)Ankitha Shetty

Hi. The only way to avoid deletion of the page is to provide reliable, independent sources discussing Joseph Thomas M. and his own work directtly (not simply mentioning him when discussing some movie, but really giving attention to him). And the intention of a sandbox is to provide space to develop articles for Wikipedia, not to work as a free webhost where you can have an article on someone who isn't notable enough for a real Wikipedia article.
You are invited to join the deletion discussion and give your opinion there. Fram (talk) 10:43, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

My page about the Las Angeles rams was deleted and it was written to contact you to get a copy of the page that was deleted. Can you please send me that info? Thanks DjCoffen (talk) 23:20, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

There's nothing there worth undeleting. All interesting info for Wikipedia can be found at Los Angeles Rams, promotional info on where and how to register for season tickets is not the purpose of Wikipedia. Fram (talk) 07:19, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Farm, Mr. Vinit is an active politician in Bharatiya Janta Party. He is very closely associated with the Ministry of Shipping and Ministry of Road Transport and Highways in the Union Government of India. Ersiddhartha (talk) 17:30, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

His page is at Ersiddhartha (talk) 17:31, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

MistressLilituCutrere: My dear Fram, please go ahead and delete the page I was going to work so hard on since you seem to be so negative about this Real Life Wiccan school, approved by the State Board of Washington, just using Second Life and Skype as platforms to educate people in getting Wiccan Degrees. The founder of the school and it's host, The Aquarian Tabernacle Church have done so much more for the Wiccan Community than you must have read about. Sure it's not accredited because it is not a traditional Christian based college or university. Accreditation means they only give you credit for your work. Do you know how many people this school helps? Have you even read about the good works that the ATC has done? I guess not. I know an abusive reply when I see it. After all I am only a Wikipedia newbie with Autism trying to do some good for the readers of the many articles here. Good Day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MistressLilituCutrere (talkcontribs) 04:51, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

@MistressLilituCutrere: pages about non-notable subjects routinely get deleted on Wikipedia, no matter if they are Wiccan, Christian, Buddhist, or not religiously oriented at all (the majority of articles). But this "school" is not a school in any normal sense of the word, and has no notability. The only Google News reference is for it being listed in a long list of blacklisted universities in the US [1], which includes Christian institutions as well for that matter. Fram (talk) 08:44, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, the school should not be on that list. It is legitimate and Washington State Board Certified. So quite frankly my dear, you are wrong. It does have notability as it's host, the Aquarian Tabernacle Church is the oldest Wiccan church on paper since 1978 and it's founder, The late Pete Davis did so much for the Wiccan community including getting the Pentacle on headstones of Wiccan and Pagan soldiers who served. And the ATC itself offers the traditional Three Degree Priesthood for coven members and has legal tax-exempt status. If that doesn't give reason for the school to be notable, then as Rhett Butler said, "Frankly My Dear, I Don't Give A Damn." While we are at it, flag my user account for deletion. I am sick of all this. Good bye. (SLAMS DOOR!)

Canvassing policy

On multiple occasions, if somebody continuously tells that you are violating WP:CANVASS when have notified other relevant board or any other user who has edited same pages, then goes on to label their views as {{canvassed}} What has to be done in this situation? OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 11:17, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)A) Consider whether they may have a point
B) Take it up with them on their user talk page (politely of course)
C) If A and B fail, and the claims really get disruptive, the raise it at WP:ANI. However, if is e.g. restricted to one AfD discussion or the like, and you get the impression that the claims don't unduly influence other voters, then you can simply state your disagreement with the canvassing claims in the discussion, and leave it at that. Sometimes (mostly) ignoring works better than escalating things, but sometimes thet leave you no choice.
I have not looked at your talk page or any discussions you are currently involved in, so the above is a generic reply. Fram (talk) 11:24, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Thank you! I shall notify you, if the problem persists. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 11:46, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

neutral RfC notification

Template_talk:Succession_box#RfC has a discussion on succession box usage. You had previously noted or opined at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 April 6#Template:NYRepresentatives thanks. Kraxler (talk) 17:16, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Montgomery County Toll Road Authority

What do you want me do to? Make up stuff? -- I gave credit for every piece of information that was used on the page and was working on additional information when you deleted the page -- I have to use pre-existing information to say when it was created as the information is only found on their own web pages. (<span=help title="Morph">M o r p h | <span=help title="See what Morph has Contributed to Wikipedia">C | <span=help title="Morph's Discussion Page">T) 20:35, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I have recreated the page with NO COPYRIGHTED information, thus no HISTORY since you deem that to be copyrighted material (that is the only place that I can think of that had any copyrighted material and in which I had a citation for everything that was used) -- (<span=help title="Morph">M o r p h | <span=help title="See what Morph has Contributed to Wikipedia">C | <span=help title="Morph's Discussion Page">T) 20:55, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

You need to rewrite the information in your own words, not simply copy it (hence the "copy-right"). You can have a history section, and use the source you used previously, but only use it for the information, not for the actual sentences. Write, don't copy. Fram (talk) 07:19, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Anthony Kumpen

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:43, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Fram. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Kurtis (talk) 09:17, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree. Fram (talk) 09:21, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
I've sent a follow-up. Kurtis (talk) 09:31, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2014/Candidates/Hahc21

Hi Fram,

I writing to let you know that I have moved one of your comments to the candidate's talk page. Please note that the question page is reserved for only questions and the talk page is best suited for comments and discussion about the candidates. Best regards, Mike VTalk 10:23, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

No problem, thanks for letting me know! Fram (talk) 10:31, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

a little history

about a recent stub, Stripped Classicism that you tagged. I created that bit of nonsense while doing other stuff because I discovered that the term "stripped classicism" (with or without capitals) was used in several other articles, frequently appearing as a red link. I then went and found a web site that had a pretty good definition of the term and used it as a reference. Imagine my surprise when the reference got knocked off by, I believe, a bot, with the explanation that the site I had used was a "banned by wikipedia" one. I, innocent that I am, did not even know that such things exist. Now off the computer and into my life, I live with my 92 year old mother and she lives in what I call "shamanic time" so when ever she chooses to get up, I get up. (Except between midnight and 7 am, at which point she is on her own). So, after starting the article and getting my one source rejected, I was on to other things. O will try and spend some time on it today and will not remove any other the three tags you added until at least minimally meeting their requirements. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 18:25, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Ah, bots, can't live with them, can't live without them... It is no big deal that the article is unsourced for now, do it in your own time and all is well... Fram (talk) 20:00, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Minor diety User:Lockley has beat me to much of this. Carptrash (talk) 22:15, 4 December 2014 (UTC)


Hello my dear hope u r doing good . i just want to know that why Im not allowed to add my profile on wikipedia , and if its allow so what is the right procedure to do so Pls help me in this case thank u — Preceding unsigned comment added by MianAbdulHaseebPTI (talkcontribs) 20:36, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a platform to promote yourself (or your party, company, club, ...) Articles should be about notable subjects, written in a neutral voice and based on reliable, independent sources. User pages can have some personal information about Wikipedia editors, but not as much or as promotional as yours: it should be mostly about your Wikipedia work, your interests, ... And of course, user pages should only be created by Wikipedia editors: if your only work on Wikipedia is your user page, then you are not using Wikipedia correctly, you are not helping Wikipedia but only yourself. Fram (talk) 08:00, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Fixing a copy and paste move

Hello. Is there anyway you can restore the history of Moana (disambiguation) by adding the revision history of Moana between 10:59, July 27, 2014‎ and 11:47, June 12, 2008‎ (its creation)? And anyway to delete that same period of history from Moana, so that it looks like an article that has only has revision history between 11:02, July 27, 2014‎ and now. And the same for the talk pages too. Thanks. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:20, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Done! (Admins have a nice tool to help us do this, otherwise it is a lot of work...) Please check if it is done correctly though. Fram (talk) 07:56, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Seems to be. Thank you and apologies for creating work for you.--Mark Miller (talk) 08:47, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
No problem, it's no big deal. I'm glad that I can do something that satisfies you both though :-) Fram (talk) 09:31, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Good work

That was good work finding and documenting misuse of the administrator WP:UAL. NE Ent 19:19, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

Barnstar of Diligence Hires.png The Barnstar of Diligence
Without your intervention this sham would have gone unnoticed and our community would be worse off. Thanks for defending our integrity. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:10, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Unsourced Tag

I have added several references to the If I Was a River (album) page. When and who can remove the WP:Unsouced tag? Thanks for all of your work on Wikipedia BuffaloBob (talk) 01:51, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

As soon as an article has a reference (preferably a reliable, independent one), you are free to remove the tag. Looking at that article, it has seven sources and two external links, and they seem to be good sources, so there is absolutely no reason to keep that tag on the article. Thanks! Fram (talk) 07:40, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Master of the Baroncelli Portraits, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Capilla Real. 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) 09:01, 9 December 2014 (UTC)


Can you move Kekauōnohi to Kekauʻōnohi? Thanks.

There were some problems with such a move a while ago, and I then have said that I'ld prefer a WP:RM, as I am unable to judge if this is a correct move or not. Fram (talk) 08:01, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikimedia genealogy project

Just wondering if you have any thoughts re: the idea of WMF hosting a genealogy project. If so, feel free to contribute to this discussion. And apologies if I have made this request before. ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:05, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Archaeology of Igbo-Ukwu

Hello Fram. I understand and appreciate your pointing out the close paraphrasing in Archaeology of Igbo-Ukwu. However, I need to point out that this is actually limited in scope and does not warrant a complete deletion of all my additions to the subject over months since not all the content I added was affected by this, and most of the added content was actually an improvement to the encyclopedic content and not affected by close paraphrasing. For you to take the stance that it is indeed a pity if a lot of work has crept into it, but it's better safe than sorry. We are now aware of these four, but chances are that there are more of them, and that not all of them would be corrected as you did here is unfortunate and unfair. It is either there are more of them or there are not, and as I had pointed out in that discussion, of the four instances you mentioned I am not responsible for the third one while the fourth is the description of an image which might fall under WP:Limited. In any case I understand your concerns. Still the issues and extent involved are not so grievous that all my contributions (and those of others which you refer to as collateral damage!) to the article over months must be deleted. According to WP:DCV If you have strong reason to suspect a violation of copyright policy and some, but not all, of the content of a page appears to be a copyright infringement, then the infringing content should be removed, and a note to that effect should be made on the discussion page. And WP:PARAPHRASE says Your approach may vary depending upon the severity of the concern... It is important to discuss your concerns with the contributor. Many people who paraphrase too closely are not intentionally infringing, but just don't know how to properly paraphrase. It might help to point them to this essay or to the references and resources listed here, which include some pointers for proper paraphrasing. My concern is that the content of the encyclopedia would be significantly reduced by simply reverting the article to a version from 2012 (the easy way out) instead of rewriting or copy editing the offending passages which would have been the better solution. The extent of the problem did not require blanking, the close paraphrasing template would have sufficed in this case and rewriting could have been done on the spot by you or you might have notified me to do it. All I am asking now is that you take time to copy edit the article as it was and address the few close paraphrasing issues that you have identified, or if you cannot find the time, give me a chance to do so myself. Imo your revert to 2012 is very harsh and somewhat inappropriate under the circumstances. It is also not in the interest of the encyclopedic content. As I have requested from you at Wikipedia talk:Did you know#GA with copyvios in Queue please at least take out enough time to correctly identify a version of the article prior to the addition of my close paraphrasing which would adequately do justice to other contributors to the article. Thank you for your time. Ochiwar (talk) 19:43, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your lengthy reply, but no. If there is one instance of copyvio / close paraphrasing, then rewriting or removing that part may be sufficient. Having found multiple instances, chances are that there are more undetected ones as well, and therefor I will not undelete the page. It took already quite a long time to find these violations, as these checks are not easy. Having noticed that indeed one of the copyvios predated your edits, and that the very first version of the page was already a copyright violation, I have now completely deleted the page. You can now start from a clean slate, without having to worry about your or older copyvios or close paraphrasings. Please be aware that the image description, which you believe is not a problem under WP:LIMITED, in reality still is a violation and needs to be rewritten as well (or given as a straight quote, but please don't overquote). Things like "a network of parallel lines, crosshatchings, and granulations typical of Igbo Ukwu", which you copied straight from the source, are things which can easily be rewritten. Fram (talk) 07:34, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Great, thanks. I knew I could count on you. A clean slate is so much easier. Ochiwar (talk) 09:09, 12 December 2014 (UTC)


I saw your reference to your having pinged me in a discussion about Oversight and the Australian shooting. For some reason, I did not receive any ping. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:44, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I pinged you, but afterwards I rev-deleted the whole section (as oversight took way too long to happen); perhaps this undid or thwarted the ping in some way. Fram (talk) 21:02, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Luc De Vos

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:00, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Man Haron Monis

Man Haron Monis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

As you seemed to be concerned about the WP:OUTING yesterday associated with Talk:2014 Sydney hostage crisis (I noticed your extensive revdel), you may want to take a look at this. Dwpaul Talk 02:32, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Seconded. There is at least one topic about trying to play the guessing game. --Super Goku V (talk) 07:27, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. I rev-deleted this as well (not only that section but an older one as well!). I created an edit notice to warn people about this, let's hope it helps. Fram (talk) 07:46, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Not a problem and thank you for responding quickly. I was trying to work out how to use the IRC and did not notice any changes until I could not see the issue anymore. --Super Goku V (talk) 07:54, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for posting the talk page notice. However, I think it would be better if you were to put, "if any" as a qualifier. StAnselm (talk) 04:59, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Good idea, done. Fram (talk) 07:32, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! Actually, I meant "which Wikipedia account, if any", but that's OK. StAnselm (talk) 08:16, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Move discussion at Admiral of the Fleet (Royal Navy)

Fram, could you please drop by Talk:Admiral of the Fleet (Royal Navy) and speak some sense? Many thanks. Shem (talk) 09:50, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration clarification


  • Hi Fram. The above relates to Richard Norton. I hope you'll agree that it's a good idea to give him another chance. Best regards, —Tim /// Carrite (talk) 03:13, 27 December 2014 (UTC)


You should know that edits like this make it awful hard to expose the admin evils that we all have likely seen mentioned. And what am I to do if ever I need diffs to tear your good name asunder? Show something like that? You have a lot of integrity considering your caste. Cheers.--John Cline (talk) 17:57, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:EngFram/sandbox

User:EngFram/sandbox, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:EngFram/sandbox and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:EngFram/sandbox during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 18:23, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Criticism of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad

Sir, I created this article and was tagged for speedy deletion because there was another article of the same name which was deleted because of lacking sources or other issues before I joined wikipedia but my article has reliable sources. Can you check the matter. Owais Khursheed (Talk to me) 10:36, 24 January 2015 (UTC)


Hi. Would you consider moving Béguinage to Beguinage (no accent?). The latter is the English name, and another editor requested it on the talk page, and I'm inclined to agree. Of course, if you think that this is controversial enough to warrant a proper discussion, we can do that too, but I suspect nobody will object. Your call, really. Cheers, Oreo Priest talk 17:30, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Just to be using the common English (as found, for example, here, here and here). --Andreas Philopater (talk) 01:33, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
I wasn't editing at the time of the first request. Done now. Fram (talk) 08:25, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of Article

I wish to know why the article Victor Mochere ( ) was deleted. Please tell me if it can be reinstated? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KingMende (talkcontribs) 15:09, 30 January 2015 (UTC)


Hi Fram, should Ziferblat be deleted or not? Crookesmoor (talk) 13:06, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Where are you?

Someone remarked on the DYK discussion page recently that the standard of hooks must have improved because few had been pulled recently. I don't think this is the case. There are still problematic hooks but they are getting through undetected because the main DYK critic, you, is taking a wikibreak. I hope this is only temporary and that you will soon be back keeping your eagle eye on things and picking out the errors and inaccuracies that others miss. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:36, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

About your (non)participation in the January 2012 SOPA vote

Hi Fram. I am Piotr Konieczny (User:Piotrus), you may know me as an active content creator (see my userpage), but I am also a professional researcher of Wikipedia. Recently I published a paper (downloadable here) on reasons editors participated in Wikipedia's biggest vote to date (January 2012 WP:SOPA). I am now developing a supplementary paper, which analyzes why many editors did not take part in that vote. Which is where you come in :) You are a highly active Wikipedian (96th), and you were active back during the January 2012 discussion/voting for the SOPA, yet you did not chose to participate in said vote. I'd appreciate it if you could tell me why was that so? For your convenience, I prepared a short survey at meta, which should not take more than a minute of your time. I would dearly appreciate you taking this minute; not only as a Wikipedia researcher but as a fellow content creator and concerned member of the community (I believe your answers may help us eventually improve our policies and thus, the project's governance). PS. If you chose to reply here (on your userpage), please WP:ECHO me. Thank you! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:11, 13 February 2015 (UTC)


Pichi no Shiro de Rokkuman to Pati is NOT a hoax, it is real. (talk) 00:38, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Ping --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:50, 4 March 2015 (UTC)


Hi Fram,

I hope you're okay. I haven't seen you edit for over two months now. Please let me know if you're doing okay. Thanks, Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 17:44, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Missing Wikipedians

Just a note that you have been added to this list. If you return to editing or you do not want to be on this list, feel free to remove your name. Liz Read! Talk! 09:49, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

Special Barnstar Hires.png The Special Barnstar
So many times whenever I had any difficulty or any doubts, I used to think what you would've done if you were in my place. After thinking that way, I always found that I had a new idea. The way you used to evaluate the merit and validity of claims, was in itself amazing. You are not anymore with us for a long time now, but you will continue to serve as a source of inspiration. Thanks again for your contributions. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 00:19, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Category:11th-century establishments in Germany

Category:11th-century establishments in Germany, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. 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. Ricky81682 (talk) 23:47, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Category:7th-century BC establishments in Iran

Category:7th-century BC establishments in Iran, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. 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. Ricky81682 (talk) 06:41, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Category:1803 disestablishments in Germany

Category:1803 disestablishments in Germany, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. 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. Ricky81682 (talk) 18:54, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Backlinks to deleted pages

Hi Fram, I noticed that Terrorist incidents in Iraq in 2011 was deleted by you in Dec 2014, but there are still several red links to it in other articles. Please would you remove those links when you have time, as recommended at WP:CFDAI? – Fayenatic London 18:18, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

I just happened to see this. Unfortunately, Fram hasn't edited in a few months, so I don't think he'll be able to attend to this anytime soon. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:14, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Newyorkbrad. I've removed the links now. – Fayenatic London 18:23, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

The administrator instruction for categories do obviously not apply when deleting articles. Redlinks should only be removed if they don't point to a potential valid article subject, not because of some misguided bureaucracy. Fram (talk) 10:27, 3 September 2015 (UTC)


Why do you remove hoax articles? Just asking. (talk) 01:36, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Ballpoint pen artwork talk archive

Hi Fram, I noticed you'd deleted the archive page noted above (this is long ago). Possibly because I'd created it incorrectly? Regardless, I'll soon be making major revisions to the Ballpoint pen artwork article itself, and I'd like to archive the existing talk page talk (which is outdated) to make way for new notes. It's been awhile since I've tried to create a "talk archive" page. Can you direct me to the instructionals OR can you maybe take a minute to create it so I can then start archiving the old-talk and add the new? Thanks for this much of your time. Penwatchdog (talk) 04:18, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Penwatchdog,
I'm sorry to say that Fram suddenly stopped editing at the end of December, and nobody knows what happened to him.
I checked your work at Talk:Ballpoint pen artwork, and it looks like you were successful. I added an {{archive}} banner to the page. (It's one of those things that is nice but not absolutely required.) Also, since Fram isn't around to answer future questions, then you might want to bookmark the Wikipedia:Help desk. The editors there are happy to answer questions like this. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:00, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, indeed I think I was successful. Thanks for your attention and sorry for any time-suck it caused; no need to reply to this, cheers friend. Penwatchdog (talk) 09:26, 28 June 2015 (UTC)


Despite the article being nominated for deletion, and the result being delete, it still has not been deleted. Do you know why? 79616gr (talk) 18:41, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

79616gr, Fram has not actively edited with this account for six months. You're likely to get a better response directing your question to another editor or admin. Liz Read! Talk! 12:49, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Category:1865 establishments in Vatican City

Category:1865 establishments in Vatican City, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. 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. Ricky81682 (talk) 09:20, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Category:1965 establishments in Guyana

Category:1965 establishments in Guyana, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. 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. Ricky81682 (talk) 06:50, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

How to lose weight listed at Redirects for discussion


An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect How to lose weight. Since you had some involvement with the How to lose weight redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. GZWDer (talk) 04:56, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Find sources AFD

Template:Find sources AFD has been nominated for merging with Template:Find sources. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:09, 30 August 2015 (UTC)


Hello Fram. I hope everything's OK with you, wherever you are. If you're still reading this I thought you would be interested in this. Best wishes, BethNaught (talk) 22:42, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Fram is back! I had been so worried. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 19:03, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
So glad to see that you're still around. BethNaught (talk) 19:25, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks (also to everyone else who left a message. I'll probably not start editing again anytime soon, a number of reasons have made me thoroughly disappointed with WP and made me wonder why I kept spending time on it. My possible opinion piece for the signpost is just about one of those things, I'll not point to the others as that would include pointing at individual editors as well as pointing out the dysfunctional organization and wrong priorities of both enwp and the WMF (even though slowly but steadily Lila seems to improve some things there). But I'm still around and in good health, so no need to worry about me. Fram (talk) 10:24, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Glad to see you're fine, but sad to see you're disappointed. Hopefully you can still see the all great things about Wikipedia and not just the bad! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oreo Priest (talkcontribs) 10:57, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
Signpost piece was excellent. pablo 10:34, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Good to see that you're well, Fram. Please do pay a visit to Wikipediocracy at some point, your critical eye towards WMF engineering is widely appreciated... Carrite (talk) 13:30, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

I too am glad to see you back here, albeit on a limited basis, and hope to see more of you. I understand the reasons for your current feelings about Wikipedia, but pointing out flaws and striving for improvement is in itself a valuable role to perform. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:30, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Re bad DYKs

There's a lulu on the; the writer is defending some really rotten scholarship (and, yes, this is the tactful description) on the grounds that his neologism, along with a slew of almost completely imaginary facts, was "seen by BIGNUM of people." Would you know anyone who shares your concern for crap DYKs on the German wiki who is reasonably bilingual? Past the "zum links" and "noch einz" level, my German skills are severely wanting. Anmccaff (talk) 22:23, 11 September 2015 (UTC)


Good article, bringing the most deficient section of the main page to more general attention is a good idea. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:21, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes User:The Rambling Man, though a current non contributor making people who put in the effort feel like shit is a site problem too as it might put off contributors. While we do need to be more careful with the hook facts, you could tear into most articles if you really scrutinize them hard enough, and I'm not buying that the average DYK has more errors than a stale old article. An encyclopedia is meant to be a summary of all existing knowledge, but it's a very difficult thing to do well, because sources themselves are inconsistent. We do need to try to be as accurate as possible, and that's where I believe we need a group of editors who are actually paid to do what Fram did at the signpost, but to quietly go about it. I believe we need people employed to check facts/sources on a regular basis, and to go far beyond what the average volunteer might bother to check. Generally I believe wikipedia is likely to be as accurate a resource as any, and I can think of several cases where readers have pointed out errors which are actually given in the sources and the article improved to point them out. Recently I used a biography to cite films which were the highest earning for a studio in the 60s; it wasn't long before somebody actually spotted the error and that one film wasn't from a certain studio. Sources are often also riddled with errors too, which complicates it. it's not purely editor incompetence and let's not forget rhat we're all volunteers. Above all we need contributors, we don't want to deter people.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:14, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

It's never contributor incompetence, it's reviewer and admin incompetence. A contributor, especially a new one, doesn't necessarily know what to aim at, but some of the detritus that makes it to the main page, despite being "QPQ"'ed and then promoted and then moved (by three different "competent" Wikipedians) shouldn't result in the error rate we see. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:20, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Personal attacks / Civility blocks...

Have always been subject to the will/whim of the passing admin, even when clearly and unambiguously obvious. An Arbcom who are unwilling or unable to enforce civility on the most serious offenders weakens the ability of admins to enforce it or even discuss it. The fifth pillar has been a joke for years now. Saying that, welcome back! :) Hope the break has done you some good! Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:31, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of User talk:EngFram/sandbox

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page you created was tagged as a test page under section G2 of the criteria for speedy deletion and has been or soon may be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 23:57, 16 September 2015 (UTC)


Thanks for the permission; I've told him that you're all right with the idea, so I'll unblock him immediately if I discover that he wants an unblock to join the Arbcom case, and I left a "note to other admins" asking them to do the same if I don't find out immediately. I didn't ask when shortening your block of him, since it was a matter of a few hours, but I didn't figure it would be particularly helpful to issue an outright unblock (especially as someone might argue that I was WP:INVOLVED, since I only blocked the other disputant) without checking with you first. Nyttend (talk) 01:49, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Fram (talk) 06:23, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you

Hi Fram. I already thanked you for your actions on Turkey at AN, but I wish to extend you a more personal thank you here. Your actions resolved this problem and I am grateful for that. Take care. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 14:42, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate the great care that you took to discuss this matter with me before taking any actions. I will be sure to refer all matters to you, knowing that you will be certain to enforce our verifiability policies carefully against individuals who include falsehoods in articles. Given my profound degree of involvement in the situation before the question arose, I will also be careful to refer other situations to you, rather than taking actions myself. Nyttend (talk) 19:52, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
@Nyttend: I see you are still continuing your maligning of reputable editors. I assumed AGF and did not ask for further sanctions against you at AN. But you seem to not have a WP:CLUE despite multiple people telling you that you are definitely wrong in your position toward longterm reputable editors. Please cease your campaign of personal attacks and WP:DROPTHESTICK at last. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 20:19, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Nyttend, you write something like "further agitation will be ignored" and then get annoyed when action is taken without your input? --NeilN talk to me 02:41, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Please see my note and accept my apology for profoundly mangling the situation. I modified protection at Turkey, but only temporarily, and it's now back to the way you left it: it was the only way for me to put an "I was wrong" statement into the protection log. Nyttend (talk) 00:10, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
@Nyttend:, thank you. I hadn't reacted to your earlier statements because it didn't seem helpful at the time. Some time for cooling down and reflection are usually enough, and I'm glad that was the case here. Fram (talk) 06:54, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Block request

Mind blocking someone for me? has been editing since the beginning of the year, and aside from a couple edits of pure vandalism (telling us that the population of Chattanooga, Tennessee was less than 0.1% of what was found at the last census), all edits are intended to add random nonnotable people to notable-people sections of US community articles. The worst is at Swoyersville, Pennsylvania, where this address has been causing problems since January with stuff ranging from this to this. I've reverted some of these edits, and as I can vaguely imagine someone doing this cluelessly, rather than as a means of intentional vandalism, I'm not going to be doing anything myself. Nyttend (talk) 04:09, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

About Hayley Matthews - courtesy notice

Hi Fram,
I have re-created a page you deleted. I am confident that it is about a different person than the page you deleted.
Pete "cricket tragic" AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 09:11, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Yes, it's a different person. Fram (talk) 11:11, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Flow/Developer test page

You probably should restore Wikipedia talk:Flow/Developer test page. It looks like deleting it was a test? Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:12, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I explained (more than a week ago) on WT:Flow that I no longer can restore it (as a Flow page), one of the many flaws in Flow as it is deployed now. I pinged the WMF people about it, but no reply. Despite their claims that no, Flow isn't dead, it clearly is going the way of the dodo. I dout many peole will look back on it with affection though. More like the reaction most peole have when you mention LiquidThreads, despite some initial enthusiasm. Fram (talk) 06:52, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Richard_Arthur_Norton_(1958-_)#October_2015

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )#October 2015

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

Remedy 2.2 of the Richard Arthur Norton (1958 - ) case is struck and replaced by:

2.3) Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ("RAN") is indefinitely prohibited from:
Creating any articles or draft articles in any namespace.
Moving any page into the article namespace from any other namespace.
Other editors may move pages created or substantially edited by RAN, but only if they explicitly take responsibility for any copyright violations on that page.
This remedy may be appealed after the later of 6 months and when all draft articles he has authored, in his userspace and in the draft namespace, have been verified free of copyright violations and moved :::to the article namespace by other editors or deleted. In order for appeals of this remedy to be considered, he shall be required to submit evidence of substantial work on his part towards resolving the :::Contributor Copyright Investigations (CCI) filed against him, most particularly the one focused on his text contributions.
Any article or draft article created contrary to this restriction will result in a block, initially of at least one month and then proceeding per the enforcement provisions. The article or draft article :::may be speedily deleted under criterion G5 by any administrator.
Any page moves made contrary to this restriction may be enforced by blocks per the enforcement provisions. The page move may be reversed by any editor able to do so.

For the Arbitration Committee, Amortias (T)(C) 17:15, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Original announcement

List of aircraft by tail number

Should the list not survive the AfD, would you have any objection to it being moved into Project space as a sub-page of WP:AV? Mjroots (talk) 04:18, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

No, if it is useful for the project, they are free to use it there of course. Fram (talk) 07:06, 23 October 2015 (UTC)


Hi Fram. I just got an email from TAP asking me to explain what I thought got him in trouble in his RfA. Normally I would help, but I'm slammed for time. If I send him here, could you answer some questions for him? - Dank (push to talk) 02:01, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

You may send him here, but I don't think I have much to add beyond my oppose statement at the RfA. Fram (talk) 12:12, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Okay. I won't send him here, but thanks for your input at RfA, it was very helpful. - Dank (push to talk) 14:40, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

List articles

I've had a look at your "contributions" page and it seems that your main activity on Wikipedia is proposing List articles for deletion. Is there a Wikipedia consensus that so many List articles should be deleted? Biscuittin (talk) 14:44, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Just like there is a consensus that we should have so many list articles... I'm going through the thousands of list articles we have, and don't bother with the vast, vast majority, only proposing for deletion those few that probably shouldn't be here (I even skipped rather ridiculous subjects like lists of British Railways sheds, to stay with your area of interest). Most of the time consensus seems to be on my side so far. Sometimes opinions are split, but even then I don't seem to be the only one thinking that some list or another should be deleted. Fram (talk) 20:07, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
I think you are making some unwarranted assumptions. (1) Why do you call List of British Railways shed codes a "ridiculous subject"? I created it but lots of people have expanded it so it is obviously of interest to them. (2) If you look at my contributions page you will see that I have edited a lot of articles other than railway ones. I get the impression that your main "area of interest" is in deleting articles. This is very discouraging for newcomers to Wikipedia. Biscuittin (talk) 00:33, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
The vast majority of these lists I proposed for deletion were years old, only a handful were recent, so only a few newcomers will be affected. And please don't confuse my current activity with my general activity over the years. As for the ridiculous subject, yes, that's my opinion of it, but as it is of interest to enough others apparently, I have not nominated it for deletion, shaking my head in disbelief though. 07:39, 19 November 2015 (UTC)


So nice to see you back on the talk page! Yoninah (talk) 09:09, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! I don't know whether I'll be back a lot, it is a bit disappointing to get three problems (of varying seriousness) in one go, but the communication on the WT:DYK page has been friendly, so that at least is good. But no matter if I will post again regularly or not, I do appreciate your post here! Fram (talk) 09:18, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
We all need to vet things more...I freely admit I am good at Big Picture stuff but my eye for detail is lousy at times. Hi, actually I could use your critical eyes (or any other TPS). One annoying thing about being made coordinator of Wikipedia:Featured article review is I can't really opine or fix if i am going to close them. So I need some folks to cast their eyes over the list and decide whether the articles should be kept or demoted. I want to try and clear teh decks for more noms from Wikipedia:Unreviewed featured articles. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:48, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:08, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

NFL broadcaster lists

Fram, I just voted in the AfD that you started regarding broadcasters for the Buffalo Bills Toronto series. Here are two more categories of NFL broadcaster articles, including, multiple subcategories, that bear further close examination:

Please let me know if you're interested in nominating more of these articles for AfD, or if you have any questions about them. Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:19, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

    • I'll probably nominate some more, I have already nominated multiple broadcaster lists for prod and AfD so far. I'm just afraid that a multiple nom will run into trouble as they may have varying degrees of notability. Fram (talk) 16:25, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
      • Understood. Until the precedents are well established, it's probably better to stick to one-article nominations. Very few of these are going to survive critical AfD analysis. Most of the ones I just examined are sourced to the TV networks or stations that were hosting the games in question, i.e., no independent sources. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:29, 23 November 2015 (UTC)


Hi Fram, I'm sorry to bother you with this, but you're one of the few users I've interacted with that I know to be an admin. Anyway, the thing I'd like to ask your advice about, without prejudice, is a run-in with another user. When I suggested he might bear the three-revert rule in mind, s/he responded by blanking the message and calling it a "personal attack" (see here). I could just let it blow over, but in the meantime the same user is actively pushing half a dozen AfDs on articles about recipients of the Queen's Award for Enterprise Promotion (which is not something I'd ever heard of, or edited on, until I came across the AfDs), and at the same time thinning the content of the articles to make deletion more likely, which rubs me up the wrong way. I don't want to get drawn into an edit war, but information that should be in articles is vanishing (if the articles should be here, which the AfD will decide). Editing to add: the reason I mention 3RR is the three reverts over the space of 2 hours here, where s/he also characterises my protests against this manner of proceeding as a "personal attack". --Andreas Philopater (talk) 22:35, 26 November 2015 (UTC) --Andreas Philopater (talk) 22:38, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

I've reinstated your comment and left a friendly warning for the editor involved, I hope that will suffice. If he knows a bit about me, he'll be aware that I'm not trying to protect the Queen's Award articles, but I did try to stay out of the AfDs beacuse of my history with the creator of the articles. Fram (talk) 07:29, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks very much. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 10:44, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

comments on user pages

Would this be considered a personal attack [2]. Calling someone Javert. LibStar (talk) 07:53, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

He was warned to stop doing this in December 2013 by an arbitrator during an arbcom case against him. He has now done it again at least twice (the one you pointed out, and one other instance I found). I have given him a last warning, if it continues further action will need to be taken (but I can't block him as I'm involved with him in general, not in this incident). Fram (talk) 08:10, 30 November 2015 (UTC)


Hello Fram. I come asking for advice and perhaps collaboration. You may be aware of an RFC to remove Flow from WikiProject Breakfast. Rebuffed for being external to the project, I have drafted an RfC in my userspace here and I request your comments. I never could match your clarity, both of thought and expression, as regards this matter, so I would like your input: is it worthwhile proceeding? would it backfire? would it pass? If you think it worthwhile, your collaboration as a co-proposer would be greatly appreciated. If you think I am come too early, and it is not yet the right time - well, then I will reconsider giving the deed time to been seen and heard. Faithfully, BethNaught (talk) 22:55, 30 November 2015 (UTC) (please ping me)


Hi, Fram. Can you take a look at this: User talk:Bagumba#Possible SPI. I think it needs a second look from someone more familiar with the previous editing history than me. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:54, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Two questions about Flow

Hi: I saw at the WikiProject:Breakfast RfC that you consider Flow a security hazard. I haven't heard that before; could I ask you what the concern is? Also, in that discussion I don't see mention of Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions; I thought that was also Flow - is it some other experimental thing? Yngvadottir (talk) 20:38, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Teahouse/questions isn't Flow, it's standard Wikipedia but with a template to make posting new questions slightly easier. Perhaps you are thinking about the French Wikipedia, where they have something similar in Flow. As for the security hazard, per WP:BEANS I'ld rather not discuss this too much, but suffice it to say that with a very easy edit anyone can make, I succeeded in breaking Echo for many users for quite a while. There are other major problems as well, concerning spam, deletion of truly problematic content, and other types of vandalism which will be a lot harder to find and to remove from sight than it is now. The flipside is that it is also much easier than now to simply remove complete pages from sight (by non-admins as well), and much harder to restore them in full. Just like with VE, I don't think the WMF has done any destructive testing (what can a user do wrong with it), only some constructive testing (if I use it correctly, does it do what I want it to do), even though that as well is seriously lacking. Fram (talk) 07:41, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

More FUN and SURPRISES from Flow!

I hadn't checked Village Pump in ages. Perchance, I did today. I just had a somewhat interesting experience trying to parse some badly mangled English in a new post at Village_Pump_(technical). I then had the extremely interesting experience of discovering that it had been posted by ME a few hours earlier. My brain a-sploded. I went to the page history to double check - yep page history also showed me as posting it. I eventually figured out what happened, but OMGWTFBBQ.

I figured you'd also find it ...interesting. Linky linky. Alsee (talk) 23:56, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

I had seen your Village Pump post, and thought that for some reason you wanted to post the MfD there as well. If that wasn't your intention, then it would be good to know whether it is a Twinkle problem or a Flow problem. Certainly not good but entertaining. Fram (talk) 07:42, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
I missed your reply until now. (No ping.) It's a fluke that I stopped by again. Anywho... the explanation was that Twinkle tried to post a notice to the page creator's talk page. Flow pages don't have a normal record for page-creator. Somehow Village Pump Technical got listed as the creator's talk page. Weeee!
Which leads us to the newest Flow surprise. I just nominated another flow page for MFD. Did the creator-notice land at Village pump again? Nope. Because Flow.
This time it landed at Wikipedia_talk:Flow. Alsee (talk) 17:07, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

A technical point

I appreciate your careful analysis of the round the world disabled sailing folk. I wonder, though, if you are aware that there is a difference between those starting in Australia and ending in Australia, thus "just" going round the challenging southern ocean sector, a HUGE feat in itself, and starting and leavingreturning across the official start/finish line from Lizard to Ushant. The chap you quote is well worthy of his award, but it was, surely, a different and much shorter trip, however arduous. Both can be considered circumnavigations, of course they can, but one misses out the north to south and then the south to north Atlantic sectors, both vast areas of ocean to cross. Fiddle Faddle 10:14, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Find any solid evidence for both and you may have a point. The claim made so far was not that one wasn't global and the other was, but that one was nonstop and the other wasn't, which obviously wasn't true. The record by Lauwers was recognised by the WSSR[3], although the category is now discontinued, and his distance of 21620nm matches the WSSR requirements as outlined in Around the world sailing record, and doesn't seem to make it a "much shorter trip". To get the WSSR approval, he had to cross the equator, going as far north as the Canary Islands, so doing a lot of the Atlantic as well. It may not be the same route as White had planned, and thus not the Jules Verne route, but it doesn't seem to be a much shorter or easier route at all. Fram (talk) 10:55, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. I think the answer has to come from all the folk at the DYK page, really. If consensus is that it does not fly, then fly it does not. I feel he is interesting enough to make the front page, but, if we are fair, this is an ephemeral part of Wikipedia, and only worth getting mildly exercised about, front page or not. I proposed it because I created the article and felt he was sufficiently interesting. My hooks were, obviously, inaccurate, for which information I am grateful.
In the interests of transparency, I have met White, for about an hour, in Dartmouth, when I boarded his boat at his request as a staff member of the harbour authority, and showed him to a berth in weather that would have made it challenging for any solo sailor to moor, let alone one with the use of solely one arm. I tried to find him here and found him to be absent. Searches showed him to be notable, perhaps even special. Whether he merits the front page or not is not for me to judge, just for me to request. There is a point when it would be seen as pushy to go further. Fiddle Faddle 11:21, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Overall revision of List of minor planets

Hello Fram. For the last couple of weeks I've been revising the extensive series of List of minor planets#Main index, removing self-redirects, updating data, page-syntax and the usage of templates, as well as renaming some pages, all with the intention to have a consistent, updated series of lists. As I see, from late June to July 27, 2009, you were merging/deleting (and/or) redirecting about 200 subpages into the main-list pages, and you reverted some later attempts to reinstall some of these subpages with the rationale "Subpages are not allowed in the mainspace". Since then, more lists have been created (up to number 450,001–451,000), following your example of not using subpages, with all data for a thousand minor planets contained in just one main-list. So far so good...

While I don't have an opinion about the usage of subpages, I do care about consistency. You deleted (sometimes redirected) the supages in the range of 192,001 to 212,000, while a total of 1,920 subpages (for the minor planets with number 1 to 192,000) still exist. Since this is a large number, I'm offering to assist you in the merger as much as I can (I've updated and revised all these pages by now). In the meantime, I will reinstall (create and amend redirects) of 80 subpages for the numbered minor planets in the range of #192,001 to 200,000, to have a clear transitional point where consistency breaks (i.e. the usage of subpages). Please support me in my efforts to improve this rather troublesome series of list and to make it as useful and consistent as much as possible. -- Cheers, Rfassbind – talk 10:18, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I don't edit Wikipedia as much as I used to, and don't see this as a useful use of my limited time (also the reason I stopped merging these subpages, it was too much effort). While I think reinstalling the subpages isn't a good idea, I'm not going to fight over it. making a bot request to merge all of the subpages into the lists may be the easiest solution, if anyone is willing to take up that task. But I'm glad to hear that my example has at least been followed by the newly created pages :-) Fram (talk) 10:24, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Thx for your immediate reply. I absolutely understand your point of view. Unfortunately, even the best intentions lead to inconsistencies if they are not fully implemented throughout the series. Inconsistencies, are poison for any (semi-)automated update procedure; and without such automated procedure, it is impossible to maintain a series of list with nearly half a million entries. As for the suggest bot request, I will consider to make one (as soon as the list are ready). It would be very helpful if you could give me a link to a wiki-guideline where the deprecated usage of subpages is mentioned, so I don't need to argue with other editors about it. Thank you, Rfassbind – talk 11:13, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Subpages#Disallowed uses "3. Using subpages for permanent content that is meant to be part of the encyclopedia." Fram (talk) 11:34, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

─────── Hello Fram. I plan to remove all subpages from the List of minor planets#Main index next month. I'm now looking for an admin to delete the 2,000 subpages after I have merged the pages. Would you be so kind to do that? Rfassbind – talk 23:07, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

No problem, just let me know when you have finished and I'll take a look. Thanks for all the hard work! Fram (talk) 08:29, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. I'm now ready to merge the subpages, but I will wait a few more days to receive some feed back from other editors. I guess the edit-history of all supages will be lost? Also, using what links here, I see that that the subpages are heavily linked to, however, mostly from the user namespace. I will let you know when the merging of subpages has been done. Cheers, -- Rfassbind – talk 23:34, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Just finished the merger of subpages in List of minor planets#Main index. Cheers, Rfassbind – talk 02:53, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, great work. Do you want me to take a look and delete the subpages where needed and possible? Fram (talk) 06:48, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Yes, from my point of view, deleting the subpages from List of minor planets/1–100 to List of minor planets/199901–200000 (exactly 2000 subpages) would be consistent with your edits from July 2009. The Category:Lists of minor planets by number could be used to double-check whether all subpages have been deleted. Also, if you seem fit, the task page merger of subpages could be linked in your deletion comment. What really bugs me though is the fact that I will receive about 3,000 deleted edits to my edit-count (I presume I'm not the only one who judges someone's credibility by his/her deleted vs. total edit-ratio). Well, I guess I have to take that one for the team... Cheers, Rfassbind – talk 12:38, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Number of deleted edits is nothing bad; anyone who does e.g. new page patrolling and tags lots of pages with a speedy deletion tag correctly will have lots of deleted edits, but that will only increase their credibility. Having pages you created and that are afterwards deleted is sometimes a problem, but otherwise no one cares about deleted edits really. Fram (talk) 12:58, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

In any case, since these are merged, I can't simply delete them. I'll redirect them instead, that way they will no longer show up in e.g. "random article" and the like. Fram (talk) 13:01, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Nice work Rfassbind! FYI, if y'all want, I am available to help #R the 100s pages.   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  14:32, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
You're welcome to help! It's a rather tedious job, which luckily only needs to be done once. Fram (talk) 15:06, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Sure Tom, if the subpages won't be deleted, then you're definitely the most effective editor on wikipedia to handle the 2,000 redirects. Thx to the both of you, Rfassbind – talk 15:17, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
On it.   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  23:06, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
All 2000 subpages are now #R'd & standardized.   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  03:22, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Many thanks to both of you, great job!! Fram (talk) 06:49, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Season's Greetings

To You and Yours!
FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:29, 20 December 2015 (UTC)