Jump to content

User talk:Fram/Archive 25

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20←Archive 23Archive 24Archive 25Archive 26Archive 27→Archive 30

Hi. When you recently edited Gas contractor, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Contractor (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 10:44, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal: Request for participation

Dear Fram: Hello. This is just to let you know that you've been mentioned in the following request at the Mediation Cabal, which is a Wikipedia dispute resolution initiative that resolves disputes by informal mediation.

The request can be found at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/27 February 2012/Wikipedia:Verifiability.

Just so you know, it is entirely your choice whether or not you participate. If you wish to do so, and we'll see what we can do about getting this sorted out. At MedCab we aim to help all involved parties reach a solution and hope you will join in this effort.

If you have any questions relating to this or any other issue needing mediation, you can ask on the case talk page, the MedCab talk page, or you can ask the mediator, Mr. Stradivarius, at their talk page. MedcabBot (talk) 14:09, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Bundled AfD

Hello, you recently closed this AfD as delete, and deleted the main article, but you may have forgotten to delete the other 2 articles which were bundled along with it: List of German Chancellors by longevity and List of Secretaries-General of the United Nations by longevity. Additionally, there is a third article which has an AfD template pointing to this AfD, but doesn't appear to have been discussed within it (List of Australian Prime Ministers by age); I'll let you decide what to do with it. Thanks. —SW— express 15:22, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I missed that somehow after the close. I have deleted the other two listed ones, and removed the AfD from the third one (since it wasn't included in the actual AfD, and so would be unfair to delete based on it). Fram (talk) 15:38, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

AWB bug reported for BLPunreferenced parameter

Hi Fram! Thanks for the cleanup you've been doing after BattyBot merges templates into Multiple issues. I've made the following AWB bug report so we can hopefully stop the problem from happening in the future. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 20:05, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

FYI, the fine AWB developers have already created a fix for the bug, which will be included in the next release. GoingBatty (talk) 03:44, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for raising this, and thanks to the devs for getting this fixed. I'll continue correcting these and similar errors, but it should reduce their rate. 08:41, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Deletion Question

Dear Fram, You were the administrator to recently close Meher Baba's Critics after its NfD period expired. However the original author still keeps the article on his Sandbox here: User:Stephen Castro/Sandbox so it is still searchable through google. Is that okay for people to do? I am only asking as I do not know. Dazedbythebell (talk) 15:43, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I've tagged it as a userspace draft, so it doesn't get indexed by Google cs. Thanks for letting me know. Fram (talk) 08:54, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I would appreciate a change in tone

I removed your last obnoxious remark from my talk page. I would appreciate a change in tone. The cite to Forbes is to an external contributor's blog post. I do consider that a minor publication. You may disagree. You may not disagree in an obnoxious fashion. Not on my talk page, anyway.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:58, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

To answer your question - I intend to host general philosophical and policy discussions on my page from time to time, and I intend to enforce a higher standard of civility than you may be comfortable with. If you don't like it, that's fine with me, it really is. Just don't participate if you can't do so while behaving in a respectful manner to others.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:48, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm perfectly capable of behaving in a respectful and impartial manner, both on talk pages and in other namespaces, both in discussions and in actions. I do hope that you enforce that higher standard adn will lead by example. In the past, I haven't seen that standard applied in a neutral and impartial way though. Apart from that, "I decide what does here and what doesn't"[1] is again a perfect example of where you are heading in the wrong direction. Fram (talk) 11:54, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

List of professional cyclists who died during a race

Thank you so much for your recent AWB cleanup of this article, in the past it kind of grew like a weed so fixing it up has been a long process. I am letting you know that I am reverting your change of Reference #137's title, from "Portuguese" back to "Portugese". The cite's actual title is as follows: Young Portugese cyclist dies in crash, so I have changed it back to conform with how it appears in the cited reference material. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 21:37, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. You are quite correct that I shouldn't have changed that one. Fram (talk) 07:32, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

RM

Hey Fram. There's requested move that's discussing reversing some moves you made back in '08. The discussion's at Talk:List of mayors and lord mayors of Adelaide#Requested move is you feel like participating. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 04:02, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! I have commented. Fram (talk) 07:46, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Portugese → Portuguese

Hi Fram! I noticed an edit where you changed Portugese → Portuguese. I updated the "Portuguese" rule on WP:AWB/Typos so this can be fixed by all AWB editors. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 02:44, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, but there are still some 140 pages that use "Portugese", the most of them correctly though, as part of a filename or an url or an interwiki. Does the typo page skip these three categories, or does it change typos everywhere? Fram (talk) 07:40, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
WP:AWB/Typos#Usage states "When used on AWB, typo-fixing is automatically prevented on image names, templates, wikilink targets and quotes (including indented paragraphs)" - so you should be OK. GoingBatty (talk) 13:18, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Great, I hadn't checked that. Fram (talk) 14:06, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations

100000 Edits
Congratulations on reaching 100000 edits. You have achieved a milestone that very few editors have been able to accomplish. The Wikipedia Community thanks you for your continuing efforts. Keep up the good work!

If you like you can add this userbox to your collection.

This user has been awarded with the 100000 Edits award.
```Buster Seven Talk 10:39, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Deletion question

Hi Fram,

In 2008 you deleted a page called "Matt Thompson (drummer)", associated with the page "King Diamond (band)" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Diamond_(band)

Here are the details of the deletion:

13:13, 18 August 2008 Fram (talk | contribs) deleted page Matt Thompson (drummer) (A1: Not enough context to identify subject)


Matt Thompson is still the current drummer for King Diamond and now that he has a web page up with lots of supporting information, I think it might be possible to either restore Matt Thompson's Wikipedia page or create a new one?

Matt's web page is: http://www.mattthompsondrums.com

If there is anything else I can do to help make this happen, please let me know. Thank you!


Alyrocker (talk) 22:16, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

You are free to make a page about him, please just check WP:BIO to see if he meets our notability guidelines. Please try to include information from independent reliable sources like music magazines, mainstream newspapers, ..., not solely from his own webpage. As for the previous deletion: the page only contained the text "Matt Thompson", which isn't really an article of course. It was not deleted because Matt Thompson can't have an article here, there is no reason why he shouldn't have an article if he meets our notability guidelines. Thanks for dropping a note! Fram (talk) 07:44, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Fram, You've deleted the business page "Jericho Canyon Vineyard" 08:52, 10 May 2007 Fram (talk | contribs) deleted page Jericho Canyon Vineyards (CSD A7. Article about a company that does not assert the importance of the subject.) I would like to restart that page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thendb (talk • contribs) 23:50, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Fram Please Dont include books other than Major religions as it is not fair to include only some..thank you

Please look into this — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shake16725 (talk • contribs) 08:42, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Hinduism is the world's third greatest religion, with over one billion adherents. A pretty major religion, I would say... Fram (talk) 08:58, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Wow

Blimey, reverting Jimbo on his user page. I hope you are not too annoyed about the discussion. If you feel very strongly about how policy should apply, and be seen to apply, equally to Jimbo's talk page as it does elsewhere, perhaps a longer term process such as a community wide RFC would be in order? It might be better for those interested to have time to step back and write up their reasoning. Personally I would be very interested to see Jimbo explain his thoughts on this and why his page is an exception, rather than doing the same thing by running a forum away from Wikipedia (say, by pointing to a space on Wikia from his Wikipedia user talk page). Cheers --Fæ (talk) 16:01, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

It's basically two things, first that indeed policy should apply equally, and secondly the hypocritical stance that when he likes it, his page is an open page where everyone is free to discuss policy, raise issues, ignore guidelines, and so on, but when he doesn't like what is posted, it suddenly becomes his user talk page where he can decide what is or isn't allowable. Hence my use of his own words from that discussion as the edit summary for my revert of course. Tarc seems to have missed the irony of it all though. Jimbo's excuse that it hasn't been like this for ten years doesn't really wash, many things have changed in the meantime, including his role here. Oh well, things will quiet down for a while until he again tries to make his user talk page a freehaven for likeminded people, or until he screws up again with a deletion or somesuch. Let's hope that neither happens very soon... Fram (talk) 20:17, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Me too. I will follow my suggestion on Jimbo's page though, and genuinely ask him if he thinks a specific policy applies or not next time. I hope he or others don't read that as overly pointy or sarcastic (being rather British, I can sometimes read that way...). Thanks --Fæ (talk) 20:22, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Category discussion you should see

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 March 21#Category:1889 establishments in the United States __meco (talk) 21:08, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Article "C. H. B. Quennell" may need a redirection "C.H.B. Quennell"

Hello Fram,
searching for "C.H.B. Quennell" I found only this one article:

So I've tried to create this page: 

C.H.B._Quennell

... in this way: 

#REDIRECT [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C._H._B._Quennell]]

But surprisingly I'm getting this message:

Searching the destination articles history I've found your last editing.
How do you think about the suggested redirection?
Jaybear (talk) 09:51, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I presume the problem was with the external link (http...) inside your redirect, instead of an internal link (with only the article name). I have created it, but I don't think that with the correct syntax you would have had a problem. I see no actual problem with the redirect name. Fram (talk) 10:01, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Ok + Thanks.
You're right, I've only copied the link without editing!
I promise to check my editing more accurate next time. ;-)
Jaybear (talk) 10:11, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration filed

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#User:Rich Farmbrough and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

Thanks, Hersfold (t/a/c) 00:01, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll take a look. Fram (talk) 06:29, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

New Arbcom Case

An arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rich Farmbrough. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rich Farmbrough/Evidence. Please add your evidence by April 18, 2012, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rich Farmbrough/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Guerillero | My Talk 19:02, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Damascus Metro

I see that you have categorized Damascus Metro in Category:2016 establishments in Syria. I think that such categorization shouldn't be done at this time - it's too early to know if it will, in fact, be completed in 2016 or not. The date of 2016 is either a goal (which may be missed) or an estimate (which may be wrong). עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:16, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps we should rename these future ones to "planned establishments" or "projected establishments" or some such? It is useful to have them categorized by planned date, but indeed, there is a reasonable chance that the date will change or nothing will ever come of it. Fram (talk) 06:32, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
While having some sort of "planned" category is probably a good idea, I think that splitting it by year is probably a bad one - since in 4 years a lot can change. I know nothing about the planning and construction of the Damascus Metro; I can tell you that the Jerusalem Light Rail's opening date was delayed several times. It would have been wrong to categorize it in a category such as Category:2009 establishments in Israel, even though it's original opening date was slated for Janyary 2009 - it only opened in 2011. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:11, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
On the other hand, having it in a "planned" category would mean that it would need changing when it opens (or is cancelled), the same as with the current category. We don't know whether the 2022 World Soccer Championships in Qatar will happen or not, but they are currently planned for that date and location, and are so categorized. We can only go by what is currently known or (reliably) predicted, and will have to adjust our article and categories according to what happens in reality. Fram (talk) 09:41, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
the 2022 World Soccer Championships in Qatar may be canceled, but if it isn't it will be in 2022. DM may end up opening in 2016, or in 2018, or even later than that. I think that in order to be categorized as such, it needs to be clear enough, through reliable sources, that it almost certainly won't happen in any other year. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 16:26, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution survey

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite

Hello Fram. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released.

Please click HERE to participate.
Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts.

You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 22:55, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

AfD fuddle-up

Hi Fram. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Waller drive is obviously the second nomination for this article. My mistake! Does "second nomination" and so on need to be added to this one for logging or attribution purposes or somesuch?--Shirt58 (talk) 12:36, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

No, just leave it as it is, no need to spend more time on it. As long as the AfD mentions the previous one, no further action is rally necessary. Fram (talk) 12:38, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Resolved
--Shirt58 (talk) 13:20, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Your HighBeam account is ready!

Good news! You now have access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research. Here's what you need to know:

  • Your account activation code has been emailed to your Wikipedia email address.
    • Only 407 of 444 codes were successfully delivered; most failed because email was simply not set up (You can set it in Special:Preferences).
    • If you did not receive a code but were on the approved list, add your name to this section and we'll try again.
  • The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code.
  • To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1; 2) You’ll see the first page of a two-page registration. 3) Put in an email address and set up a password. (Use a different email address if you signed up for a free trial previously); 4) Click “Continue” to reach the second page of registration; 5) Input your basic information; 6) Input the activation code; 7) Click “Finish”. Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive.
  • If you need assistance, email "help at highbeam dot com", and include "HighBeam/Wikipedia" in the subject line. Or go to WP:HighBeam/Support, or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
  • A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate
  • HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
  • Show off your HighBeam access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/highbeam_userbox}} on your userpage
  • When the 1-year period is up, check applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi t | c 20:42, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Evidence Phase

Just a friendly reminder that the evidence phase has closed. If you would like to add additional evidence, please speak to a clerk or one of the drafting arbitrators. Thanks, --Guerillero | My Talk 04:14, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Questions to the parties:

Your attention is requested here Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rich_Farmbrough/Workshop#Questions_to_the_parties Thank you. Mlpearc (powwow) 05:47, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Problem with AWB?

This edit, you summarize as "→‎References: Add year categories and general fixes using AWB (7916)", while you do no such thing. You only change a category-name, but do not add a category (or, if you want to read it by the letter, you add ánd remove a category), nor are you performing any 'general fixes'. It appears as if you are not carefully reviewing the edit - or in other words, operating a bot on your main account... --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:09, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Anything else? Perhaps some more truth and less nonsense in your ArbCom statements? WP:POINT much? Do you know or even care how many edits RF made with incorrect edit summaries? Can you point to one example of this that I brought up at AN, ANI or the ArbCom as a reason to do anything about this? I am interested in stopping (or at least correcting) errors, not in stupid wikilawyering. So, if you find any errors in my edits, please let me know and I'll correct them. If all you can do is encourage me to change the edit summary to "minor fixes" or "general cleanup" or other summaries beloved by your two protégés, then please bugger off to somewhere else and do something actually useful instead of this childish behaviour. Fram (talk) 14:18, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
WP:POINT .. me ..funny. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:23, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
I came to ask a question, you came to pointily accuse me of running a bot on my main account based on rather ridiculous evidence, as retaliation for daring to point out actual errors made by RF. Fram (talk) 14:27, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Well, I know when you asked your question, which was clearly in a moment when I was defending Δ, and obviously you were checking out my edits at that point. Not less pointy than this. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:39, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
By the way, what RF was doing were not actual errors by RF ... --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:40, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Which of his many errors are you now ignoring? If you are talking about the sockpuppet categories; the fact that he wasn't the only or first one to make errors, doesn't mean that he didn't make errors, or that his errors didn't made the previous ones worse. He seriously raised the visibility of these, and the credibility of them (hey, if an admin makes such claims in categories, there must be something serious going on). That you have again decreased the visibility of them is a good thing, but doesn't change any of this otherwise. Fram (talk) 19:42, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Can you help, speedy deletion Avellino

These are recreated, I posted a speedy deleted G4 tag on these pages

Thanks for the help. --Vic49 (talk) 20:09, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Done. Per WP:BLP, we shouldn't have these pages. Fram (talk) 20:12, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the help, the Talk:Carmine Avellino is still around? --Vic49 (talk) 20:32, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Right, went on to the next deletion a bit too soon :-) Fram (talk) 20:33, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

ANI proposal to ban an editor

Hello Fram. You are one of the admins who has blocked User:Rinpoche. See WP:ANI#Proposed community ban for Rinpoche in case you want to comment. EdJohnston (talk) 15:59, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Another problem with WP:AWB

As you are well aware, per our bot policy, may I remind you that completely cosmetic changes should not be performed ("Cosmetic changes (such as AWB general fixes) should only be applied when there is a substantial change to make at the same time.") In this edit, the edit is changing totally nothing in the output of the page. I presume that you have the option in AWB ticked that stops you from saving purely cosmetic changes, but that does not mean that you should not check yourself as well. Thanks! --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:39, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

this diff seems to change even less. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:44, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Wrong on all accounts. The original article had the category "Articles using Multiple issues with deprecated parameters", the AWB edited one no longer had that category. The same goes for the second edit. And of course, making two edits with AWB doesn't mean that BOT policy would apply, no idea where you get that strange idea. WP:AWB rules of use are the ones that apply here, and thsoe say to avoid inconsequential edits, but "With some exceptions (such as changes to the emitted metadata or categorization of the page), an edit that has no noticeable effect on the rendered page is generally considered an insignificant edit. " (my emphasis). Please be more careful before accusing people of making problematic edits and violating a policy which isn't even applicable. And please only contact me when I actually break anything, not when I am making imaginary violations of non applicable policies. No thanks. Fram (talk) 07:53, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Have you compared this with this, the content of the page has not changed, at all, only the categorisation - and you think that that is not cosmetic? And you know "Bot policy covers the operation of all bots and automated scripts used to provide automation of Wikipedia edits, whether completely automated, higher speed, or simply assisting human editors in their own work.", you don't need to work on high speed or with a bot for the bot policy to apply. Nonetheless, please be more careful, you know very well that you have been making real errors in the last handful of AWB edits (which you subsequently had to repair). --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:03, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Since when are the categories not part of the content? And since when are we badgering people to be more careful when they correct their own typo's immediately after saving them and without even needing anyone to point them out to them? What frankly utterly ridiculous standards are you trying to employ here? Please, I'll ignore any more reports from you that have no more substance to them, but feel free to post them at WP:AN or WP:ANI instead if you feel that they merit any attention and are highlighting an actual problem. Beware of the boomerang you may get there though... Fram (talk) 08:14, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Well, it is only part of the content (if you insist that maintenance categories are content - they are {{hiddencat}} for a reason) for the few editors (and certainly not for the IP-readers) who have a specific setting active - for all others who do not have that setting, there is no change whatsoever. And I thank you for the realisation, that these standards are, indeed, 'utterly ridiculous'. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:34, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
That's not a realisation, it's something I have applied from the start. You have pointedly ignored my quote from the AWB rules of use, which indicate that these changes are explicitly allowed in its rule of use. But I don't get why you badger people about standards you agree are utterly ridiculous. Isn't that a perfect example of WP:POINT? I make posts to RF's talk page when his edits actually break something, you make edits for the sake of some standards you consider to be ridiculous, i.e. simply to make a point and only to annoy me, not to improve Wikipedia in any way or shape. Please stop this immediately. Fram (talk) 08:43, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Oh, I did not ignore it. I did read the rules of use for some program (point 4 is of interest there). However, I do not see how some 'rules of use' would overrule a policy (and that is why I did not pay much attention to that).
Regarding my WP:POINT violations (if you want to call them that), if they do improve Wikipedia... --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:01, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Oh, "point 4 is of interest there"? I didn't know that! Oh, wait, that's the exact section I quoted to you? Perhaps I now also have to quote the relevant sections of the bot policy, like the "Assisted editing guidelines", to make it more clear where you are wrong? I guess it's really no use, you have made up your mind to annoy me for the sole purpose of making a point, as if I was the one going on about the bot policy at the RF Arbcom case (hint: I'm not, so your point is rather besides the mark anyway). Please, Beetstra, if you are not indicating any real errors (things that actually make anything worse) not swiftly corrected by me, please stay off my talk page and don't bother me with your useless discussions anymore. Fram (talk) 09:10, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the sarcasm and the friendly words. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:58, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Clarification request

Fram, you here change the establishment date from 1967 to 1982. As far as I can see from the article, the building was inaugurated by the Queen in 1982, but the Gallery was established in 1967. Would you mind having a second look at the article? Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:18, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Similar confusion here. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:20, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

From the first "On 1 November 1967, Prime Minister Harold Holt formally announced that the Government would construct the building." That's not an establishment, that's an announcement. There are plenty of announcements never established, or established only years later. In this particular instance, see [2]: "The opening of the National Gallery in 1982 concluded a planning, design and construction period of fourteen years. In 1968 the government announced a limited competition to establish an approach to the design of a national gallery in Canberra" The 1968 date is the year of the first concrete action, 1982 is the date it was actually established.
The same goes for the second. Note that [3] doesn't even mention the year 1854, but does state "On Saturday, the 30th of January 1864, the Earl of Carlisle officially opened the National Gallery of Ireland to the public." Fram (talk) 11:32, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
I see your points. However, the first article states "It was established in 1967 by the Australian government as a national public art gallery.", the latter "It was founded in 1854 and opened its doors ten years later." & "In 1853 an exhibition, the Great Industrial Exhibition, was held on the lawns of Leinster House in Dublin. Among the most popular exhibits was a substantial display of works of art organized and underwritten by the railway magnate William Dargan. The enthusiasm of the visiting crowds demonstrated a public for art and it was decided to establish a permanent public art collection as a lasting monument of gratitude to Dargan." (all three quotes from the two mentioned articles). In both cases, it suggests that the establishment of the museum is significantly before the actual opening of the building (using e.g. temporary space before that). I understand that ideas for a museum do not necessarily take hold and result in the opening of a building, however, one can establish an organisation without having a building too. I hope this explains my confusion here. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:43, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
It doesn't really suggest that the establishment of the museum was before the opening of the building: in the first, the decision to have a museum was taken years before the actual museum was established. In the second, you are confusing a temporary exhibition and & "decision to establish" with an actual establishment. If the "decision to establish" was sufficient to establish anything, then the establishment date of countries would often come much earlier than it eventually did (never mind that, taking this apporach, many countries would have been "established" which in the end never existed at all). The year of establishment is the year X becomes reality, not a plan, an idea, a promise. Fram (talk) 11:53, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
I get your point, maybe the text of the documents should be changed accordingly. Thanks! --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:56, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Swadesh list of Slavic languages

Hello, recently you deleted the page Swadesh list of Slavic languages. I disagree with this move and would like you to undelete it. If you feel a deletion is warranted, the proper move would be to nominate it for deletion. You might notice in the page logs a similar thing happened three years ago. You can see the discussion here. Thank you. — Ƶ§œš¹ [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ] 13:05, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Not really deleted, merely redirected, but that's not the essence of your post obviously. I'll undo the redirection and nominate it for deletion. Fram (talk) 13:06, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Fair enough. Thanks. — Ƶ§œš¹ [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ] 20:07, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rich Farmbrough closed

An arbitration case regarding Rich Farmbrough has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above.

The following remedies have been enacted:

  1. Rich Farmbrough (talk · contribs) is indefinitely prohibited from using any automation whatsoever on Wikipedia. For the purposes of this remedy, any edits that reasonably appear to be automated shall be assumed to be so.
  2. Rich Farmbrough's administrator status is revoked. At any time after the closing of this case, Rich Farmbrough may request that his administrator status be restored by filing a request for adminship.
  3. Elen of the Roads (talk · contribs) is reminded that an administrator who is a party to an arbitration case should not block another editor (or their bot) who is a party to the same case.

For the Arbitration Committee,

--Guerillero | My Talk 19:28, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

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

Categories

Hey, don't you think it's a bit of an overkill to create over 10 categories for a single page? (Anhwasa), I mean it's not like we have that many other things established in the 930s in Korea, right? :D Snowolf How can I help? 08:27, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

No, but most of the categories are for higher levels. There are quite a few things established in Korea in the first millennium, or in other countries in the 930s and so on. I am steadily filling these "establishment" and "disestablishment" categories, and while obviously the first in a new tree always generates a lot of categories, later ones get added to the same tree and subtree with less and less fuss. E.g. Jeong-an kingdom will be added to Category:930s establishments in Korea, and 930 establishments by country will also get things like Iceland (Althing) and England (Bishopwearmouth). And the associated disestablishments will e.g. appear in Vietnam, with Khuc family, and in Korea in the 930s, with Later Three Kingdoms. E.g. the Battle of Gochang also happened in Korea in 930. Such categories bridge a lot of groups of articles and make going from one to the other (by year or region) possible. Fram (talk) 13:00, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Do you have some basis in discussion for this mass creation? I'm seeing an enormous amount of category creation, about 5000 since the beginning of March. Spot checking shows a typical page/category ratio of ~1.5:1. I seriously doubt that such things as Category:86 BC disestablishments in Greece are ever, ever going to have more than a very small handful of pages, if that. Just because we can put one thing into a category doesn't mean the category should exist. WP:SMALLCAT applies, no? Could I get you to stop this mass creation until there's an informed discussion about this creation and how best to handle it (or not go forward with it period)? --Hammersoft (talk) 19:51, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
    • I have to say I agree with Hammersoft's concerns here. I really can't see how these new cats are any help in navigating to, say, Lyceum (Classical). Having that page in something like Category:86 B.C. or in Category:1st-century BC disestablishments in Greece might have been useful. Hiding it under two additional levels of subcategories a user has to click through before he sees what it's all about is really not helpful. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:16, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
      • Hello, anybody at home? Could you please pause with your mass edits and make sure there is a consensus for them before you continue? Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:26, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
        • Most of the categories get slowly populated. It's partly an extension of the existing "establishments" structure, partly a new parallel "disestablishments" structure. Some outlires may remain sparsely populated, the vast majority will get moer entries. They are all interlaced, so the info is accesible from many different angles without needing many different categories at the article level. Dumping e.g. all disestablishment categories per century hides the obvious fact that there are clusters with many disestablishments in some years in some countries, e.g. Category:1803 disestablishments in Germany or Category:1539 disestablishments in England, which will get a lot of entries over the next weeks and months. You end up with things like Category:Art museums by year of establishment, which didn't exist a few months ago and now has over 200 subcats with a few thousand entries in total; all these cats are subcats of the equally new "year in art" categories, which contain a number of other cats as well (e.g. the existing older "painting by years" and "sculpture by year" cats).
        • E.g. Category:1912 in art has in total 26 articles, 2 directly abnd 24 divided over 5 subcats. This is a typical example of this new tree, if you give it the time to get finished, and is hardly matching the "typical page/category ratio of ~1.5:1" a spot check may show. In the end, it may turn out that for some groups, the "by year" creation was too optimistic and an upmerge is needed; but an upmerge is much easier to do than a split, and will then be decided on more complete facts, not on the current situation which is only at the very start of this project.
        • Note also that many of the 5000 or so creations are smack in the middle of already existing categories, e.g. of the 10 years in Category:1520s in England, I created 2 (Category:1521 in England and Category:1524 in England) and the others were created by other editors in 2009 (1), 2010 (3) and 2011 (4). Completing this seems to be a useful task, based in consensus. Fram (talk) 14:14, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
        • (edit conflict)As for WP:SMALLCAT, "unless such categories are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme"; the establishments by country and year have long been an established system, which is now getting thoroughly filled and expanded to reach years and countries which were earlier neglected. These creations have consensus, with possible some exceptions at the edges (e.g. the BC ones, which I am currently leaving alone). Fram (talk) 14:19, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
        • (edit conflict 2)Finally (at least for now), note that in most cases, I am only bringing the pages one level deeper, e.g. from Category:1135 establishments to Category:1135 establishments in England, which has the serious benefit that they not only remain in the "year" tree where they were already located, but are added to the "history of England" tree were they were absent. Note that both Category:1135 in England and Category:1135 establishments already existed long before I started with this. My creations actually simplify things and make them considerably more complete. Fram (talk) 14:29, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
          • I concur with Fut. Perf. Please get consensus for this mass creation before continuing. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 14:17, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
            • Which parts of it do you actually object to? You can hardly object to all (or even most) of these creations, which are thoroughly consensus based. Can you specify which groups you consider to be problematic? I gather that the BC ones are a reason for concern for you, I have stopped these for now. Anything else? The museum cats, the year in art cats; these are basically finished (and populated). The (dis)establishment cats? These trees existed, I am making them more complete, so am actually turning a lot of sparsely populated categories into more densely populated ones, and make a lot more articles accessible in new ways. Fram (talk) 14:29, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
              • I'm not seeing densely populated categories. I'm seeing very sparsely populated categories. This is an enormous about of category creation. You assert there is consensus, but I have yet to see a link to a discussion that concurs that we should create such an enormous tree of categories. Honestly, I'm having a hard time digesting it all from the sheer size of it. I'd really like to see a centralized discussion where you can lay out your case for why these need to be created in this fashion, and get consensus for the continuance of it. Someday in the future Category:1004 establishments in Italy might have a dozen articles in it, but I doubt it. In the meantime, Category:11th-century establishments in Italy is more then capable of handling three articles in that category rather then creating a tree of five categories to those three (ratio 0.6:1). Please, start a discussion to lay out your intentions with how and why, and we can move forward from that. In the meantime, please stop. Please. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:41, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I have e.g. now, just following the alphabetical list (so not makign a special effort), expanded Category:1135 establishments in England so it already has 4 entries, while still only at the start of the list of applicable articles. Articles like Hatfield Regis Priory and Stratford Langthorne Abbey will also be a part of this cat. Fram (talk) 14:41, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Fram: it's not the difference between BC and AD; it's the difference between reasonably sized ones and half-empty ones. Before you introduced the subcats, Category:1135 establishments had about ten pages directly in it, which is just about large enough to be useful. Now all of them are (or will be, if you go through with it) two levels further down (not one level: the reader has to click Category:1135 establishments → Category:1135 establishments by country → Category:1135 establishments in X, and most of the new cats have only one or two entries. I have no objection against such categories if a reasonable number of the new subcats will all have a reasonable number of pages in them, but please create them only if and when you have determined that this is going to be the case. I'm sure this won't be the case with Category:86 BC disestablishments in Greece. The whole of the Category:86 BC grandparent cat only had a total of 11 pages, and the other grandparent cat 1st-century BC disestablishments in Greece still only has just one (although it might realistically be expanded to somewhere between ten to twenty, I guess). My personal view is that in order to be useful, a new subcat should have at least eight to ten entries, and an existing parent cat ought to have at least more than forty or so to warrant splitting. A single category page with thirty or so entries is still far easier to navigate than a three-level hierarchy. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:05, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Fram, please be aware of the WP:MASSCREATION policy which says "The community has decided that any large-scale automated or semi-automated article creation task must be approved at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval. The same restriction is applied to mass category creation, " --Hammersoft (talk) 02:02, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Nothing in these creations is even semi-automated, these are done entirely manually. What makes you think different? Fram (talk) 05:54, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
      • Do you really want to get into a dispute about whether something is automated, semi-automated or not? --Hammersoft (talk) 12:58, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
        • No, to me it is quite clear. I didn't raise this "automated or semi-automated" issue here, you know, you did; if you can't stand being questioned about your statements, don't make them in the first place. Fram (talk) 14:36, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
          • There is no need to get hostile. I'm pointing out that whether its automated or not isn't the core of the issue. 5000+ new categories since the beginning of March without a reference to a consensus garnering discussion is the problem, and WP:MASSCREATION does apply, no matter the means by which they are created. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:26, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
            • Hostile? I would post rather different things if I was hostile (and stupid enough to post at such a time), I am just replying to your inconsistencies. I am now creating categories right in the middle of existing ones: the consensus is the precedent, the years that such categories have existed without problems. I am holding back for now on the earlier categories, which may be a problem (although I don't believe they are in general). As for mass creation, no, it didn't and doesn't apply. And the speed at which I am now creating cats is clearly much lower than before you came along. Fram (talk) 15:32, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Categories#RfC on "Years by country" categories Fram (talk) 07:36, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I will for now (RfC) stop the creation of these older cats, and will move on to much more recent subjects (from about 1850 on, most from the 20th century). This will mostly mean adding categories to articles, but in some cases this will also mean creating cats, mostly filling gaps between other year cats. If you notice that even these are a problem, just drop a note and I'll stop this as well, but I think (hope) these will be mostly uncontroversial. They will also in general be limited to one new cat, not complete trees of 10 or 15 cats. Fram (talk) 09:47, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Is there some deadline I'm unaware of that these categories must be created as soon as possible? RfCs typically last ~30 days. I'm sure the project won't collapse without these new categories within the next 30 days. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:58, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Is there some reason why these categories are problematic? Do you want to get rid of all "establishments by year" cats? Anyway, the cats don't need to be created as soon as possible, I'm just going slowly but surely through the thousands upon thousands of articles that logically can have "est." and possibly "disest." cats. The vast majority of the group I'm going through now will be fitted in existing cats, only a small minority will get new cats, which fit nicely in the middle of the existing ones, not at the outside of them. Fram (talk) 14:36, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
      • I think the discussion may provide some useful insight about how best to go about doing this. Continuing to do it while the RfC is going on, modern cats not withstanding, is not on. I think we can safely wait 30 days. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:26, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
        • You may safely wait as long as you want. Fram (talk) 15:32, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
          • I'm talking about you, obviously. Please STOP the category creations until the RfC concludes. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 15:50, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
            • No, I will not stop creating categories on the say so of someone who until very recently was vehemently opposing the idea of any criticism of automated editing and who mocked every reasonable attempt at describing what automation is, going so far as to debate whether AWB was in any way "automated". Your appearance here has more the feel of vengeance for an ArbCom case going against your wishes, and less (i.e. next to nothing) with any genuine concerns about these categories. I have stopped creating the many categories for until know mostly uncharted centuries, and am voluntarily restricting myself to adding categories to articles, with the occasional creation of an article which falls square inside what has been the habit and commonly accepted on Wikipedia for years. I will not stop these perfectly normal and acceptable actions for you. Fram (talk) 19:08, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

E.g. I have now created Category:1865 establishments in Norway: this was the only missing category (in the Category:Establishments in Norway by year) between 1835 and 2012... I think it can hardly be claimed that the creation of this category is in any way controversial or without prior consensus. Feel free to escalate the creation of this category to any noticeboard you prefer, but I hardly think you'll get much support for your rather draconian position. Fram (talk) 20:02, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

WP:AN/I notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Fram refusing to stop mass category creation while RfC is going on. Thank you. —Hammersoft (talk) 22:41, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rich Farmbrough

Resolved by motion that:

FoF 8 (Unblocking of SmackBot) changed to:

Rich Farmbrough has on many occasions, after another administrator has placed a block on his bot account, used his administrative tools to unblock his own bot without first remedying the underlying issue to the blocking admin's satisfaction or otherwise achieving consensus for such unblock (see block logs of SmackBot, Helpful Pixie Bot).

For the Arbitration Committee,

-- Lord Roem (talk) 15:12, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Category:1717 inventions

Category:1717 inventions, 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. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 07:45, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Locomotive images

Can you move the locomotive images to Commons? I an having difficulty with the automated tools. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 11:49, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I tend to stay away from Commons, and I don't think I have ever moved a page from here to there (I have uploaded images there directly though). The one time I tried to move an image, another image with the same name already existed over there, and I quit trying after having difficulties to resolve this in an easy way. So basically I can't help you with this, sorry! Fram (talk) 11:52, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Re: Template:Year in country category

Thanks, that looks like an extremely useful template which I am sure I will make use of :) I'll let you know if I find any problems with it. Tim! (talk) 06:29, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Can you think of a way to handle sorting of countries with "the" in the name? For example see Category:973 in the Czech Republic, which appears under T in Category:973 by country instead of C. Template:EstcatCountry uses an additional sortkey parameter. Tim! (talk) 09:18, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Solved, but it means that all pages that use this parameter need to full 8 parameters: leaving out the last one or two "||" gives strange results. I've corrected this for all existing uses of the template. Category:993 in the Czech Republic is an example of how it can be used for these special countries. Fram (talk) 09:23, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Stub building

I ask for your input at User talk:MBisanz#Articles♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:44, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Category:1820s disestablishments in the United States

Category:1820s disestablishments in the United States, 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. Kumioko (talk) 21:56, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Category:2000s disestablishments in the United States

Category:2000s disestablishments in the United States, 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. Kumioko (talk) 22:06, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Category:1910s disestablishments in the United States

Category:1910s disestablishments in the United States, 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. Kumioko (talk) 22:12, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Category:Ukrainian cartoonists

Can you find some missing articles for me to populate this a bit?♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:21, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Note

In case you might be interested in helping out with the page's development. - jc37 20:24, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Review

Dear Fram, may I have your attention for some reasoning here considering this Afd? Thanks. Obviously I and other "keep votes" regard the delete opinions as failing arguments (as explained in the debate). OK, and you addressed: "Similar (or basically undistinguishable) concepts shouldn't be described in different articles, each with their own POV". Well, however the article seems very extensive with many views (povs) on the topic. If it lacks about some view, then probably should it be included in the article. As you know, in essence the article is a collection of supposed entities, which have similar qualities (i.e. ethereal: as this adjective is described in ordinary dictionaries); therefore there is not other article on this topic, strictly the article is unique (remembering that "Non-physical being" is an empty stub).

Besides, regarding that: 1-the reasons for deletion (listed in WP:DEL-REASON) are not applicable to the deletion of the article (thus for this controversy we had the Afd); 2-experienced editors, in fair number, defended the "keep vote" addressing the article as very good or else could it have some fix; 3-The topics in the article own a sensible subject which many editors naturally reject because is against their personal religion or belief; 4- The debate was recurrently marked by personal attacks or attempts of intimidation by the deletion people (instead academic reasons), which therefore may have scared/prevented many "keep editors" from joining the discussion. As matter of fact, I checked the stats of the article; since started the debate we can notice hundreds of visitants above the usual average. Therefore, per logic, we can conclude that most of those readers were editors; actually scared editors. A debate made of only brave editors (really was, believe me). So, may I ask you to review the deletion? Seems to me we had a clear non-consensus over there, as well a strong unbalanced debate. Indeed a debate that should be postponed to the future (hopefully in better terms). Regards, Excalibursword (talk) 21:43, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

The "debate" was as big of steaming pile of something as the article was a steaming pile of WP:OR. Excalibursword - really, Fram closed it correctly according to policy. Don't ever presume to suggest the things you have above (✉→BWilkins←✎) 23:12, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
I'll leave it to Fram to explain/clarify their close, but be happy that I was unaware of the AfD.
I started reading through the deleted article, and at first was wondering how anyone would want to delete this. It was missing references, sure, but...
But then as I kept reading it was clear that this page was just grabbing at any metaphysical being or entity and linking them together through the now clearly WP:OR page title.
This might be an interesting opinion piece in the local spiritualism newsletter, but it's not appropriate for Wikipedia.
I then read the discussion, and was surprised at how much of it was essentially a back n forth of IWANTIT IDONTWANTIT. (As an editor, I typically consider unsupported claims of "it's OR/synth" to be merely IDONTWANTIT/IDONTLIKEIT.)
Unfortunately, in this case, this really was OR/Synth.
So I not only agree with bwilkins above, but I endorse the close.
I'd appreciate a note if this goes to DRV or whever else. - jc37 23:35, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

There was a very extensive discussion on the talk page about the flaws of the article, as a result of which the article was redirected. The consensus was obvious. My own comment on the AfD referred to that discussion -- I made a very valid argument but it was ignored in favor of pointing out my "exasperated" tone. Anyway, point: a repeated argument from the !keep folks was that there were no specific examples or good arguments given in favor of deletion, but those specific examples were already given in the old discussion. The !keep folk willfully ignored that.

As admins you can access the old talk page, if my memory serves me right we talked about the specific sections, even specific paragraphs, pointed out flaws, explained why it's unsalvageable, discussed alternatives like merging and renaming. The arguments were there, the concerns were never addressed by the !keep folk, they were ignored. Moreover, attempts by myself and others to make fixes to the article were reverted entirely.

The following isn't fact but I'm personally sure it is true: most if not all of the users who vehemently protected the article in the first discussion were sockpuppets of the article's creator. I noticed how all of them had the habit of marking their new comments on talk pages as 'minor edits', no one else does that, and other significant similarities in style; other users besides myself had similar suspicions. Excalibursword answered like this to the accusations and literally disappeared for a month.

The new !keep voters at the AfD, I believe a lot of them didn't take the time to actually read through the article and analyze its contents and references and all that, because it really was a long (and long-winded) article. I believe that if they had done that and also considered the arguments in the old discussion, they would have decided differently.

As for the accusations about being generally biased, I can't speak for anyone else but I myself have created bio articles for a psychic researcher and a paranormal/spiritual author, and I keep a protective eye on a lot of other religious/spiritual/woo articles. I completely deny that I'm biased in the sense that I want total removal of all fringe or spiritual articles. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 02:03, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I think that most of myarguments have already been made by the other people who helpfully responded here, some more diplomatic than others but all rather to the point. Even ignoring the likeliness that sockpuppetry was involved in the discussion, there wasn't much doubt that the article was an example of WP:SYNTH, and the lack of reliable sources supporting the bulk of the article (instead of individual snippets of information) was the deciding factor in determining that the delete opinions had the strength of policy to support them, while the keep opinions didn't. You are of course free to take this to WP:DRV. Fram (talk) 06:45, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

As an early contributor to the article Talk page, I wanted to vouch for Jeraphyne Gryphon's account of her experience. Article improvement was decided against after it was discovered the article was made of OR connections, i.e. Eskimo legend A has similarities to UFO religion B whose beliefs have parallels in Greek god C, whose existence was echoed by Castaneda, etc. There were literally hundreds of such instances, way too many to justify an intensive edit. That's why WP:BLOWITUP was invoked early on. Not because of prejudice against the subject matter. - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:49, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Fram, thanks for taking the time, Surely I can’t disagree more with you: the article is plenty of reliable sources supporting every of its parts, indeed there is no room in that article to OR or SYNTH; so, just claiming these, it is not a case. For the rest of editors here, I am glad that they are here in this private conversation, because they just exposed all my stressed points above were exact (think about). Yet, as matter of fact I usually don’t have much obtainable time in Wikipedia (thus on contrary of all the stalkers here), so if you want talk to me something more, please take some indulgence (I will reply eventually). No more to say here, only I have appreciated your courtesy answering my contest. Regards. Excalibursword (talk) 13:36, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
"plenty of reliable sources supporting every of its parts"; any reliable sources supporting the "whole" instead of the separate "parts" though? Fram (talk) 06:44, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Nope! I meant reliable sources supporting "each" of its parts, and as well the whole (that's why I maintain strong keep on that article). Fram, feel free to ask me about any of its parts or fragments in which you can to have doubts. I will do my best for clarifying them through RS, but as I said, all this demands time and I am not full time working in Wikipedia (actually pretty much the opposite), so please be tolerant (I will collaborate as soon as possible, be sure). Hey, thanks for asking. Excalibursword (talk) 13:37, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
If you can't provide me with any reliable sources that support the overall concept as presented in the article, sources that support the basics, the framework on which the article is composed, then I can't see any reason to doubt the WP:SYN claims made, or to reconsider my decision. I note that in the AfD, you present two dictionary definitions for "ethereal" (not as such the subject of the article), and a third one which actually is about "ethereal being", but which states that it is a synonym for ghost[4], which is actually a good reason not to have a separate article. Fram (talk) 14:07, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
I think your doubts likely are also those of some editors of good faith. In fact that is a capital point. So, I am clarifying it is not a different concept from what dictionaries explain: The overall concept as presented in the article, the sources that support the basics, and the framework on which the article is composed, are based on the common sense understood (to "ethereal") according to ordinaries dictionaries. From that semantical common sense we have the same meaning in the reliable sources in which they precisely present this quality to certain entities (this is a factual case of WP:BLUE, not synth). For instance, in the thesaurus above cited by you, we have not only the word "ghost", but also many possible synonyms such as "apparition, appearance, banshee, daemon, demon, devil, eidolon, ethereal being , haunt, incorporeal being, kelpie, manes, phantasm, phantom, poltergeist, revenant, shade, shadow, soul, specter, spook, vampire, vision, visitor, wraith, zombie." And this list is still enlarged when we look for this adjective in numerous other dictionaries. An article that gathers supposed creatures featuring such qualities (as described in the dictionaries) is, in practical concepts, an improved "list article." So, when its reliable sources present such quality to supposed entities, we certainly shouldn’t expect finding in that source a grammatical explanation for that quality because such explanation is supposed to be common sense and therefore it belongs to dictionaries, not there. Excalibursword (talk) 16:22, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

One of the problems with Wikipedia, as well as one of its strengths, is the absolute reliance on Reliable Sources for any and every article. In some cases, it serves to prevent reasonable information from being added, and in others, it protects the encyclopedia from unreasonable stuff. Unfortunately, in an encyclopedia where the layman is allowed to edit, this is the rule that we get, almost out of necessity. More established encyclopedias probably can fudge a bit on original research because the editors might include people with PhD's in the subject matter.

For this particular article, I am somewhat in agreement with Jc37 above in that many of the arguments in the AfD were really IWANTIT IDONTWANTIT. That's why I turned my focus to ask for specific examples of the problems that editors were declaring. Since the default in an AfD is status quo, aka Keep, I felt that a good explanation of Delete rationale would serve us better. The subject matter is clearly notable and Keep-worthy. Discussion on this page states that "Ghost" is a reasonable synonym for "Ethereal Being", although synonyms are not equal terms, this implies that the more expansive term "Ethereal Being" could be the new title for Ghost, but that article is already fairly long and I doubt the expansive definition would help the article. Ghost includes links to Soul and Spirit, which could be construed as synonyms as well, but they each have a distinct article. All in all, I think the article "Ethereal Being" most likely has a place to take in Wikipedia, but our Delete editors did not give us guidance on how to proceed with the salvation of such an article, only that the present incarnation of it was insufficient. Obviously "original research" was cited as the major problem, so one could assume that if a reliable source or two is found, the article can be recreated and stay. There might be information from the deleted version of the article that could help. One thing that puzzles me often is how infrequently the "incubator" or "userfication" approaches are used. It is often just a Keep or Delete debate, when there are other alternatives.

I suppose in the end, an editor will need to step up and do the heavy lifting and research, but until that point, we are where we are. -- Avanu (talk) 16:44, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

The problem with incubating or userfying, in this particular case, is that because of this user's overzealousness we'll most likely be forced to waste time on a third discussion of this length, in probably less than a week (when they've restored the material and made some "changes"). I say let's not encourage them.
For me, the topic/title is a separate problem from the article's content. Currently I think (I might be repeating what I said in the first discussion) that the title is uncommon (it won't be searched for) and nearly completely overlaps with some similar and existent topics, like Spirit/Incorporeality/Non-physical entity. But I'm all for it, if there's at least two-three good sources that specifically talk about "ethereal beings" then of course we can write an article based on them. It'll likely be short but short articles are good too.
Whichever way that^ goes, in the AfD we decided to get rid of the article's existing content, all of it, and I think that decision should be final. (If anyone thinks some of it may have been helpful, they can ask an admin to send them a copy.) — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 03:01, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
No need to ask an admin for a copy. It's long been userfied here. Also enshrined here on the web. - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:52, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

And again I am glad the stalkers came here again. Even after Afd their repetitive diffidence and misgiving should be showing, to you Fram, that there is something very failed in all what they claim over the article. Anyway, I tried my best to change your mind as well as I offered my collaboration in all related aspects; so unless you have further questions, it seems I can leave your talk now. Regards, Excalibursword (talk) 13:53, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps, when you are yourself asking people on your side of the discussion to come here and support you[5], it would be wiser not to complain about people from the other side to come here as well... Fram (talk) 13:58, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Well I am not really complaining, all they show a good point in my favor anyway. Besides, any editor "naturally" aggregated to this subject is welcome, I hope (you know, is your page). What I actually stressed above was the repetitive and weird stalking of the old same users with their same failed arguments. So, unless you had "invited" these same users (in this case I will remove my observation above), this was what I meant. Excalibursword (talk) 14:29, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Please don't waste my time...

...with trivial matters. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 08:17, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I haven't and won't. The matter you probably are referring to was so trivial that you filed a bot request for it... Fram (talk) 08:20, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Deletion review for Ethereal being

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Ethereal being. 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. Excalibursword (talk) 03:16, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 July 3#Byron Todd Frank

The vandalism was by 97.64.175.49 (talk · contribs · info · WHOIS), changing the name in the article from "George Gordon Byron" to "Byron Todd Frank", which was changed back five days later by another IP; the redirect was from an incorrect name already in the article. Peter E. James (talk) 18:38, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the background. Doesn't really change a lot, his defense of the redirect and his general approach with the sock account isn't really productive. Fram (talk) 18:51, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

List of the oldest buildings in the world

Any suggestions as to what to do with this? People are adding random old buldings (and what is a building?) even if they aren't the oldest. Should it cover every country in the world? If so, it needs to be arranged by continent I would think. And we need references. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 11:11, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

note:

I did notice your reply on the arb page - I'm not ignoring it, just have a busy day ahead. I'll get back to you this evening. Very quickly I will say this however: I do consider you one of the better admins. about the project, and I suspect that if the conversation on Mal's talk would have remained between just the two of you without the intervention of others, I consider it likely it could have all been worked out quite amicably. ttys. — Ched :  ?  12:44, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Allright, thanks for the note (and the compliment!). I often don't edit in the weekend, so you may not get a further reply this evening. Fram (talk) 12:47, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Deletion review for Thrive (film)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Thrive (film). 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. Joseph N Hall (talk) 08:54, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I created a deletion review. On its face the film seems sufficiently noteworthy to me. It may be complete nonsense or whatever, but many independent films of this nature are created these days, and are of at least marginal interest to the general public. The page quality issues were apparently severe but it seems to me that at least some kind of objectively factual entry could be maintained on Wikipedia. I doubt that the page would have been deleted if the only criterion was noteworthiness ...?

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Justin Bieber on Twitter

Hello. Is it possible to create a redirect to Justin_Bieber#Twitter. Thanks in advance--Morning Sunshine (talk) 08:51, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

No problem, done. Fram (talk) 08:53, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Was just about to query whether or not a more appropriate close would have been Merge / Redirect to Justin Bieber#Twitter, but this amounts to the same thing. --Ritchie333 (talk) 09:12, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Can you clarify the close rationale some more? If the information is WP:NOTDIARY and WP:IINFO, then information cannot be used in the article because the subject itself is that. This seems to be holding to contradictory thoughts. I am considering taking this to deletion review based on this and because the close rationale appears to be based on article CONTENT, not other considerations as content of article does not really play into things like notability: Notability just needs to be established, even if there is only one source in the article. --LauraHale (talk) 09:30, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Notability is not the only concern when considering articles. When a topic is not notable, it shouldn't have an article: but when a topic meets the notability guideline, it still can be unsuitable for Wikipedia, per WP:NOT and other reasons (WP:BLP1E and so on). Fram (talk) 09:43, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Can I request a move to someone's userpage, but not mine? I see that the article has a lot of hard work. --George Ho (talk) 18:37, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Deletion review filed

Deletion review for Justin Bieber on Twitter

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Justin Bieber on Twitter. 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. LauraHale (talk) 09:38, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Justin Bieber on Twitter

Hi. Would you restore the deleted revisions of Talk:Justin Bieber on Twitter also? I'm wondering if it had a {{Copied}} to match the one on Talk:Justin Bieber. Thanks. Flatscan (talk) 04:09, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi again. You were away for a few weeks, so I'm checking to see if you missed my request or chose to decline it. Thanks. Flatscan (talk) 04:21, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
I missed it, sorry. Done now. Fram (talk) 16:21, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

I noticed a problem on your talkpage: not enough kittens.

Arcandam (talk) 12:01, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

late

First my apologies for not getting back to you sooner. I only get a chance to drop in for a few minutes here and there - and there always seems to be one more fire to put out. Anyway - as stale as it may be, I do apologize for assuming that you were aware of the "it's telling" thing. Many accounts have approached Malleus in the past with comments, and he has stated in similar words that their approach was very "telling". I have no idea what your history with him is, and it's not my concern. My point was that regardless of the "fix it yourself" comment (which could have been more congenial) - I felt that your response was somewhat provocative. Those who know or have researched his history are aware that his contributions to articles are perhaps unsurpassed. It's also obvious to many that he can be rather blunt. He has also been quite adamant about things on occasions in regards to editing others comments. "I don't touch yours - don't touch mine" type of thing. Apparently there was some sort of glitch in this case - but I have no doubt that Malleus never deliberately altered /ANY/ other editors post. Anyway ... those who know are fully aware that Malleus does not deal well with people being condescending to him - and I think (IMHO), that's the way your comments were taken. Even if unintended .. the "I'm watching you and I know what you did" type of approach isn't going to go over well with adult established editors - and my guess is that this is the way that it was taken by some others. That's just my own take on things; and I'm only saying this because you addressed my comments (which were directed to you). Again - I do apologize for making assumptions.

On another note - I tip my hat to you in your work on the "Beiber on Twitter" close. Very well done. You do indeed have my respect.

Best always — Ched :  ?  05:54, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to explain things, it is appreciated. No need to apologize, we all make hasty assumptions from time to time. As for not dropping by any sooner: I have just been offline (and thus off-wiki) for a few weeks, so I can hardly expect everybody else to respond immediately when I want them to.
As for the respect, it's mutual, I have seen your name around for quite a while, and in general got a good impression from your actions and posts. Fram (talk) 07:43, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

question

is this a violation of a topic ban? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Freyenstein&action=history ? LibStar (talk) 11:24, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Move a page back?

Hello again. Someone has moved Rue d'Aerschot to Aarschot Street, which goes against the Brussels naming conventions. Could you move it back please? Thanks, Oreo Priest talk 18:20, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Allow me to elaborate further. It's unlikely that anyone will be looking for the page at a combination of the Dutch name for it and the English word 'street', so it's something of a neologism. Because it can't be easily translated, the Brussels naming conventions require that the title stay in French, for clarity. I know you're a Fleming, so it's hard to favour French, but I would appreciate it if you could move it back. Thanks! Oreo Priest talk 08:01, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Done. The new name was not in use outside Wikipedia, and the French name is more often used in English sources than the Dutch one, so... Fram (talk) 08:12, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! Oreo Priest talk 19:31, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Mass creation of Chinese stubs

Hi. Just been patrolling new pages and wanted to let you know that User:Jaguar has just mass created many Chinese stubs that have previously been deleted. I've seen that this was due to an incident a few months ago so I thought I'd bring it to your attention in case the same problem was occurring again. Del♉sion23 (talk) 11:06, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Fram/Archive_25&oldid=1201149652"