User talk:Fram/Archive 28

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Fram. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

→

Archive 35

Per your comment at AN/I:

"Yes, I was aware from the above section that you consider copyright violations as no problem at all...

I consider this defamatory to my reputation at Wikipedia and ask you to retract it. I have NEVER said that I "consider copyright violations as no problem at all." Best regards, — Tim /// Carrite (talk) 03:21, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

You never said it, but you act like it. "Richard has really been run over by a truck for no good reason" and other statements in that discussion quite clearly show your priorities. If you care about your reputation on Wikipedia, you shouldn't be making such statements. Fram (talk) 05:51, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I think that is pretty descriptive of his situation. The original investigation was based on a couple instances of "close paraphrase" of sources, which is quite subjective. The case brought against him on that basis has been Kafkaesque. Do try looking at the world through his eyes... Carrite (talk) 19:30, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

No thanks. Your misrepresentation of the original and of the current case, and his consistent very problematic behaviour and refusal to help in any way to solve this, don't give me any reason to look at the world through your or his eyes. Being blind to obvious problems is not something I want to experience firsthand. The more you comment, the less reason I see to retract my "defamatory" statement. Fram (talk) 19:33, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Tim,

Your reputation speaks for itself. Fram's reputation (ugh) too.

Has anybody written to you concerned that Fram mouthed off again? Who cares what he says? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:55, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Hey Fram. I noticed that your statement is around 820 words long, but only a maximun of 500 words are permitted in a statement for a case request (including responses). Therefore, I'd like to request you to reduce your statement to meet the 500-word limit before an arbitrator or one of the clerks (including me) reduce it by ourselves (which might remove information you may consider important).

From the Arbitration Committee, — ΛΧΣ²¹ 02:06, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I've made a comment on Richard's page which you should look over. Please give the battleground mentality a break for just a day or two and give ANI a chance to work. Thanks, — Tim /// Carrite (talk) 16:59, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I'll let Richard reply on his talk page. So far, in all his replies, I haven't seen any indication that he understands that some of his edits were totally and clearly unacceptable, all he does is finding excuses as if "fair use" is the solution for everything. As for battleground mentality: if you had responded with this proposal to my first topic ban proposal, instead of the outright and hostile dismissal of it, we might have avoided this whole mess in the first place. When serious, recent errors are pointed out, it isn't really constructive to dismiss them as "mudslinging" and the like. Fram (talk) 17:48, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

My friend, the first thing at the AN/I circus is to stop a lynch mob from forming. If that involves throwing a few punches, that's what has to be done. Sorry that it was verbally rough, but it had to be that way. Full proposed remedy is now up at RAN talk page, your thoughts on further modifications would be welcomed here. I'd also like to ask you to co-nominate me at RFA if the ArbCom case moves forward, ironic though that may sound to you. I have no intention of "becoming an administrator," I'm simply going to need to be able to read deleted files to defend at the case there and plan on foreswearing the use of any power tools at the time of nomination, and promising to resign the moment the case is concluded. I hope it to be a pro forma request — assuming there is no other path to being able to read files, which I will investigate. Best, —Tim /// Carrite (talk) 19:02, 4 February 2013 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 19:04, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Comments up from a few of your CCI peers at the RAN page, please do add your comments. If you think this remedy, or something very similar to it, is something that can reach consensus at AN/I, you're the one guy with the brake lever at ArbCom, it would seem. If you want to go the route of a long case there to get to more or less the same place six weeks down the road — or an indef block of RAN, probably the only other foreseeable outcome — that of course is your other option. I'm out for now, think about it. Best, —Tim /// Carrite (talk) 23:11, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I'll let RAN reply first. Fram (talk) 06:00, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

That's reasonable. He should have replied yesterday, but a day to think on it is probably not too much to ask. I've asked Dennis Brown to co-nominate me at RFA and he agreed, pending investigation of my contribution history. I'd still very much like for you to be the co-nominator, if you can take that huge leap of faith about somebody who started a verbal fist fight with you just a few days ago. I'm going to proceed if another Arb weighs in in favor of acceptance before one votes to decline the case, since it's a 7 day vetting process and it seems thats the direction the secretive oracles are heading. Here's the DIFF of my message to him, feel free to get in touch with him and also to take a look at my own contribution history if you haven't already. I get the sense that the proposed remedy is more or less on target in the view of the CCI people who worked on the case but they want a full ArbCom investigation and decision with more enforcement clout. I think the quick and neat route to the same place beats public trial and near execution with all the nastiness that will accompany that, but that's really a matter of RAN getting on board hard and fast with the remedy and you pulling the ArbCom brake lever — neither of which seem to be happening this morning. Anyway, that's today's state of affairs. Best, —Tim //// Carrite (talk) 16:45, 5 February 2013 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 16:51, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I'll not co-nominate you, but I'll also not oppose you (well, not over this: if other things would get unearthed by others, I may oppose as well, but to oppose you over this would be rather biased). I don't believe that the way you handled this situation is how I would like an admin to behave (but then again, some people feel the same about me, so it's just my opinion, not some official condemnation). As for the RAN suggestions, it depends a lot on how he reacts: so far, none of his reactions have been even slightly reassuring, he just doesn't see the problem at all, which doesn't give me the impression that the proposed solutions would really solve anything. Take File:Irénée du Pont I.jpg: if Richard Arthur Norton thinks that this falls under his allowed file uploads section 3, "Images published in books, magazines, and newspapers in the United States of America prior to 1923.", then we are heading for a swift block (or another endless discussion) anyway. An ArbCom case, assuming that they reach conclusions comparable to mine, may perhaps send a much stronger message, even if the result is the same. Fram (talk) 18:18, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

No worries on the non-co-nom. I'm just home from work, will check on the RAN page now. Agreed that he should have been quick to the table with head bowed. Best, Carrite (talk) 03:00, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I'll most probably be offline from this Friday (8 February) until next Saturday or Sunday (17 February). This is rather inconvenient, but can't be helped now. I'll start compiling my evidence now; in the case that the Arbcom request turns into a full case during my absence, I would be obliged if any talk page watcher (carrite or anyone else) would post the evidence for me. I don't think it would be useful if the case starts e.g. on Friday, but my evidence is presented more than a week later. RAN (and others) must have a fair chance to study the evidence and reply to it.

In the case that the request is denied, I'll delete the evidence subpage after my return of course.

I'll post a link to the subpage here soon. Fram (talk) 10:14, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

The page can be found at User:Fram/RAN evidence and is currently 950 words long. If the case gets opened tonight or early tomorrow, I'll obviously post this myself. Fram (talk) 13:31, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I promise to make sure that somebody gets it up for you if a case starts during this interval. Best, —Tim /// Carrite (talk) 20:09, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I'll post it if necessary. Hut 8.5 09:35, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Hut. Carrite (talk) 18:07, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Saying, "Of course, you have long ceased to be a productive editor, but why let reality get in the way of rhetorics?" is uncivil and uncalled for in any circumstance, not to mention the other comments. If you don't like what an editor is doing, don't lower your self to their level. You are an Admin, you should behaving alot better. Do not restore the uncivil comment. Bgwhite (talk) 09:29, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I have posted some policy reminders on your user talk page. Next time, perhaps first discuss things instead of blindly defending the trolls (since that is what Kumioko has become effectively). Fram (talk) 09:32, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

"Effectively" isn't good enough. Just as a reminder for you, the policy WP:NPA says "Derogatory comments about other contributors may be removed by any editor", and "I miss my weekly dose of Kumioko-getting-laughed-out-of-the-room" certainly meets "derogatory" - so your rude edit summaries were incorrect as well. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 09:55, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, whatever. Nice to see you all have gotten your priorities in the right order. Fram (talk) 09:58, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I also believe there are better approaches to the subject. Wikipedia:Don't feed the trolls. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:46, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, at least you take the context into account. Could I have handled it better? Probably. Could Bgwhite have handled it better? Equally probably. Is Rschen7754 out of line with his edit summary suppression? Certainly. Fram (talk) 10:53, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Bgwhite (talk) 09:58, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

An arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ). Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/Evidence. Please add your evidence by February 23, 2013, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, — ΛΧΣ²¹ 03:15, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I've posted your evidence here. Hut 8.5 11:15, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi again. A brief heads-up that I've dropped your name in my evidence article in the Richard Arthur Norton case at ArbCom. While this document is not yet final, I expect it will remain. LINK. Thank you for your work on the case. best, —Tim /// Carrite (talk) 21:33, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Fram, in your evidence about RAN, you state

As far as I am aware, RAN has never tried to find any copyright problems; only when others point out the violations does he try to maintain the information, or he simply ignores the reports.

While I'm unaware of any pro-active work he has done, I did point out some problems, and he attempted to address them. My recollection is that this response wasn't uniform, with less than enthusiastic help in some cases, but I do recall (without looking it up) that he did respond. I haven't decided whether I will be submitting evidence in this case, but if I do, I'll make this point. It might be cleaner if you were to moderate your wording, but if you prefer not to, that's your call. Diffs on request.

BTW, while I know your name, we haven't interacted all that much. I want to emphasize that my point is not intended as a criticism of you, there's too much material to review, and I don't fault anyone for missing my meagre contributions. Indeed, my goal isn't to cast aspersions on your conclusions, it is to avoid watering down your evidence by someone pointing out some technical shortcomings. Cases often get convoluted, and I'd hate to have the complication of thrashing this out on the evidence page if you were willing to a slightly modified statement. I'm frankly not enough of an arb process expert to know whether such a modification by you is permitted, so if you'd prefer to leave your statement as is, I'll understand.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 22:49, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Fram is going to be away until the end of next week (see above). Hut 8.5 23:06, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing me to that.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 01:02, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I'll take a look. I did mean "proactivley", so I'll probably modify my statement accordingly, but I have to catch up with the case first so my comment may no longer be applicable after that (perhaps he did a lot proactively as well that I missed, and I'll have to take that into account as well). Anyway, thanks for the note, I'll go and have a look now. Fram (talk) 07:58, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

After looking at the case some more, I'll keep my comment until I see some evidence that it is incorrect. I note that other people involved in the CCIs have the same impression as I had. Fram (talk) 11:14, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

A few months ago, you participated in a discussion on Wikipedia talk:Did you know about Gibraltar-related DYKs on the Main Page. I am proposing that the temporary restrictions on such DYKs, which were imposed in September 2012, should be lifted and have set out a case for doing so at Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Gibraltar-related DYKs. If you have a view on this, please comment at that page. Prioryman (talk) 21:46, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Please restore the article on Flemish which you deleted. You can move it to whichever name you like, but please don't delete others' work unless you have an actual reason. As it is, we have no article on the Flemish language, which is rather ridiculous. Also, need to change the hat note to link to the language article. — kwami (talk) 09:07, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

The actual reason was that you made an undiscussed move, and then put a new article at the old title to prevent a move back. I'll see what I can do to move the deleted text to a new place. Fram (talk) 09:17, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

You need to read up on WP:good faith. I didn't create the article to prevent a move back, I created the article because we needed the article. I had a bot go over close to 8,000 ISO language names to verify that they link to the correct language, and there were a few dozen that were missing. Flemish was one. Flemish Dutch is ISO [nld]; Flemish Flemish is ISO [vlm] (I think). Our article was already quite clear that the linguistic and common uses of "Flemish" differed, and no-one had a problem with that, nor did anyone have a problem with creating an article on actual Flemish. — kwami (talk) 09:22, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I've added two sources for the linguistic use of Flemish for the language of the whole territory of Flanders. Perhaps you can provide some for your point of view as well. Fram (talk) 09:24, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

That's the same POV! East & West Flemish are the dialects spoken in Flanders. Also, a dictionary is not a WP:RS. — kwami (talk) 09:26, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

That dictionary was used as a source in your version of the article already, so... And I don't understand what "that's the same POV!" means? Flanders is larger than East plus West Flanders combined, since at least 1830. Fram (talk) 09:28, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

The other page is now at East- and West-Flemish (language) (and I have no special attachment to that title, no objection to you moving it as long as it isn't to Flemish, Flamish (language), Flemish language or any variation thereof). Fram (talk) 09:54, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Would you stop making content forks? It's getting quite annoying. And "East and West Flemish" are two dialects, not four. Shall we change the number of dialects of the Flemish article to twelve to be in line with the Dutch article? And your opinion is not a reference – as an admin you should know that – so please don't delete referenced material you disagree with unless your have better refs to support your POV. — kwami (talk) 11:04, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Also, East and West Flemish is not called "East and West Flemish". It's simply called "Flemish". We don't need to change the text to match your funky title. — kwami (talk) 11:14, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

By whom? Flemish is nowadays usually used to describe the common language used in the whole of Flanders, not the medieval county. "Vlomsch" is sometimes used for Westvlaams. Grouping East Flemish and West Flemish together in one group, with the exclusion of others, is rarely done in any current context. Fram (talk) 11:17, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Um, you have now totally lost me. I have not created any articles, you have created an extra article for no apparent good reason (a POV fork for a basically unsupported POV). Your refs don't support your POV at all so far. Fram (talk) 11:07, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

You keep editing the articles to be duplicates of each other. That's creating content forks. The Flemish article originally had a disambiguation section for the lead. That was not acceptable, so I split the two concepts of "Flemish" into two articles. I have several refs that state that "Flemish" for Belgian Dutch is technically incorrect, or that use the term for the language/dialect of Flanders. Thus the two articles: Flemish as Belgian Dutch (ISO code [ndl]), and Flemish as the language of Flanders (ISO code [vls]). We have plenty of other cases where two languages have the same name. That doesn't mean we have to conflate them.

Take a look at the Ethnologue map for the ISO definitions: Most of Germanic Belgium speaks "Dutch", but the west speaks "Vlaams" and the east speaks "Limburgish". — kwami (talk) 11:14, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

No, I don't. By the way, have you checked the ethnologue link for vls: it is about what you call Belgian Dutch, not about E and W Flemish. You are aware that your use of "Flanders" to describe solely E and W Flanders is very archaic? [1]

Actually, no, it's not about that. Or only partially: it looks as though the two conceptions have been conflated in the Belgium part of the entry. But look at the map for the extent of [vls], and it's Western Flemish. Or look at the description under the Netherlands part of the entry, and again it's not Belgian. And then under the Dutch [nld] entry, "Flemish" is given as an alt name for Dutch, and Dutch as given as the language of 4,620,000 people in Belgium (1990), with Brabants and Oost-Vlaams given as dialects, and distinguished from "(West) Vlaams". So ISO "Vlaams" isn't Flemish in the broad sense. — kwami (talk) 21:53, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Flemish is used confusingly both for West Flemish and for northern Belgium Flemish. It is never (or hardly ever at most) used for East and West Flemish together though. Fram (talk) 21:56, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

That may be so. That POV is inherited from the pre-split version of the article, where AFAICT it wasn't contested. — kwami (talk) 21:59, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I hadn't payed close attention to that article until your move and split, so whatever the outcome of all this, it will almost certainly have led to a better (and better sourced) article, compared to the older quite poor one. Fram (talk) 22:02, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not going to remove the volume abbreviations but you can fix those if you want.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 11:53, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Mmmmmmm♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 22:29, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

This is a reminder to all parties as well as to those who have submitted evidence, that the evidence phase of this case closes at 00:00 UTC on 23 February 2013, which is in just over seven hours from now. For the Arbitration Committee --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 16:46, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Fram. I have posted a series of questions at the Workshop page for all parties to respond to at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/Workshop#Questions from Hersfold to all parties. Please respond at your earliest convenience; you are also invited to post proposals for the case's final decision on the Workshop page using the templates provided (guide to workshop pages, in case you need it). Thank you for your participation in the case; as a reminder, the Workshop page will close in one week's time on March 2nd, and the Committee should begin voting on the proposed decision shortly thereafter. If you have any questions about the case, please let me or a clerk know. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 14:38, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

WilliamH (talk) 17:56, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Would you be willing to do the history splitting on User:Deacon of Pndapetzim/oblivion? There are only 100 revisions in the date range relevant to the user talk page. Most can be distinguished by edit summary alone (available in the undeletion interface), and page size identifies the remaining few. I suggest taking a copy or screenshot of the history prior to the first G6 deletion, as the undeletion interface has fewer fields visible. I estimate that it will take up to ten minutes. I'm asking you because you undeleted it. Thanks. Flatscan (talk) 05:40, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

For completeness, there are also 2 minor revisions associated with the page moves. They are redundant and unimportant. Flatscan (talk) 05:11, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

How do you want it? One page "oblivion" and one page "talk archive"? Or only undelete the talk page and have the rest deleted again? Fram (talk) 08:28, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Just the talk page. User talk:Deacon of Pndapetzim/Archive XXII fits DoP's old numbering scheme with User:Deacon of Pndapetzim/oblivion/Archive XXI, or you could put them somewhere less obscure. I'm fine with leaving the rest of oblivion deleted, as CSD U1 covers all of it. Thanks a lot. Flatscan (talk) 05:11, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I'll take a look later today. Fram (talk) 08:30, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Done. I also restored one older edit which seemed to be a talk page edit as well. User talk:Deacon of Pndapetzim/Archive XXII. Fram (talk) 10:10, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I think it's a 2007 cut and paste archive that User:Edokter edited for some reason (usually updating signatures after a username change, in my experience). It's not important. Flatscan (talk) 05:38, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

On 7 March 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Palais Leuchtenberg, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Palais Leuchtenberg (pictured) in Munich, was built from 1817 to 1821 at a cost of 770,000 guilders, which was almost the annual budget of Bavaria at the time? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Palais Leuchtenberg. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 16:04, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Fram. Just to let you know, I checked that Polish AFD over, and with the help of google translate, discovered it was shut on the 20th of January as having no overall consensus - hence, it was AFD'd, and didn't get deleted. Just thought i'd let you know. BTW - I replied to your comment at Jimbo's page also. Regards, Fish^Barking? 21:57, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

This is a courtesy note to all parties that the proposed decision has been posted. For the Arbitration Committee Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 09:12, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi, can you proof this from French, I'll source it afterwards.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 12:45, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Mmm we already have Aldeneik and Church of Saint Anne, Aldeneik. I think we'd probably be best merging a few. What do you think?♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 12:51, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I have copyedited the article a bit. I think it would be best to keep Aldeneik separately, and to merge the Abbey article and the Chruch article (and perhaps the two articles on the two saints as well?). Fram (talk) 08:22, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello. This is an automated message to tell you that, as it stands, you are set to be mentioned in this week's Arbitration Report (link). The report aims to inform readers of The Signpost about the proceedings of the Arbitration Committee in a non-partisan manner. Please review the draft article, and, if you have any concerns, feel free to leave them on the talkpage (transcluded in the Comments section directly below the main body of text), where they will be read by a member of the editorial team. Please only edit the article yourself in the case of grievous factual errors (making sure to note such changes in the comments section). Thank you. On behalf of The Signpost's editorial team, LivingBot (talk) 00:00, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I left a more detailed comment at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/Proposed decision#General thanks to the parties & participants, but I wanted to thank you and the other parties to the arbitration case for your excellent conduct throughout the process. You should also know that the case is due to close in a few hours (about midnight UTC at the earliest). Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 17:21, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

An arbitration case regarding Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

1. Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) is strongly admonished for creating multiple copyright violations throughout Wikipedia. He is warned that continued violations of this nature are likely to result in an indefinite block from editing.
2. The Committee acknowledges that Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )'s community-placed topic ban on article creations was a valid and apparently successful attempt, recognizes that this sanction has been violated a number of times, and determines that the topic ban will remain in place and is assumed under the Arbitration Committee's authority.
3. Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) is indefinitely prohibited from uploading images or other media files to the English Wikipedia. Should Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) upload a copyright-violating image to the Wikimedia Commons and subsequently make use of that image on the English Wikipedia in any namespace, he may be subject to Arbitration Enforcement.
4. Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) is prohibited from linking as a reference any external site to which he has contributed. He may provide such links on the talk pages of articles, so they may be reviewed by other editors for acceptance according to applicable Wikipedia guidelines and policies.

For the Arbitration Committee, — ΛΧΣ²¹ 00:50, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your find regarding the incorrect teacher-pupil relationship with Slingelandt! Nice work - did you email the RKD? If not, I will do so. Jane (talk) 08:20, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I have sent them an email. Thanks for the post and the offer though. Fram (talk) 14:48, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Wow - they seemed to have fixed this already! Oddly there is no mention at all of Gaesbeeck on the Van Slingelandt page today. Perhaps it was an old typo. In any case, emails get responded to quite quickly over there. Jane (talk) 06:50, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Category:1780s fashion, 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. Mabalu (talk) 15:40, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Fram.

Hope all is well with you. A recent Wikipediocracy thread has brought to light a close paraphrase copyright violation by User:Bill_william_compton in the article started by him Love and Mary. I have blanked the offending section, which is an extremely close paraphrase of THIS from the NY Times. A very cursory snort through this user's article starts revealed a flagrant copy-and-paste copyvio in Sanam Singh from THIS from College Tennis Online. I have blanked the offending section as well and warned the user about copyvios. I have a hunch this might end up at CCI. In any event, I notice that this user has Autoconfirmed status for new starts and would like to ask you as an administrator to revoke this status on the basis of multiple copyright violations. If there is another procedure to follow to have this status revoked, please advise.

Best regards, —Tim //// Carrite (talk) 04:35, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm up to four very flagrant copyvios from BWC in about 8 new starts examined, see the BWC talk page for links. I'll leave it to you whether this is a job for CCI or whether another scenario should be followed. Best regards. —Tim /// Carrite (talk) 05:31, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for this report. As far as I can tell, I don't have the ability to revoke "autoreviewed", as this is a purely automatic and mathematical right. I have revoked the autopatrolled and reviewer rights, so that at least his new creations appear in the unpatrolled new pages log. I'll take a look at what needs to be done further, a CCI may well be necessary. Fram (talk) 07:47, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Yes, "autopatrolled" is what needed to be pulled, so that all subsequent new starts had to be seen by at least one other pair of eyes. best, —Tim. /// Carrite (talk) 15:41, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello! An IP has posted at COIN and mentioned another IP user that you blocked for evading another block. I'm not entirely sure what they're looking for but it looks as though they're disgruntled over a competition that took place on WP where the winner was awarded a trip. I'm a bit concerned about such a competition (where editors are making a game out of the system) not only being held, but being held entirely on WP. I thought you may be able to shed some light on the situation. OlYeller21^Talktome 19:23, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Fram - while I know you are in good faith going about retagging and reverting pages that are hypothetically associated with a specific user, there is very good reason to believe that many of those accounts are not associated with him at all and (in some cases) were created specifically to harass the user whose primary account you are linking. The tags do not serve a useful purpose in this case. I'd like to ask you to consider reverting yourself; at minimum, please do not continue any further. Thanks. Risker (talk) 19:55, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to revert those that are not him. Most (probably all) the ones I did tag were clearly him, but if I did add some JtV ones as well, they can obviously be removed. I specifically left out ones like Pedilicious, where it was unclear whether they were him or not, and such an association, if incorrect, would have been over the top. But most of the others are clearly him (often through checkuser even). I'll not revert this, and I don't understand why people keep supporting such a long-term socker and often disruptive editor. Fram (talk) 07:36, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I note that I mistagged Duns Scotus The Blessed who was a JtV sock, not a PD sock. Any other ones? You claim "many", but I seriously doubt that that is true (of the ones I tagged, I mean; I know that there have been others). I'll not revert because he continues socking; I was not interested to keep a track record just for the sake of it, but in this case, we have had enough unban / unblock discussions based on "but he hasn't socked anymore" to make it necessary to keep track of what has been going on (and this is probably only the tip of the iceberg). Fram (talk) 08:01, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

— Bill william compton^Talk 04:37, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Fram, Hoping you are well, I'm stopping by to let you know that on your recent article about the french artist Nicolas-Auguste Galimard I have expanded it somewhat with other research I have found, along with adding two references and then dividing with section titles.

If/when you get a chance would you mind popping back over and reviewing what I done to see how it sits with you (as the author) and what you know about him.

Anyway, thank you for taking the time to create this (and other) pages. Wishing you a good day and much happy wiki-ing,

Kindest Regards, (MrNiceGuy1113 (talk) 06:18, 22 March 2013 (UTC))

Thanks! Nice work, the article is much improved. I made some stylistic changes: section titles should not be capitalized (apart from the first word), and refs should follow the full stop at the end of a sentence instead of preceding it. These things aren't important though, the contents matter, so thanks again for adding those! Fram (talk) 07:51, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Fram. Elen of the Roads courtesy blanked and protected User:Peter Damian in June 2011, acting as an arbitrator and per a request made to arbcom by the user.[2][3] Why have you reverted her actions? Bishonen | talk 11:22, 23 March 2013 (UTC).

Because a "courtesy blanking" comes from two sides? He continued socking. Note that I discussed this with Elen of the Roads at her talk page, and note that Ellen stated at the time of the courtesy blanking: " The person behind all the accounts has agreed to stop entirely all attempts to edit Wikipedia - if he doesn't I'll put the main pages back myself, with added vim." Fram (talk) 12:16, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

That's not really "socking". That's just being flippant about a particular restriction.Volunteer Marek 02:53, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

No idea what you are talking about. Not really interested either, your dismissive attitude doesn't seem to have much to do with either policy or the reality of this situation. But feel free to elaborate if you meant something different than how it came across. Fram (talk) 07:31, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Fram,

You made an unsubstantiated and likely false allegation at ANI and here, and you haven't had the decency to strike your falsehoods.

Why don't you resign your adminiship?

Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:01, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh come on. That PD has been socking is obvious. I say that as someone who supports his return to wiki, FWIW. But lets worry about the real problems William M. Connolley (talk) 21:54, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gideros_Studio Aurigin (talk) 11:23, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi. If you object to my mention of your name in this context on my page, I will remove it. Bishonen | talk 11:47, 26 March 2013 (UTC).

No need to remove it, it's your opinion, but it's not especially problematic or polemic so... Fram (talk) 12:59, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry about the confusion about my semi-protection of Five Ws. I never meant to take sides in your dispute, nor impune anybody. See my comments at User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#As_to_my_motives.

Bearian (talk) 14:40, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Could you unprotect Afilia Saga East and redirect it to Afilia Saga? I wanted to redirect the group's old name to the article I created today, but I found it to be protected from creation. Since you were the last one who deleted it, I'm guessing you were the one who protected it. --Moscow Connection (talk) 07:45, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Redirect created. Fram (talk) 07:52, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! --Moscow Connection (talk) 08:08, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Jason Quinn (talk) 19:42, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Category:1992 in the Czech Republic, 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. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:59, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Fram, I have cleaned up problematic edits (mainly from the first quarter of 2011). If you have any time then please leave a review. Thanks and regards. — Bill william compton^Talk 12:45, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi - please see WP:Articles for deletion/The God Tree (novel), related to the author whose page you A7 speedied today. It looks like a candidate for the same treatment. Mcewan (talk) 14:52, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

P. S. Burton (talk) 19:34, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Fram. Please do use modern methods of Wikipedia inline citations for your stubs. It's not 2003 anymore and the way you copy-pasted public domain material in Robert Gardelle with a single trailing disclaimer does not fly at WP anymore, as you more than anyone should be aware. Take the time to paraphrase and insert correct inline footnotes, please and thank you, so that subsequent editors will be able to add to the work properly. best, —Tim /// Carrite (talk) 06:05, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

As said below, I am just like most people here aware that this editing technique is perfectly acceptable here. Many of those have since been expanded, and none of the editors that afterwards worked on them were unhappy with the initial article or how it was created. These things fly at WP, despite what you claim. Fram (talk) 12:16, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

This is much worse — straight 2003-style copy-paste with a single trailing footnote, the very same shit that Richard Norton got beaten up over. This is absolutely unacceptable editing technique. Please go back and fix all of these rips from Bryan's Dictionary of Painters and Engravers with proper paraphrase and correct inline footnotes. I am aghast that you of all people are pulling this stuff. Carrite (talk) 06:14, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Please indicate where RAN was ever beaten up over this kind of thing. It certainly wasn't by me. This kind of thing is still being done by some of the most experienced editors here, including e.g. Dr. Blofeld, and is perfectly acceptable. I'll not change anything, neither in existing ones nor in new ones. Please try to change policy if you want it otherwise. Fram (talk) 12:14, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you on this, Fram. But it would surely be better to give the online version of the source, as linked by Carrite. Isn't that what you used? In any case, it's clearly more helpful to the reader. Bishonen | talk 13:20, 6 April 2013 (UTC).

I brought this up before that even if not a copyright problem its still plagiarism and extremely bad writing to copy verbatim information from a book. The DANFS stuff is different, its a government source but this is an authored text. I also do not think that the generic footnote is an appropriate citation for a multi-volume set of books with each book having several hundred pages. And yes Fram, it was you. Or have you so quickly forgotten the Arbitration request you wrote up (Mentioned above on this very page) or the detailed bash page (I mean err evidence) that I also brought up before. Kumioko (talk) 14:55, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Kumioko, how many times has it been explained to you that these are not a problem and not plagiarism? You started four AfDs, you made the same claims at the Jimbo Wales discussion recently, and each time uninvolved editors patiently explained this until you seemed to understand it. I don't know what your problem is, but I'm extremely glad that someone who doesn't understand our policies and guidelines even after countless explanations isn't an admin here. And I'll not explain the irony of your endless complaints about this, but it does please me to no end. Yes, I'm childish in that regard. So please continue with the same plagiarism complaints anytime you want, I can use a good chuckle from time to time. Fram (talk) 10:23, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

• As you are very well aware, Fram, this is a type of editing that was once acceptable at WP (circa 2003) when huge chunks of the 1911 EB were ported in unchanged, with a single trailing footnote. It is a highly unethical form of editing and needs to stop now — I had presumed it had gone extinct circa 2005. It is shocking that a leading CCI volunteer is using this technique. If Dr. Blofeld is still using this method, he needs to stop now also, thanks for the heads-up on that. I will probably start an AN/I thread on the matter sometime within the next 24 hours and will keep you posted when I do, since this is something that needs broad community input. Please stop this sort of plagiaristic editing immediately, however. Carrite (talk) 16:13, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Carrite, my comment above to Kumioko applies, to a lesser degree, to you as well. If you get a new policy that such articles are no longer acceptable (while articles without any source are still acceptable as long as they are not BLPs), I'll stop creating them. Until then, your complaints have no merit, and your "improvements" were a lot more "unethical" than the original version. Fram (talk) 10:23, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

We'll agree to disagree on the ethics of the situation. I'll keep you informed when the RFC starts, probably in two weeks or so. (You wouldn't know where to find a public domain photo of Camille Huysmans as a young man, would you?) best, —Tim /// Carrite (talk) 17:08, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

An WP:Administrators Noticeboard/Incidents thread dealing with the above, in which you are mentioned, has been opened. Title: "User:Fram directly copy-pasting entire articles with no inline-footnotes, single trailing disclaimer" Best regards, —Tim /// Carrite (talk) 16:54, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

That ill-advised thread has been summarily dismissed, as could have been predicted. Waste of time. Fram (talk) 10:17, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

The struggle for justice is never a waste of time. Carrite (talk) 17:08, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Justice? I believe you are taking this wayyyy to serious. Fram (talk) 07:04, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Re Kells, Dumfries and Galloway: Please see User talk:Scotire. I think this Kells is too small for an article but why not create the Caulkerbush article? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:50, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

It will be large enough. Note that we have List of listed buildings in Kells, Dumfries and Galloway already. Fram (talk) 11:51, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Fram,

The lead of Leuchtenberg Gallery, states that one of the artworks is currently in the collection of the Christchurch Art Gallery in New Zealand. However, as far as I can see, the Christchurch Art Gallery is not listed in the table. What gives? — P. S. Burton (talk) 14:08, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I originally had the Gerrit Dou painting as being in Christchurch.[4] A closer look showed however that it was a different version of the same picture, and finding this basically confirmed this. I forgot however that I had added it to the intro as well. I'll remove it now. Thanks! Fram (talk) 14:18, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with you reverting a deletion decision I made. That's why I have a big bolded notice on my user page saying so. Nevertheless, it would have been nice if you had at least let me know you'd restored this article, in much the same way that it would have been nice if you'd talked to me about your disagreeing with me before heading straight to ANI about it. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 10:38, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I went to AN (not ANI) because the main problem was Kumioko, the actual deletions by you and another admin were circumstantial (though also somewhat problematic). That's why I didn't discuss you or the other admin specifically there either, and that's why I didn't come to either talk page first. Fram (talk) 10:56, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Well to be honest, Fram, I think that's exactly the problem. You obviously have an ongoing dispute with Kumioko (which is itself no crime - we all have editors with whom we do not see eye-to-eye), but in pursuing that you've dragged a load of other people into it. Let's break this down for a moment. You started an AN thread about incivility, and then went off on a tangent about CSD nominations, dragging two other admins into the dispute for no reason whatsover by accusing them of "blindly accepting" CSD tags. One of those was mine. In that instance, Kumioko, an editor with whom you're involved in a running firefight, nominated an article for CSD, another admin deleted it, and then you (hardly an ideal impartial third opinion) showed up and reverted the deletion without even discussing it with the deleting admin first. Do you not see how it would be easy to attack your impartiality in this particular instance? Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 12:06, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, we did discuss the deletion at the AN thread, of course. I gave my reasons of why I thought this was an incorrect deletion, you disagreed. What more discussion had you wanted? The page currently has the context spelled out explicitly instead of implicitly, so that there is no reason left to speedy it. Fram (talk) 12:21, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Colvend and Southwick requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article or image appears to be a clear copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website or image but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

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 "Click here to 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. Sionk (talk) 15:20, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Fram, I have transferred this to your talk page as you wrote the article. I would have thought that the copyright would have expired. Regards Scotire (talk)

SionK, please read the copyright statement at : http://archive.org/details/topographicaldic01lewi.

Did YOU even read the talk page, the Remy Hii page was already deleted but then restored, here is what was said to the admin who deleted it. "The Conor Butler page might not be notable (note I said might), but the Remy Hii page was, SBS is a national broadcast network, it broadcasts across Australia. Remy Hii is playing the lead in a television series broadcast on SBS and I cited it. I also cited his IMDB page, which lists several other work, including his work on another national broadcast network that broadcasts across Australia, Channel 10" And hearing that, he restored it --TBBC (talk) 09:11, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Please read WP:CRYSTAL. Fram (talk) 09:15, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

The drama Remy Hii will appear on will air Thursday 25 July 2013. Can the page be restored please.--TBBC (talk) 09:56, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I just wanted to ask why the Junge SPitzen Wikipedia page was deleted. I replied to the speedy deletion tag that "Dewritech" posted. Could you please explain why the page was deleted?

Best regards

Slotsi (talk) 11:39, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

The page had no indication of what would make this organisation notable. It is important to you and other members, and you want to promote it, but we need evidence that it has received significant attention from reliable, independent sources, e.g. newspaper articles about the organisation. Fram (talk) 11:41, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Do you want me to link articles to the wikipedia page? Here are some examples - in german because we are the german minority in Denmark.

http://www.nordschleswiger.dk/SEEEMS/1546.asp

http://www.yeni.org/yeni/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=59&Itemid=37&lang=de

http://www.jungefreiheit.de/Archiv.611.0.html?archiv05/200549120231.htm

BR

Slotsi (talk) 11:49, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

The first two are not the kind of sources we are looking for, they aren't independent and neutral (you are the youth division of the first, and a member of the second). The third one is better, but not sufficient in my opinion. More logical would be to create an article on the Schleswigsche Partei (I assume that one is more notable) and have a short section there for the youth division. Fram (talk) 11:55, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

The problem seems to be that you do not see the importance of having a wikipedia article for Junge SPitzen, right? This article is nothing new, we have a german wiki article since 2005 and decided to provide a version of the newest article in english and german. Please let me know how to do it if there is another way.

BR Slotsi (talk) 12:09, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

edit: http://www.nordschleswiger.dk/SEEEMS/20422.asp?artid=52998 http://www.nordschleswiger.dk/SEEEMS/20422.asp?artid=30366 http://www.nordschleswiger.dk/SEEEMS/20422.asp?artid=34012 http://www.nordschleswiger.dk/SEEEMS/20422.asp?artid=21782 http://www.nordschleswiger.dk/SEEEMS/20422.asp?artid=22105

The local newspaper in North Schleswig is writing about our activities - this is real. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slotsi (talk • contribs) 12:21, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not claiming that it isn't real, but this is really minor coverage (there are apparently about 15,000 potential readers of that newspaper, making it more of a vilage newspaper than a "real" newspaper like the Frankfurter Allgemeine or Die Welt or Berlingske. Having an article on another Wikipedia language version is not a guarantee to have one here, every Wiki language version has its own rules. Fram (talk) 12:34, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

That we do not reach millions of people with our organisation should be logical. We are an autochthonous minority and it is just because of the fact that we are a minority important that as many people as possible can find out what Junge SPitzen is. The easiest way to be able to inform more than just the german speaking citizens of this planit is to use the English language. As stated in the "Bonn-Kopenhagener Erklärungen" (Government policy statement) is the German minority in Denmark accepted by the state of Denmark and even has the rights to have their own schools, liraries etc. and special provisions ragrding elections - should a minority depend on newspapers writing about them? Slotsi (talk) 13:22, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

For an article in the English Wikipedia, yes, that is necessary. We are not a means for organisations to provide their information to a wider audience, that's what your website is for. We are an encyclopedia, a very large one, but not one that accepts everything. Fram (talk) 13:25, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I didn't know that working on an article in my sandbox and saving it with the categories added already on the bottom of it made them live. I just assumed as it was in my sandbox the categories didn't go into mainspace. So thanks for fixing that. Is there any simpler way of doing it, like an ignore tag I can put at the start of the categories and /ignore at the end, which I can remove just before I'm finished editing the article? I have a feeling that otherwise I'm going to forget you turned these categories into links by adding the : in front of them and just post the article way the categories are now by mistake. The : is very easy to overlook. Penguin2006 (talk) 14:44, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

You can use [[Category:Living people]] [[Category:1842 births]] and so on, you then have to remove the "nowiki" before going live. There is, as far as I know, no "use only in mainspace" argument or function that you could add that would automatically activate them once your article is life. Fram (talk) 07:13, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I tried it using "nowiki" as you suggested. But the way you did it first using : was more practical after all. I can click the links like that and see what is in the categories without my sandbox page being included.

I didn't realise that sandbox pages were quite so visible. Both if I have categories in them and by how searchable they are in general. When I search on Google for the subject I'm working on and the term 'Wikipedia', my sandbox articles mostly come up as the 2nd search result, after the existing Wikipedia pages. It's a little disconcerting. I'm still writing the articles - half way through they turn into gibberish. Isn't that going to confuse casual readers who come across sandbox stuff and think it's a real Wikipedia page? There's no warning on the top of sandbox pages. If I didn't write articles myself I'd be confused. I thought sandbox articles were more or less private unless I shared their names.

Got any advice on how to make my sandbox articles less easily mistaken for the real thing? Is there a big bold template I can stick on the top? I tried looking in Category:Sandbox templates but found nothing suitable. Thanks. Penguin2006 (talk) 20:51, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Template:User sandbox is a possibility. I've added it to the "sandbox" cat now, it should have been in there. Template:NOINDEX may also be useful (I believe it is integrated in the "user sandbox" one, but I'm not certain). Fram (talk) 06:37, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Template:User sandbox was just what I was looking for. Penguin2006 (talk) 21:57, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I created this, can you fill with existing articles and paintings by artist, or have I create a non-standard category? Is it redundant and Netherlandish correct, not sure.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 17:18, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Seems good to me. I have added one, I'll look for some more sometime in the next few days. Thanks! Fram (talk) 20:41, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Greetings Fram. I would like to ask you to reconsider your recent block of Kiefer Wolfowitz. I am not questioning your motives or suggesting anything nefarious. It just seems that one month is longer than necessary to achieve the preventive nature of a block's purpose. Kiefer Wolfowitz is a valuable contributor and it seems to me that his sooner return to productive editing benefits Wikipedia more than a prolonged absence with no appreciable benefit from an increased duration. Thank you for considering this request. My76Strat (talk) 10:40, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your request. However, considering his long block log for similar issues, it seems that short blocks have only had a minimal effect so far. A longer block may have more effect, and will at least minimize further problems during that month. His last full block for PAs and the like was for two weeks (in July 2012), later blocks were undone early because he indicated that he had gotten the point and wouldn't repeat the same behaviour; however, considering that this one comes only two weeks after the last of these blocks, it seems that the problems continue. In the normal pattern of escalating blocks, I chose one month as a follow-up of the two-week block mentioned above. Fram (talk) 10:57, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for that reply. It is clear that your administrative action was an exercise of thoughtful diligence. My76Strat (talk) 11:35, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Dear Fram,

thank you very much for your entry on the Leuchtenberg collection!

I am writing an MA thesis regarding also this collection and I would be very pleased to keep in touch with you.

Best wishes,

Fabio Franz University of Udine, Italy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fabio franz (talk • contribs) 13:12, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello Fabio, thanks for your kind words. Feel free to ask anything you want, I'm happy to help, although I have to admit that most of what I know about the collection is written down in the article. There are many paintings (and sculptures) left for which I was unable to find any further information online, even though I'm quite sure that more info has to be hidden in offline sources (e.g. with the large auction houses). I hope that there aren't too many errors in the article, it is not a scientific study of the collection. I'm e.g. not quite sure that the info I included about the collection of Giovanni Francesco Arese is completely correct, it's how I understood the source but I couldn't seem to find more info on this. Fram (talk) 14:05, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Grimaldi's article is currently on the front page with a portrait, I wonder if that is the Gaucher portrait?♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 18:03, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

He was mainly an engraver, so probably not, but it may well be the painting that he based his engraving on. Fram (talk) 20:58, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

The Gaucher portrait probably looked like this one[5], which is an engraving by Gaucher. It seems logical that he made an engraving after his own design. Fram (talk) 06:56, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Re your lack of reason in block log of KW [6] ... sofixit. Do one of those trivial block changes and include reasons and diffs. Future editors reviewing the block shouldn't have to go trawling through your contributions logs to figure out what the reason was. NE Ent 01:55, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

And diffs? My goodness, are we to be treated with such niceties in our block logs, every time a busybody comes by? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:27, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

NE Ent, the block log is hardly the place to include diffs and so on (except for extremely trivial blocks perhaps). Those have been included in the message on his talk page (a much more logical place to look for this than my contributions history anyway). I prefer not to lengtten a block log when it can be avoided, block logs are already hard enough to read as it is. Fram (talk) 09:37, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Just checked the current block log, and none of the blocks there includes diffs (AFAIK, including a diff in an edit summary doesn't even work anyway). Fram (talk) 06:48, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Eeks, you're lucky to have been able to find that much on it! I swear if it wasn't for terrorism and the Allied military forces most of the villages in Pakistan and Afghanistan would still be in Fallingrain database mode in terms of information. Extremely difficult to find anything other than the news reports on the attacks but I found an old map and have added some materials based on map observations to try to balance it out. Sorry, couldn't find anything more. The rivers are strange, they lead down from the Tochi, but if you look at them on Flashearth they actually look like concrete, perhaps they are wadis which dry up from time to time.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 13:04, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Probably fake rivers created by the insurgents, so actually are made of concrete. Similar to how Argentine forces created fake bomb craters out of piles of soil on Port Stanley Airport. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:18, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, I'm sure there are many smaller scale attacks in smaller villages in Pakistan and Afghanistan which don't even hit the news as so many people have been affected by such incidents in that part of the world. But an attack killing 100 people certainly you'd expect that to already be covered on here. I can DYK nom but it would be DYK that at least 97 were killed in a 2010 terrorist attack, nothing else.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 13:40, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I wondered if you could provide some input into the discussion at the bottom of the page involving a dispute over a fact in this FA article.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 22:19, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm rather wary of taking first hand accounts over published reliable sources. I have had some bad experiences with people making claims which turned out to be incorrect (see Talk:Will.i.am for an example). I would leave the claim that he was in that radio play in the article, unless some more reliable source (in the Wikipedia sense) arrives that disputes or disproves it. Otherwise we are engaging in WP:OR. I know that due to a campaign by our Founder, the "verifiability, not truth" mantra has been discredited (so that he could insert his truth here and there), but it still is the best rule of thumb we have. Fram (talk) 06:39, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Why not hyperlink years? Leandrogfcdutra (talk) 12:00, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

WP:YEARLINK is the manual of style page that explains this. Basically, it is an example of overlinking, adding links that add no or very little value to the article (the chance that anyone reading the article "List of best-selling books" needs an easy link to a specific year article is very small). Fram (talk) 12:05, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Faizan 10:36, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Fram, the article Summer Break Tour is a work in progress. I just created the article yesterday, I will add references. Thank you for your concern. ~~JHUbal27 20:17, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

This editor, whom you blocked for one month, has posted an unblock request. Your input would be appropriate. If you prefer not to return to Kiefer.Wolfowitz's talkpage, you can respond here. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:16, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

The unblock request contains patently untrue assertions about multiple editors. Removal of talk page privileges would be appropriate if Kiefer.Wolfowitz is not willing to desist from making such assertions.

You may wish to ask him if he is willing to desist. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:31, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Now unblocked by User:Dennis Brown, without any of the personal attacks being withdrawn. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:36, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

• I've unblocked Kiefer after being convinced the previous block had served it's purpose of preventing disruption. He has since indicated regret over his "going nuclear" and indicated a desire to move forward. I've asked him to clean up his talk page, which I expect him to do without a problem. I hadn't seen that Brad has opined here before I unblocked, and I assumed that you (Fram) was already watching Kiefer's page, as you had several discussions there and your position was clear. I understand your reluctance to unblock, and know that my decision wasn't because I had any problem with the block or its duration. I felt that it had served its purpose and that continuing it had a higher risk of disruption than unblocking him and allowing him to edit articles, something he was already doing by proxy with help from admin. I will continue to monitor the situation. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 22:06, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I will look at it again when I have more time. Not really happy about this unblock though, his 'going nuclear" wasn't either the first time or a short burst, he was continuing with the same or very similar actions days later still. Anyway, let's hope this block/unblock has served its purpose. Fram (talk) 20:57, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Why did you revert me? I removed all the redlinks because his article was deleted via prod, so I assumed him not to be notable. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 08:01, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with your action, but I restored the article as I do believe him to be notable, and so readded the redlinks (now again bluelinks). I didn't notice the prod earlier because I didn't have his article on my watchlist, but thanks to yoru redlink removals on pages I did have on my watchlist, I became aware of it. Fram (talk) 08:11, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

And people say my actions are destructive to the project. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 08:20, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I haven't checked all of them, but at least these ones were perfectly approapriate, and beneficial to me (and mutatis mutandis the project) :-) Fram (talk) 08:44, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Hampteau is unsourced because the information came from other wikis (most from the French one). Do I need to add that as a source in order to remove that ghastly banner? --WjI-kop (talk) 11:21, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Other wikis are not considered reliable sources, what is needed are things like published books, newspaper articles, ... Fram (talk) 11:24, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

But how should I prove that Hampteau is Hamtea and means Hamlet??? 300 inhabitants can be proven by the census bureau. A more important question is: will the article be removed if I don't provide sources? --WjI-kop (talk) 11:36, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

No, as long as people believe that it exists, it will remain. The sources tag indicates a serious problem with the article, but not a "deadly" one. Can you use this one? Fram (talk) 11:41, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

A million thanks, that is very useful! --WjI-kop (talk) 11:51, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello Fram, thank-you for working to keep the Michael Farr article, good for you, please act quickly to prevent it from being deleted. Thank-you also for attaching it to all the Tintin articles. BTW, in Template:cite we use "authorlink=Michael Farr" to create the link and not the double brackets. What a pleasure it is to be chatting with a fan of Belgium comics and a native of that country; I could use your help on The Adventures of Tintin article as I could like it to see it submitted once again for FA. The Legacy section needs work if you'd like to help. I tried adding the photo of Hergé to this section but was shot down; see the recent history of the article for the reason and feel free to help think of a way to put that photo in there. We need each "citation needed" tag researched and a source located; you may be the one we need to do that; I myself own a few Tintin reference works and will also have a go. I am currently finishing work on all of that article's citations. Talk to you again soon I hope. —Prhartcom (talk) 11:54, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I'll take a look later, I have helped get Hergé to GA so I know my way around these a bit (I also created Le Petit Vingtième!). Fram (talk) 12:10, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I like to imagine that, during the recent Tintin movie when we see a close of Le Petit Vingtième, that the movie director got the idea to include the newspaper by reading Wikipedia. —Prhartcom (talk) 00:17, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

That would be nice, but he may have gotten it from any of the books on Tintin (like those by Michael Farr) of course, or from the people from Fondation Hergé / Moulinsart who worked on the movie. Fram (talk) 06:09, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Greetings, Fram. I would be honored if you took a look at the To Do list over at Talk:The Adventures of Tintin. —Prhartcom (talk) 17:03, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

You deleted Keaweʻīkekahialiʻiokamoku, could you move Keaweikekahialiʻiokamoku to Keaweʻīkekahialiʻiokamoku? Thanks.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 00:03, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

You should be able to do it yourself, there normally shouldn't be anything that prevents you from performing this move now the destination has been deleted. Fram (talk) 06:08, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

No I can't. This pops up when I try. "You do not have permission to move this page, for the following reason: "Keaweikekahialiʻiokamoku" cannot be moved to "Keaweʻīkekahialiʻiokamoku", because the title "Keaweʻīkekahialiʻiokamoku" is on the title blacklist. If you feel that this move is valid, please consider requesting the move first." I have been able to move articles with the ʻokina without requesting before but now that is impossible. There is no reason for them to be on any blacklist and I've discussed this before on a discussion board and other adminstrators were equally confused. See MediaWiki talk:Titleblacklist/Archive 3#Okina.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 06:05, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Strange. It's perhaps the proliferation of vowels and diacritics in those titles? They don't look like "correct" English, and some filter may therefor interpret them as vandalism (or at least as having a too high risk of being vandalism). Anyway, I have now done the move. I know nothing of Hawaiian, so if there is objection against the move, I will undo it and then a WP:RM discussion is needed. If you come across other similar problematic page moves, just let me know, and I'll do them with less questions and delay. Fram (talk) 06:54, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Morning Fram.

After Dennis Brown undid your block of KW, Dennis rather wisely suggested that KW and I should avoid each other more (or, "cross paths less frequently"). I've done reasonably well in trying to follow that. KW reacted to it (less than four hours later) by copying this piece of invective about me (written by a banned editor I believe), over to here, with minor changes. I replied, but mildly.

KW has now followed this up by jumping into a discussion where the only mention of him was in a neutral factual statement where he was listed as one of eight editors who may have had a COI in an article they edited. Into that discussion, he injected four different attacks on my behaviour, including serious and untrue accusations backed by no evidence. [7] [8] [9] [10] I should note that I did not respond in any way to any of these successive attacks. There was also his reference to "if administrators reading his personal attacks were not two-faced cowards", but the specific administrators aren't identified so presumably that is not actionable.

He then proceeded to edit war [11] [12] in order to refactor my comment to the top of a nomination page, where I had quite clearly not placed it. My edit that he reverts with his second edit was entirely valid - no-one had replied to my comment so I am permitted to remove it under talk page guidelines. Either way, misleading readers into thinking that I would write such a thing at the top of a nomination is beyond the pale.

There are a couple of pieces in the above that can't be discussed on-wiki, so I am about to email you with those extra details.

I have also resisted, thus far, replying to the various slurs linked in diffs above, and I have also resisted taking any further action over the edit-warring misrepresentation of my comment.

In summary, I think KW may have a little difficulty in following the advice that Dennis gave him. Perhaps you could have a word? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:42, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

As my edit summary wrote, you are welcome to place your notice where you originally placed it if it has been moved. You should not remove it, as you did twice. In edit warring, you suggested that I read the guidelines on refactoring contents---strangely, because as I quoted you should not refactor comments if anybody objects.

I welcome Fram's action on NPAs and Incivility from his buddy Prioryman. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:16, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

My "buddy" Prioryman? That's news to me. Kiefer, there's no benefit in needlessly interacting with Demiurge1000, e.g. by putting his posts back where he doesn't want them (it's not as if there were replies to his note), or by trying to get him indef blocked[13]. While at first glance staying away from blatant personal attacks, your continued serious incivility isn't helping things either. And perhaps you can stop copying your contributions to your edit summaries, that way when you correct nonsense like the "buddy" remark, it won't remain in the edit summary to mislead uninvolved editors[14].

Demiurge, try to stay away from Kiefer Wolfowitz as well. Involving yourself with the Wikipediocracy DYK wasn't the smartest move. Fram (talk) 06:56, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Ghorpaapi (talk) 11:42, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Just saying. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:22, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

That's the disadvantage of AGF, it can be misplaced. Fram (talk) 06:49, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I want to thank you for adding the sources necessary on the [[Ted Quinn] bio i started yesterday. He's a friend of mine and i felt it was sad to see so many red-links to his name (as Teddy Quinn in Wikipedia, as well as a strange series of 1960s-era urban-legend posts at IMDb regarding his supposed death, which could easily be disproved with a Wikipedia entry. He's a humble guy and would never ask anyone for a page, so i just plunged into making it, but had to log out for the night and go to sleep. You are a kind and helpful editor (a rarity at Wikipedia, in my experience) and i greatly appreciate all you did. Thanks! Catherineyronwode (talk) 16:22, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome, and thanks for the kind words. Fram (talk) 07:31, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Andrey Kasparov, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Eugene Goossens (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) 14:48, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Lilian Faithfull at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; see step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 17:02, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Category:1936 establishments in Namibia, 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. Tim! (talk) 18:05, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments at Template:Did you know nominations/Fortifications of Gibraltar; I've resolved the issue you raised. Are you planning to do a full review of this nomination? Prioryman (talk) 12:38, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

If there are no other reviewers stepping up, I'll have a look. Fram (talk) 14:38, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

There don't seem to be any so far - I think they may be waiting on you to complete your bit, if you could? Prioryman (talk) 21:36, 29 May 2013 (UTC)