User talk:Fram/Archive 22

Archive 15

←

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Dating warning tags

On this: you're very welcome to date the tags I leave; but it seems rather an odd way to use your energy, as SmackBot will do the same thing. I don't date the tags myself as doing so each time takes a very small amount of time and energy, an amount that adds up; and I know that SmackBot will anyway do the job. But, well, feel free to continue! -- Hoary (talk) 14:17, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. Reasons I do this is because SmackBot has been blocked a lot recently, with Richard Farmbrough complaining about the backlog in dating tgas that this generates; because I also want to know whether this really is such a complicated task that replacing all template redirects with their destinations really makes this lots easier (so far, it isn't, but SXmackbot does more than my AWB xml does of course); and finally, because Smackbot (understandably) misses a number of harder-to-code datings, which have to be done manually. Through AWB, it is relatively easy to spot these, and then manually correct them.

If I would notice that the backlog is gone (it is severely reduced already), or that my AWB runs don't accomplish anything, I'll obviously stop them. Fram (talk) 07:54, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

That's OK then. If the editor were named, say, "FramBot", I wouldn't have said a thing; I just felt sorry that a human was doing this when a bot could. ¶ Perhaps I should really be dating my own tags myself. -- Hoary (talk) 08:53, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Dating your own tags does make the life of bots and humans easier :-) Fram (talk) 08:58, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Er . . . all right then. -- Hoary (talk) 09:07, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

No it doesn't actually. Humans make so many mistakes dating tags. When I am doing the manual clean up at the end of a run I see my fingers making the same typos as the human editors I've been cussing. the same applies to cleaver stuff like "{Subst:DATE}". It's great most of the time but enough people misunderstand the instructions that I have to deal with {Subst:July 2010} and similar. for SB to do a few hundred more tag datings a day takes almost no effort, to correct 3 or 4 weird typos takes some. Having said that SB does actually get almost all of them these days. Rich Farmbrough, 05:36, 9 December 2010 (UTC).

AWB & templates starting with acronyms in upper case

As an editor involved in prior discussions over AWB, templates and first letter casing please consider commenting on this discussion thread. Thanks Rjwilmsi 20:13, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Moved pages DEFAULTSORT bot

Please take a look at my draft of Moved pages DEFAULTSORT bot. Thanks Rjwilmsi 11:55, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I have read it, and this seems to be exactly what I had in mind. Changes all those that need changing, and leaves alone those that a bot can't address. Thanks! Fram (talk) 12:22, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

fyi

You deleted Joseph Djugvali as an "R3: Recently created, implausible redirect".

It redirected to Joseph Stalin.

Were you aware Stalin (Steel) was a nom de guerre? Were you aware that his birth name was Joseph Djugvili -- or at least Djugvili is one transliteration of his original name -- and thus, I suggest, a plausible redirect. Geo Swan (talk) 23:37, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Are you aware that the only references that exist for Joseph Djugvali are the few you created on a Commons discussion[1], and that this version of his name is not used anywhere else[2], ever? Creating redirects for things, even misspellings, you made up one day, is not a good idea at all. Fram (talk) 07:58, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I request you refrain from exercising your administrator powers over concerns over my contributions

I thought you reassured me, a couple of weeks ago, that you were not doubting my good faith.

I think your comments, and your recent deletion of User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/Abdul Zahir charges, give the appearance that your emotions are engaged. I am pretty sure the administrator's handbook recommends that administrators who find their emotions engaged should step back, and not exercise administrator authority in those instances.

IIRC one choice the administrator's handbook recommended was that the concerned administrator could take off their administrator's hat, and use all the same regular channels for expressing their concern as any regular wikipedian. Another choice, if they felt the situation required urgent attention, would be to direct the attention of another, uninvolved administrator to their concern.

I don't think your concerns over User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/Abdul Zahir charges were an emergency. I think it was a mistake for you to delete the subpage yourself. I am disappointed that you did not offer a response to my defense of the subpage. Geo Swan (talk) 12:35, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I stated on your talk page: "it looked like this, and could easily have been deleted as a G10 negative unsourced BLP article. It did not contain a single source, and was clearly negative and one-sided in tone." How was that not "a response to your defense"? The fact that you changed a very problematic page to a completely different one, and then start complaining about "I would welcome clarification as to why anyone would regard this subpage as problematic.", and (on the page) "It has been suggested that this page of notes does not comply with WP:User pages. I don't understand how it lapses from WP:User pages, and will ask the individual making this suggestion for a fuller explanation." were more than sufficient to make it clear that the good faith I extended a few weeks ago was totally misplaced. I am not emotionally engaged though, I am doing what every admin should do with such pages, but which I held off for a few weeks to give you the chance of doing this yourself. While you started doing this, your progress slowed down, and more problematic, your reasons for keeping pages are still severely at odds with community standards, as evidenced by the Abdul Zahir page. I am not engaged in any content disputes with you, I am engaged in cleaning up your userspace. You asked for a chance to do it yourself, and blew that, while at the same time making comments about "an individual" on a page that was not the page the questions were raised about, but a totally new one with the same title. It is obvious that you try to personalize this, and then paint me as "involved", to get me of your back. That won't work though. I'll continue speedy deleting G10 pages in your userspace, and MfD'ing all other problematic ones. Fram (talk) 12:54, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I believe I merit the assumption of good faith.

I think it would be best if any exercise of administrator powers were carried out by an administrator who is willing and able to extend to me the assumption of good faith. Geo Swan (talk) 16:01, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Obviously you would think so. I don't. Fram (talk) 08:02, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

In this reply to your note about your most recent deletions I:

1. requested you email me the source of the deleted pages;
2. reminded you of how Feist v. Rural affects whether lists of facts are copyrightable;
3. reminded you that {{xfd}} are time consuming to respond to, and requested you let the ones you have already initiated run their course, before initiating any further {{xfd}};
4. repeated my request that you recuse yourself, because you don't feel you can extend the assumption of good faith to me, and confine yourself to the channels ordinary contributors.

Collegially yours, Geo Swan (talk) 15:43, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

No. 15:45, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Just to be clear, you are declining all of my requests, including emailing me the source of the pages you deleted? Geo Swan (talk) 15:51, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Fram (talk) 15:52, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

My Two Cents

I don't think its unreasonable for Geo Swan to have these pages in his User space - and I definitely don't think it's unreasonable to have the contents of the deleted articles emailed to him.

He clearly marks all of his subpages as USER SPACE and NOT ARTICLES - and each of them is NOINDEXed. The whole point of creating articles in userspace is so that you can take the time to find sources, etc. If you feel they are one-sided and incomplete - that is why they are in userspace. Poor or pointed writing are no reason to delete - ESPECIALLY from user pages. If he moved them to article space that way, I would agree with speedy deletes for copyright and/or unsourced BLPs, and tagging for POV - but they aren't. They are works in progress and should have been treated as such, in my opinion.

Granted, if it were me, I'd keep my subpages a bit cleaner, but that's more for him to decide how he wishes to edit. And if you went and asked him to prune the pages because you felt excessive space was being used or abandoned articles were an issue, I am sure he could have culled some of the articles he decided to abandon. I don't think it was particularly fair to delete pages outright, do a mass MFD of his userpages, or refuse to email the contents of the pages to him after the fact. I want to assume good faith here, but your actions and your comments to GeoSwan above seem a bit spiteful. -Addionne (talk) 19:31, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Fram, Geo asked me for an opinion. My opinion is that you are too involved with his work here to take admin action concerning either him or material he works on, and this is proven by the curtness of your final two responses above. I however freely say that he has asked me for assistance enough that I myself am too involved to take or revert any admin action over his articles or in connection with anyone challenging them. (except for deleting what he tags as user request G7s). Refusing to email a page to a good faith user, in particular, is imo almost never justified. I have refused it only once or twice, to obvious trolls. (And I have requested Geo to ask someone other than me to email deleted material to him.) My principle, and I think the only fair principle, is that if anyone in good faith challenges a personal involvement, the admin is bound to refrain, however justified they think their actions. DGG ( talk ) 23:45, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I guess I'll say something, then, since I don't have a horse in this race either way, and I don't even know what the history is between you and Geo (though given the way it's going, I'd say it's a fair bet such a history exists). For the pages you speedied, I'd much encourage you to instead let them go through MfD—it looks like several of them are looking toward keeping, and I don't think a request for a hearing is an unfair one. Others are indeed leaning toward deleting right now. There's time to let discussions run their course. Same for the "copyvio"—the majority of that, at least, is just a simple list of facts and as such is uncopyrightable. It's possible some of the footnotes have enough "creativity" to sustain copyright (though really, even that's questionable, "X is from Y" is a pretty factual, noncreative statement), but that's awfully slim, and those certainly wouldn't render the whole thing a blatant G12 copyvio. If you really think it needs to be checked out, I'd say handling it through the normal {{copyvio}} template, for uncertain cases, would be the way to go—this has valid grounds to contest that it's a copyvio, as there are valid grounds to contest that the material is copyrighted at all. You might also ask for Moonriddengirl's input, she has a tremendous amount of experience assessing material of questionable copyright status.

Really, just slow down. None of this stuff is an emergency. If MfD discussions and copyvio checks need to run their course, let them. If someone else who's not quite as invested in this needs to be enlisted to sort it out, there's time for that too. These are just userspace drafts, and they're noindexed, clearly marked as non-article userspace drafts. These are not pages being viewed by a hundred thousand random people a day (especially since the noindex would mean they don't even show up in search engines), and very likely, most of them have never been looked at but by those involved in the discussions over them. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:11, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

If he has a problem with my deletions, he should go to DRV, as I said, not go to admins who are known to be friendly to his position, like DGG. The curtness of my replies does not prove any involvedness, just a lack of reason to give yet another lengthy reply (note e.g. that he asked the same question 1 on his own talk page, and I did give a lengthy reply there. People who believe that e.g. User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/Bagram captives/Mohibullah should have been MfD'ed instead of G10 speedied aren't worthy of being an admin, basically, as they can't even upheld our most basic policies. Note that that page was from February 2008, so not really a work in progress. The same goes for User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/Abdul Zahir charges, from November 2008. I don't restore BLP violations or copyright violations to users. Anyone requesting that I do so, or that I take pages in either of those categories to MfD instead of speedy, again isn't worth being an admin. If people have such bad judgment in those matters, I don't really trust their judgment wrt my supposed involvement either. Seraphimblade, have you looked at the page I deleted for copyvio? It was 100% identical, and the text quoted was not a footnote, but part of the body of the list anyway. Addione, your argument that "It is also clearly marked as NOT AN ARTICLE, which I think exempts it from being a WP:FAKEARTICLE... " from an MfD, is a perfect excuse for wikilawyering, and would make FAKEARTICLE utterly toothless. And the argument that they are "works in progress" is clearly incorrect as well, these are all pages that have not been edited in one to three years, basically since their creation. His userspace is filled with dozens and dozens of abandoned articles, often about BLPs, often userfied after an AfD. Please, all of you, check his contribution history, the history of these pages, his deleted contributions, and some of our policies, before coming here and attacking the messenger.

Telling is a comment like "I don't even know what the history is between you and Geo (though given the way it's going, I'd say it's a fair bet such a history exists)". Please, show me where the history of this is. I don't know it, and I don't fit any definition of involved here. Geo Swan doesn't like that someone is cleaning up his mess, and claims that I am involved because I am goiing through his pages and nominating many of them for deletion. That is not "being involved", or no one could ever take a more large scale action towards an other editor ever again. I have no content dispute with Geo Swan, he has not hindered me or done anything for which I would want revenge: I have just regularly come across dubious articles by him, and then became aware that he has an extensive and problematic userspace. I have given him the chance to clean it up himself, after he requested this, but he failed to live up to this offer, and instead attacked me with feigned innocence. I then restarted going through his userspace and nominating pages for deletion, with a speedy of the few most extreme ones. That is all there is to it. ~~

As for the current MfD's: Heading for deletion:

• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/Category talk -- Tunisian extrajudicial prisoners of the United States
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/Captured lists of al-Qaeda suspects
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/Captured on the battlefield
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/Betsy Haws
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/articles that aren't ready yet/Guantanamo documents/Terrorist-Related Locations and Facilities
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/al Janki prison riot
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/abusive presiding officer
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/additional notes/Sharbat (Guantanamo detainee 1051)

No consensus:

• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/ARB lists
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/Brook DeWalt
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Geo Swan/An experiment -- are 90 percent of new articles junk?

Not a bad track record, I believe... If you add to that that two of the three "keeps" for that last MfD are based on an incorrect assumption, then there isn't much reason anymore to believe that my deletions are so incorrect. Fram (talk) 15:01, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Please, then, allow me again to apologize for my lack of worth. I'm sure disagreeing with you further will make me even more unworthy, so I suppose maybe I should even apologize twice! That being done, I took a careful look at User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/Bagram captives/Mohibullah, and I just don't see it. It's pretty dry stuff that I find confirmation of through Findlaw in one google. Where's the "attack" or "unsourced contentious BLP material" there? I just don't see it. Now, I even have some sympathy for your position that userspace drafts aren't to hang around forever, especially when it appears there's not enough that they'd ever be ready for prime time, though I also don't have a tremendous problem with people keeping notes in their userspace if they find them useful (as someone at one of the MfDs said, talk page archives are "duplicative" of the page history, but if you want to find an old conversation, they're a much more useful format and are very widely used). I'm not saying not to MfD them if you disagree they should stick around, I'm saying to MfD them if you don't think they should be kept. I just don't see anything of speedy caliber. Same thing with the "copyvio"—the vast majority of that piece is just a list of facts, and so even if copied without alteration is uncopyrightable—bare fact lists are public domain, according to Feist v. Rural. (Sometimes very ornate formatting or the like can be copyrightable, but removal or alteration of the formatting still renders the underlying facts right back to PD. Similarly, if a fact list contains some copyrightable prose/commentary, removal of the prose would render the bare list PD.) It definitely wasn't a G12 case, where the whole thing is unquestionably a copyvio. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:32, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I can't help it if you don't see how saying that someone is a captive and being held in extrajuducial detention is not perhaps just a tad lening towards slightly contentious... That you can find confirmation of it through Google is irrelevant for a G10 speedy, it was at the time of deletion, and for the years before, an unsourced negative BLP. That you don't see this is indeed worrying.

The talk page archive is at MfD, not speedied, and sincxe you all want me to MfD things, I don't see the problem there. And if every version of an article is a partial copyvio, it still gets speedy deleted as such, since there are no copyright-violating free versions in it. Again, that's basic policy, and the fact that even a large part of the contents of the list was not copyrightable (note that the page also copied the exact same structure, sections, section headings, order, ...) is not relevant. Again, you should really get to understand these policies better if you want to criticize anyone for applying them. "Only if the history is unsalvageably corrupted should it be deleted in its entirety; earlier versions without infringement should be retained." No such earlier versions exist. No work is being lost either, the deletion summary contains the url of the source, where everything that was on the page can be found". Fram (talk) 16:43, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

How to deal with promotion-only accounts?

Hi, Fram. Have a question for you. Where do you you report WP:CITESPAM, WP:AGENDA and WP:MEATPUPPETRY usernames, who also WP:BOMBARDs to WP:MASK articles with no hits, now just looking to make propaganda via WP:ARTSPAM? Or you just point to the username(s) in question? There's a case here with User:Richie Campbell and edits he's been making since he's a member here, and several of his buddies who are here basically to WP:ADVERT their national competition on Wikipedia. This has been going on for a a while, at least checking his username history and with other usernames whose only purpose is advertisement. If you have the name of someone with past experience with this type of promotion-only accounts and how to deal with them, please let me know as well. I'm really concerned and feel administration intervention is necessary. I may post this exact message on WP:COIN and hope to stop this nonsense. Check him out: just looking at his first 100 edits you'll see the way he behaves, and his first 500 edits show a history of this kind of behavior since at least February. --John KB (talk) 00:55, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:COIN may be your best bet, it has normally a number of editors with experience in COI related edits and such patterns of edits. Fram (talk) 08:01, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Re: Emily Schooley

Forgive me, but I somehow stumbled onto the whole Emily Schooley fiasco when it was put up for AFD. I am not very familiar with the more technical side of things, such as Check User and what not, but am I understanding correctly that your investigation resulted in a finding that, in all likelihood, user:Bytemeh and user:EmilySchooley are the same person...or at least using the same CPU? The Eskimo (talk) 15:32, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it looks like Bytemeh, EmilySchooley, and a few others were the same person, or a very closely related group of editors. I'm waiting for another CU to confirm this, but it certainly looks like it, and if confirmed these users will be blocked. This may mean, if necessary, that the AfD's they were involved in will need rechecking to see whether they influenced the outcome. Fram (talk) 15:51, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Misssinformative

Hey - thanks for bringing these socks up for investigation again. I was shocked when the previous investigation found they were unrelated - because it seemed like it wouldn't take much effort to show that they were. It looks like this time the check came back with a different result...  :) -Addionne (talk) 17:00, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Helderberg Escarpment

I would ask you to review your deletion of this page - especially looking at the extensive edit history. I certainly do not consider it eligible the Speedy deletion process. At most the infringing edits should have been removed back to the last non-infringing version. But surely this should have gone through the longer copyvio procedure, not speedy. Rmhermen (talk) 17:46, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

This page was tagged for a week as a problematic copyvio. As the tag it sported says, such pages may be deleted after that week, which I did. Considering that Camelbinky, who inserted the plagiarism, is the one that created the page and wrote almost all the contents before anyone else got involved, there is no older version to revert to. Feel free to write a new page about the subject though. Fram (talk) 15:04, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Deletion review for User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/Abdul Zahir charges

An editor has asked for a deletion review of User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/Abdul Zahir charges. 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. Geo Swan (talk) 19:40, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

/* I request you refrain from exercising your administrator powers over concerns over my contributions */

WRT [3] I repeat my request that you recuse yourself from exercising administrator authority over material I have contributed.

I repeat that I believe I have an essentially unblemished record as a good faith contributor, and that I deserve the assumption of good faith. I believe it is a mistake for you to continue to exercise administrator authority over material I have contributed, when you have gone on record, and asserted that you will not extend to me the assumption of good faith. Geo Swan (talk) 19:42, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Deleting material is not an indication of good or bad faith towards another contributor. Like I said in one of the DRV's, it's not about the editor, it's about the content. Apart from that, what is the purpose of asking the same question again and again and again? What makes you think that you wouldn't get the same answer again and again and again? 20:11, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

My Two Cents

• For Geo: WP:Kettle -- IQinn (talk) 20:54, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Belgium FAR listing

I have nominated Belgium for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:30, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

DNBfirst

Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dictionary of National Biography#Too much of a good thing -- PBS (talk) 20:41, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

fyi

After waiting a couple of days for User:Lifebaka to respond to my questions about their recent DRV I started a thread at WPANI. Although I didn't specifically mention your name I am nevertheless informing you that I initiated a section at WP:ANI.

Please note that I did recognize that you think I have challenged your good faith. Let me go on record, I recognize that you seem to honestly believe all your recent use of administrator authority has been compliant with your obligations. So, although I am extremely distressed by how you have been using your authority, although I believe your use of administrator authority after having gone on record as being unwilling to extend to me the assumption of good faith does not comply with the instructions for administrators, I am not challenging your sincerity.

Please note that I tried to be careful, and go over that note to make sure I was sticking to the specific topic of that DRV, and not try to drag in all your other deletions, your unwillingness to assume good faith, and various other highly disturbing elements of your recent behavior. I'd appreciate it, if you choose to weigh in in that discussion, if you also stuck strictly to the topic of the copyright status of the page in question. Geo Swan (talk) 19:17, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I responded on their talk page to a comment User:Snottywong left in the WPANI thread I initiated.

I am going to repeat, for the record, that I acknowledge that you have stated I challenged your good faith. For the record, I accept, at face value, that you honestly believe all your actions and comments were consistent with your obligations. For the record it was not my intent to challenge your sincerity.

Responding to what feels like an attack, without responding in kind, is extremely difficult. I am not authorized to respond in kind if I think you challenged my good faith, and you are not authorized to respond in kind if you think I challenged your good faith. I drafted an opinion piece User:Geo Swan/the lessons of "tit for tat"?, which was my attempt to respond, in general, to your comments on my motives, my character, my judgment, without making a personal reply. I encourage you to try to read it, with an open mind.

One of your comments from about a week ago was that you thought I was trying to find fault with others, to avoid taking responsibility for my own mistakes. I expect myself to acknowledge when my correspondents make a good point. I expect myself to read the challenges, concens and questions from my correspondents with an open mind as to whether I might be mistaken. I expect myself to own up when I realize I made a mistake, or when one is drawn to my attention. I expect myself to do my best to fix my errors. And I believe my contribution history shows, I have, in general, done a pretty good job at this.

I have another essay I wrote: User:Geo Swan/On apologies. If you think I owe you an apology, please read the essay. If someone suggests you apologize to me, please read the essay. No offense, but I think it would be worth your while to try to read this essay, without regard to whether you think either one of us owes the other an apology. Geo Swan (talk) 17:58, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

You have the time to respond at length at SnottyWongs talk page, and here, but you don't have the time to reply to my post at your ANI discussion? You had again misrepresented my position badly, while it of course is a rather essential point in a discussion about my deletions and actions. I am not going to read your essays, thank you, I have better things to do than continue to discuss things with you when you can't be bothered to reply or to all appearances read my posts anyway. Fram (talk) 08:42, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I did not respond at WPANI because that thread had already been archived.

How many other administrators have to tell you that you appear to be acting like a bully before you will consider the possibility that you really do appear to be acting like a bully?

I accept, at face value, your assurance that you can not see how your behavior appears to be the actions of a bully. But since I am the target of your actions, and I do, in fact feel you are bullying me, and I am finding the experience very distressing, I think you should consider the possibility you are making a mistake by ignoring the advice of your fellow administrators.

I informed you of my comment on User talk:Snottywong because policy recommends informing other contributors when you have brought up their name.

I strongly dispute I misrepresented your position. On the contrary, I found your comment, like other comments you have made, seemed disturbingly inaccurate.

With regard to the diffs you offered on the WPANI thread, briefly, I think you are ignoring several key points:

1. The implications of Fieth v. Rural. I asked you if you are familiar with it implications. It seems to me you aren't. The "sweat of the brow" is honored in the copyright laws of other nations, but it is not honored in US law.
2. I already said I thought the passages you claim entitled the Brookings authors to claim intellectual property rights were too short to unquestionably qualify for de minimus. I didn't think they did. I accept at face value you think they do. If I were to accept the worst case, that those passages pass de minimus then a version with those passage excised is uncopyrightable. I think you ignored this point.
3. Another administrator has already suggested that, even if, for the sake of argument, the passages you claim entitled the Brookings authors to claim intellectual property rights did entitle them to claim IP rights, they were so short, and were such a tiny fraction of the whole document, that they qualified for inclusion under "fair use". I think you ignored this point as well.

Candidly Geo Swan (talk) 03:28, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Yet again, you obviously either haven't read or haven't understood my point. It may be incorrect (although the support for your claims that it is incorrect is far from overwhelming), but it is not what you continue to claim it to be. "the passages you claim entitled the Brookings authors to claim intellectual property rights did entitle them to claim IP rights, they were so short, and were such a tiny fraction of the whole document, that they qualified for inclusion under "fair use". " The passages I claimed gave them intellectual property rights are the whole of the document, which is an ordered list based on their conclusions, not simply a reporting of facts. If they were undeniable, uncopyrightable facts, they wouldn't have "tentative conclusions" and so on. You continue about the one example i gave of the clearest (but not the sole by far) copyright violation, and ignore now for more than a week all other arguments I have made and all explanations I have given of my position on this. I am not interested in continuing to discuss this in this manner. Fram (talk) 09:10, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I accept, at face value that you honestly believe an ordered list of facts is copyrightable, merely because it has been ordered. I considered this possibility in my very first messages on this issue. Which is why I asked you to review Feith v. Rural.

This is, as near as I can recall, the first time you have explicitly claimed the whole list was copyrightable, because it had been ordered.

Ordered lists can be copyrightable, IF the list's order is unique, has a spark of creativity. IIRC the wording of Feith v. Rural explicitly states lists with mundane obvious ordering, like numeric, alphabetic, or chronological ordering are not copyrightable. While these tables has an order, it is merely the kind of mundane, obvious ordering that does not merit copyright protection.

Further, as I am sure you noticed. I created the list in a table, with the sortable property. So, my table was in an order chooseable by the reader.

I have requested you, many times before, to please make a greater effort to communicate in a manner that complies more fully with our project's civility policies, guidelines and established convention. I repeat that request. The angry, suspicious, hostile tone of many of your replies represent a terrible temptation to respond in kind. As I am sure you are aware, none of us are authorized to respond in kind.

Candidly, Geo Swan (talk) 17:37, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I prefer honest, frank but civil communication over fake civility, personally, but to each his own. Apart from that, you are exteremely well versed in cherrypicking from responses whatever pleases you, and ignoring the rest. If all you have remembered or read in my post is "ordered", then you are a master of selective reading. The "order" is not solely or primarily about the number of each detainee, but the ordering in three separate sections, based on the level of certainty they feel they can give to their conclusions. You have, completely by chance probably, divided the detainees in exactly the same three "groups", with exactly the same descriptions, section headers, ... Not a copying of their conclusions, but a case of great minds thinking alike, of course. That inside these sections, you added the "sortable" to the tables, is really an extremely minimal change, which is irrelevant to the basic pure copyright violation.

Do you really expect that someone who has to explain five times why something is a copyright violation, only to be somehow misunderstood or totally ignored time after time, to listen to your endless preachings about civility, bullying, ANI reports, RfCs, and so on? For the last time: I am not interested in you, neither in a positive or negative way. When I notice a problem or a task, I work on it systematically. This time, I have noticed, as have other users independently, that your userspace and your article contrributions, inbetween the many valuable additions, has a more-than-average number of problematic pages, ranging from the fixable to the speedy deletable. You are welcome to discuss these pages at their deletion discussion or at DRV. Continued discussion of the same page after it has had a DRV and an ANI discussion is pointless, and I would urge you to move on to other topics. Fram (talk) 19:21, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

A word of advice

You should take a step back from Geo Swan and refrain from pursuing any matter regarding him further. From an uninvolved point of view, it does look like a bad case of bullying — regardless of your original intent. — Coren ^(talk) 15:04, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

No. I think your point of view in this case is not only uninvolved, but also uninformed. Geo Swan has a massive userspace (the largest I have seen), with many useful pages but many problematic ones, clearly violating WP:USERSPACE, and sometimes other policies. The vast majority of my deletion nominations have been supported and resulted in actual deletion. The speedy deletions have mostly been unchallenged, and the two challenged ones were not clearly incorrect by far (one is ongoing, the other DRV was closed with the page remaining deleted). Geo Swan doesn't like the scrutiny, and is trying to stop me, so that he can continue doing whatever he likes, even in those cases where policy is clearly against him. If you or other admins take over the pruning of his userspace, I have no problem to remove myself from the picture. But I will not let policy violations remain in place only because the editor complains about being scrutinized. Have you seen his list of deleted contributions? I doubt that we have many other editors who have that many of their contributions deleted, and where there is still so much deletable material left in both userspace and mainspace. Fram (talk) 08:33, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I believe I have an obligation to inform you when I have discussed you. I did so at User_talk:Coren#Your_advice_please. Geo Swan (talk) 20:27, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

FYI

Fram's sock (talk · contribs) is impersonating you, all edits are vandalism.Thanks, Acather96 (talk) 17:35, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Just a quick follow up, I've reverted all his edits, and he is on a final warning for vandalism. I've also filed a UAA report, and have removed the text on his userpage that made the false claim. Thanks, Acather96 (talk) 17:44, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

And he's now indef blocked (vandal only account, username violates policy) :) Acather96 (talk) 17:45, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I've blocked this account - I'm assuming it's not you. If it is you, please let me know so I can temporarily block you as well. :) TNXMan 17:46, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Damn, how did you konw it was me? Joking aside, and for the record, this was of coursenot me, my only other account is User:EngFram. Thanks to everyone who ated upon this. Fram (talk) 07:43, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

RE: Archimedes, Inc.

FYI - As someone who has worked on the page, it might interest you know that Archimedes, Inc. has been nominated for deletion. At: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Archimedes,_Inc. Danieldis47 (talk) 20:54, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I understand that, as you have a financial relationship with the subject,you are concerned that your client's article could get deleted, but indiscriminate canvassing is discouraged. It is perfectly acceptable to notify contributors who have added substantial content, but notifying every user who has only done so much as fixing a typo (in this case, for a cleanup template), is borderline inappropriate.--res Laozi speak 02:17, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

My good friend, am I being being stalked? What proof do you have of any so-called "financial relationships"? Why are you so averse to other editors knowing of your own good work? If something is "borderline," but only that, then why do you feel the need to sound an alarm? Thanks! Danieldis47 (talk) 02:53, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

My good friend, am I being being stalked? What proof do you have of any so-called "financial relationships"? Why are you so averse to other editors knowing of your own good work? If something is "borderline," but only that, then why do you feel the need to sound an alarm? Thanks! Danieldis47 (talk) 02:53, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Please don't confuse noticing a clear guideline violation with "stalking", which is a serious charge; as an editor involved with the discussion, I have a right to reply. Campaigning for !votes is against established consensus, and is considered a form of talk page spamming. Notifications should be given to users who have made substantial contributions to articles, not every editor in the editing history, especially if said controbution was just a typo correction. As admin User:Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry first brought up on AfD and then WP:SI, you've admitted to being paid to write articles on your Twitter account. This is an explicit violation of the neutrality policy.--res Laozi speak 03:10, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. As you can see, my messages are entirely non-partisan and neutral, and they total only four in number. I do not know these editors and I have no idea what their opinions on anything are. They are simply the editors who made some edit(s) to the Archimedes, Inc. page. In addition, I should note there are no mentions of any payments of any sort for anything on my Twitter account. Cheers! Danieldis47 (talk) 03:30, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

It is appropriate to notify users who have made substantial edits, like the anon IP. Notifying everyone in the edit history, even if their edit is as minor as a typo correction, is disruptive. I understand your frustration that your client's article is being nominated for deletion, but please refrain from breaking behaviour guidelines.

You posted a message specifically linking to the article (that you've now removed), but another post remains: Just put the finishing touches on a trio of Wikipedia pages for a client in Texas" (which will likely soon disappear as well). But as Chase me Ladies pointed out, and as you've admitted on the AfD and your own talk page, there is overwhelming evidence that you have been paid to edit by a client, please do not obfuscate the point. Also, let's keep and continue the discussion on your talk page, and not bother other users. Don't let this be a race to have the last word. --res Laozi speak 03:55, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

To clarify, I have made no admissions about payment for anything in the locations you list. Go and see. (And I have not removed any links from anywhere - I would not even know how to do that in Twitter, if it's even possible...) Now, let's keep and continue the discussion elsewhere, and not bother other users. Don't let this be a race to have the last word. Danieldis47 (talk) 03:58, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Your admissions on Wikipedia are still there, but yes, let us end it. :)--res Laozi speak 04:01, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Apology

I sincerely apologise that this dispute on a user's financial COI has spilled on to your talk page. It shouldn't have escalated the way it did, but the issue has been resolved. This is my first time encountering a paid editor, and I apologise for any incovenience that the dispute may have caused.--res Laozi speak 05:47, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Cunard#Myriads of MFDs ...

Because you've been involved in cleaning up Geo Swan's userspace, you may be interested in a discussion about a possible RfC/U at User talk:Cunard#Myriads of MFDs .... Cunard (talk) 23:28, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Problems with AfD closes

If your concern is that Wikipedia should be more bureaucratic, please raise that at WT:NOT. If your concern is that somebody is making bad AfD closes, please take that up with the editor in question, taking it through dispute resolution until a satisfactory consensus is reached on perceived conduct problems. If your concern is with the circumstances of one particular close, take it through deletion review.

I closed Cirt's discussion at Administrators' noticeboard because it seems to be misplaced. Since you think that it's important to observe established procedures, please do follow the very well established procedures in this case. --TS 10:19, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

My concern is that people shouldn't be closing AfD's early without good reasons, and that the reason you provided clearly doesn't fall under such good reasons, but is a typical example of circular reasoning. You closed a (part of a) discussion you are involved in, for no good reason. If other people feel that the discussion is tangential, they can close it. But you shouldn't close a discussion just beacuse someone disagrees with your reasoning. Fram (talk) 10:22, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I've given you very good reasons above. Please read them and take them seriously. In your reply you state (and I bold):

My concern is that people shouldn't be closing AfD's early without good reasons,

If so then take the close to deletion review. Why is it okay, in your eyes, for you to ignore the correct venue for a discussion but not okay for somebody to ignore a rule for closing a deletion discusison, or to close an inappropriately sited discussion with a recommendation for the correct venue? You can't have it both ways. --TS 10:32, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

• (talk page stalker)This is silly. Discussions are had, on policy, among other things, all over the place–noticeboards, aricle talk pages, user talk pages, XfD discussions. That doesn't subvert process or bypass the established methods for altering policy. pablo 10:37, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

  Well, sort-of. The discussion in question, however, is an attempt to raise a consensus to subvert a fundamental policy. I've no objection to people wasting their time like this, but it's not the most productive use of other people's time. --TS 10:45, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

  Saying that in the discussion and then unwatching it might have been a better option than closing it, perhaps. Occasionally an idea may spring from a seemingly useless discussion ... occasionally ... pablo 11:50, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

My recent edits

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

Determination of usage needed for the BLP unsourced template

Based on your comments on my talk page and some things I have observed I started a policy clarification discussion regarding the use of the BLP unsourced template at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Determination of usage needed for the BLP unsourced template. --Kumioko (talk) 20:15, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll drop by to give my comments (though perhaps only after the weekend). Fram (talk) 20:18, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Down the Block There's a Riot

Would you mind reviewing your close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Down the Block There's a Riot or at least expanding on it withing the AfD. The article lacks any reliable sources and a search shows none. No one provided any reliable sources during the discussion and no one has added any since the AfD close on November 15, 2010. A reason I am asking is that the page is embarrassingly sparse and, per the page history, people continue to struggle over its status. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 08:31, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

P.S. - I love your air filters. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 08:37, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't really understand why you reverted the redirect implemented by another user, if you don't want this article to exist anyway. Do you dispute that this episode will air soon, or that it will have this title, or what? Anyway, the AfD was unanimous, whit one redirect and the others keep (one duplicate, but that doesn't change the consensus). The troubled editing history of the page (with people adding and removing e.g. imdb referencing) should have no bearing on the outcome of the AfD. But if you disagree, you are free to take it to WP:DRV of course. Fram (talk) 10:39, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I reverted the redirect by another user because it went against the AfD consensus close. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 17:06, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Deletion review for Down the Block There's a Riot

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Down the Block There's a Riot. 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. Uzma Gamal (talk) 17:30, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Image deletion

I always check for file links when I delete an image that's on Commons with a different name; I apparently didn't look closely enough, so I'll fix it. Thanks for the pointer. Nyttend (talk) 01:56, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for fixing the problem, and sorry for making you do it. Nyttend (talk) 12:09, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Deletion review notice at top of page

Another editor posted a deletion review notice further up the discussion for some reason, I fixed a couple of problems with it but the stupid edit filter won't let me remove it to place it here. So just in case you miss it as not being a new section here as you might expect... --82.7.40.7 (talk) 22:11, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, I appreaciate it. Fram (talk) 07:24, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Deleted article without reaching a consensus on the discussion page?

Hi, you have currently deleted the article AZImage. However I do not really see that a consensus was reached on the discussion page. Could you please explain your decision? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rotarucalin (talk • contribs) 11:11, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

The only persons objecting to the deletion were you (the article creator) and an editor who created his account specifically for this discussion, and has no edits before or since. The keep arguments are not based on policy, the delete arguments were. When there are more people for deletion, with stronger arguments, and with more experience on Wikipedia, there is little left to decide or argue for the closing admin: I just followed the rather clear consensus. You are free to take this to WP:DRV if you believe I misread the consensus on this AFD, but looking at it again, I don't think I did. Fram (talk) 07:53, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

DYK for The Five Orders of Architecture

Materialscientist (talk) 00:03, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Wiktionary

Hi, Fram.

Do you happen to know someone experienced who also edits at wiktionary? The reason why I'm asking is that we're supposed to fight original research, hoaxes, unsourced material on Wikipedia and add references, but checking some definitions on Wiktionary, it seems all unreferenced information has moved there, and then some Wikipedia articles have a link to Wiktionary, which means original research is just one click away. Not sure how to fix it. --John KB (talk) 01:22, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

You may need someone from Category:Wiktionary administrators, they may be able to help you with this. Fram (talk) 08:36, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Fram. --John KB (talk) 18:39, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Ümit Sayın

The article Ümit Sayın has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Does not meet the notability guidelines for professors. There are some unsourced BLP issues that are commented out that could hold some notability if true.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. v/r - TP 02:29, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

P.S. I realize you havent seen this article in almost 2 years, but your one of the only editors who touched it.v/r, --v/r - TP 02:30, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

WTF?

How can you possibly speedy User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/Abdul Zahir charges? It contained a link to a Wikisource page, and some internal links! I seriously think you need to take a couple months off. Rich Farmbrough, 05:48, 9 December 2010 (UTC).

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 November 8. Thanks for the suggestion, but no. And is there any reason why "some internal links" have any relevance to decide whether a page is a BLP violation or not? Certainly when you consider that these "internal links" included rather loaded redlinks like International Islamic Front for Fighting Jews and Crusaders? Perhaps you need to refersh your knowledge of our BLP policy instead. Fram (talk) 07:50, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

You misunderstand everything so much it is hard to know where to begin. Rich Farmbrough, 08:33, 9 December 2010 (UTC).

Really

There are other admins. You are in personal dispute with Geo, you should walk away. Rich Farmbrough, 08:33, 9 December 2010 (UTC).

Rich

Regarding Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#WP:POINT_violations_through_AWB_by_User:Rich_Farmbrough, it appears he has opened a counter-thread. Please notify me if the disruptive behavior continues post-this-ANI-thread, it indeed is blockable. Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 08:44, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Er. How is it disruptive to attempt to bring and end to a long running and extensive conflict between User:Fram and User:Geo Swan? Rather the opposite. Rich Farmbrough, 09:40, 9 December 2010 (UTC).

Rich 2

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

- Kingpin¹³ (talk) 07:06, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

April 1 in baseball listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect April 1 in baseball. Since you had some involvement with the April 1 in baseball redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Mhiji (talk) 04:02, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

April 16 in baseball listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect April 16 in baseball. Since you had some involvement with the April 16 in baseball redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Mhiji (talk) 04:07, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

March 21 in baseball listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect March 21 in baseball. Since you had some involvement with the March 21 in baseball redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Mhiji (talk) 04:27, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

You need to slow down on the mass deletion campaign

Although I can appreciate your zeal for ensuring that the most notible have an article in WP you need to slow down a little on he mass deletion campaign. You have submitted so many articles for deletion at one time its nearly impossible to comment on them all. --Kumioko (talk) 15:00, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I submitted a comment on ANI about it as well

Sorry it took me a bit to add this but I wanted to let you know that I also added a comment at ANI regarding this and what I feel is a conflict of interest/POV issues relating to some of your recent actions. --Kumioko (talk) 15:46, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Please provide a link to such a discussion in the future, I had to search through your contributions to find the actual discussion. Furthermore, in such a discussion, please provide evidence or strike through statements you make which are utterly without merit, like me closing discussion I initiated (the only ones I did close were those I withdrew, which is hardly a thing to complain about).

Starting an ANI discussion, which is for urgent matters, when I haven't started any discussion on Geo Swan's pages since December 16, i.e. more than a week before your complaint, is also rather useless, and only had the effect of having the discussion archived before I even had the chance to comment on it, if I wanted to. Please learn how Wikipedia works and how to make attempts at dispute resolution properly in the future, instead of wasting everyone's time with a non-event which you described rather incorrectly. Fram (talk) 21:44, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

First just because I don't have the admin tools doesn't mean I don't know how WP works. I know the rules having started and or voting on several of them myself. I didn't expect a group of administrators to do anything about another admin anyway and the matter was quickly swept away as expected. Thats why I didn't waste a significant amount of my time on carefully documenting a matter that would lead to nothing anyway. The bottom line though is that you shouldn't submit a group of articles for deletion that were created by a user you have had ongoing edit conflicts with. As an admin you should know better than that. --Kumioko (talk) 21:56, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

If you don't know what an "edit conflict" is on Wikipedia, then please don't post your nonsense here anymore. The only "conflict" I have with Geo Swan is that he doesn't like my nominations of his articles and user pages. I see no reason to stop doing this just because he doesn't like it and makes a fuss about it. If he wants me to stop, he has to start writing articles and keeping userspace subpages that are policy compliant. The vast amount of pages that have been deleted after discussions show that the problem is not with the nominations, but with the creations. So please take you complaints to Geo Swan's page and ask him to stop creating such pages; instead of asking me to stop nominating them. Fram (talk) 22:00, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I am clearly wasting my time thinking that I am going to get anywhere with you. My problem is that when you submit 40 or 50 at a time its hard to review them before they are deleted unless I stop actually editing articles and spend all my time in deletion discussions with users with an apparenty agenda. Whether that is true or not I am not certain but when its the same 5 users voting on the majority of them with cut and paste responses, of course it doesn't appear as honest and simple as you lay out because the discussions. Thats not consensus. I will let you in on one secret though. I have been on WP for a few years now and mostly involved myself with Medal of Honor recipients and only recently started to actively participate in discussions because I saw the same couple dozen users, most of which are admins, trying to push their will on the community because most of us don't want to involve ourselves in the drama or discussions and actually want to write and encyclopedia. --Kumioko (talk) 22:23, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, if you want to get anywhere with me (or with most other users), the best way is not to start with an ANI discussion about a non-urgent matter and which has a lot more incorrect statements than it had diffs. If you then blame the failure of any result from that ANI discussion on admins closing rank and "the matter was swiftly swept away" instead of your failure to provide facts and to back them up with diffs, your failure to show that there was any urgent matter or even any actions warranting admin action at all, it gets hard to take anything you claim seriously. No one is stopping you from writing an encyclopedia, I am doing my part as well, but making an encyclopedia means that we have to write articles on the one hand, and that we have to improve if possible or otherwise remove those pages that are not up to our standards. That not more people want to get involved in this is too bad, but not unexpected when those people willing to take on that role as well regularly get abused by a handful of people. Fram (talk) 15:17, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually it was closed because mizsabot archived it. Not because someone closed it due to lack of merit. Which, after reviewing the last couple weeks of Mizsabot archives on that page, apparently happens regularly. As far as taking what I claim seriously are you referring to this little disagreement or in my actions in general? If the latter I would be intersted to know what other claims your talking about because I have no clue other than that I have accused you of submitting large groups of articles for deletion at a time and rate faster than can be reviewed before they are deleted and acting inappropriately by submitting articles for deletion by a user you have been in an ongoing edit conflict with. As far as not stopping me, when I have to engage in needless discussions because other editors decide to do things like submit large groups of articles for deletion, that then make me review so that I can determine the merits of the deletion request, many of which are either submitted with invalid or subjective deletion determinations, that takes me away from writing. --Kumioko (talk) 15:34, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Anything you claim in this discussion, I don't care about what you do in other discussions. And I am not going to nominate less articles for deletion because you don't have the time to both write articles and determine the merits of the deletion request, there are with or without me more than enough deletion requests to keep you or anyone busy anyway if you are so inclined. Or are you singling out only my deletion requests? Apart from that, I have not submitted articles for deletion from an editor I have an edit conflict with, ongoing or not, and ignoring again your rather confusing use of Help:Edit conflict. Fram (talk) 11:05, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Re: Sacramento RT Stations

See the discussion here. Most of us would disagree with you. ----DanTD (talk) 11:18, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Wrong. Look around every other system. Anybody who sees "4th Avenue / Wayne Hultgren" wouldn't know that you're talking about a Saracamento light rail stop. ----DanTD (talk) 12:08, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Don't even try it. "Watt/Manlove" sounds like a gay porn title taking place in Watts, Los Angeles. I'm bringing this to TWP again. ----DanTD (talk) 12:41, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Fram, you really screwed everything up here! ----DanTD (talk) 22:43, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I've been telling you all along what was wrong with removing the suffixes from these articles. If you can't see how you've screwed things up, you've got some problems. There are plenty of other people on WP:Trains and WP:NYCS who know the justification for these standards. I know that Sacramento has nothing to do with the New York Tri-State area, but the suffixes are important there as well. ----DanTD (talk) 01:43, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

No, that is not what I've been doing. There were never any incorrect reasons for my actions, nor have a I misrepresented my reasons for renaming them. You, on the other hand have misrepresented my motives for renaming the articles, and in fact when you renamed the articles you misrepresented the subjects. I've tried to given you the benefit of the doubt, because you're from Belgium, and you don't seem like you understand the way things work here. But there are still others who like me, tried to remind you that the articles are about railroad stations, not the intersection, parks, buildings, and other locations that they stop at, and that this is why they need those suffixes. ----DanTD (talk) 12:07, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I mentioned this on WT:NYCS because when I brought up a similar example of an article about a station named after a street, which happens to be in the NYT part of the discussion, User:Sameboat felt the suffix should be removed from there as well. So no, I'm not dragging any irrelevant aspects into the subject, and actually it's you who doesn't understand the problem here. ----DanTD (talk) 12:22, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

You shoudln't have closed that discussion, because there's more to it than this. Stations like Vero Railroad Station, Wellesley Farms Railroad Station, and Opa-Locka Railroad Station are named as such because they're station listed on the National Register of Historic Places, many of which are no longer active. In fact, since Wellesley Farms is still an active one, I wonder if that should be renamed with the suffix, and have the NRHP related name redirected there. While we're on the subject of MBTA related stations(which is what Wellesely Farms is today), people have tried to remove the name "station" from the "MBTA" suffixes at least twice, and they were sent back, because there are alreay articles with the "MBTA" suffix(Old Colony Lines (MBTA)), which is not about a station. This is why I brought up "Main Line" and "Springfield Junction" dab pages. Because they have articles about the Main Line (Long Island Rail Road) and Springfield Junction (Long Island Rail Road) that are not about the station, but still about the LIRR. As for you, you are dead wrong about me "using stawman arguments," and not sticking to the subject. The articles are about the stations, and that's why they're named as such. The same goes for every article related to a Sacramento RT Light Ral station, or a Portland MAX station, or a Dallas Area Rapid Transit Light Rail station, or a South Florida Tri-Rail Station, or an MBTA station, or Washington Metro station, etc. -----DanTD (talk) 16:06, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Redeye

The french name of the characters is important because the award was a french award. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.40.181.210 (talk) 09:55, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't follow your logic. If Redeye had won an award in Danmark, Germany, or the Netherlands, the local translations oft he characters don't suddenly become important enough to be included here. Generally, only the original and English language names of characters are included (in this case, they are the same of course), otherwise we would have a never ending list of character names for many series. The title of the series in other languagese is informative enough to be included on an article on the series, and obviously all awards should be included, but local character translations are a case of too much detail. Fram (talk) 10:04, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

The lectors have a right to know why the serie have succeeded in french language. The french language is universal. And the original authors have a debt in front of french authors because the french names of characters have been and are the keys of the success of the serie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Claudeclaude007 (talk • contribs) 10:04, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Every language is universal. I doubt seriously though that the success of the series is due ti the French names of the characters. The series was successful in many countries, without any help from the French (and before the French publication). Note how every translation except the French is a variation of Redeye, not of "La tribu terrible". If you can provide evidence from reliable sources that the success of the series has anything to do with the French names of the characters, then it can be included. Fram (talk) 10:09, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

DYK problem

Hello! Your submission of Lucidarius at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:22, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Re: Archiving

I need to be fair because its a near pissing match, and in fairness, neither you or DanTD have had reputable sides in this. The mention of ANI was only if you or Dan removed the archive and kept arguing. ;) - As much as I try to help DanTD with stuff I've been in three edit wars in the last month with him. I know you're trying to make some change, but unfortunately its become a lot worse than it needs to be. Mitch32^{(Transportation Historian)} 15:45, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of whatever arguments we may've had with each other, Mitch, you should consider how the articles on various railroad stations in New Jersey would look if he removed the suffixes from them, or just got rid of the standard names. BTW, there's an inactive fomer Reading Railroad station which New Jersey Transit wants to reopen that I'd like to discuss with you, so I think I'll take it there if it won't cause any trouble. ----DanTD (talk) 16:24, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Lucidarius

HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:03, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Fram. You have new messages at Athapoli's talk page.
Message added 09:40, 28 January 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St. Mark Church (Stratford, Connecticut) - One list needed

Please note my request, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St. Mark Church (Stratford, Connecticut)#One list needed and comment or volunteer to make a list. --DThomsen8 (talk) 14:04, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

STOP

Being disruptive. I will deal with you when I get in. Rich Farmbrough, 13:13, 2 February 2011 (UTC).

Bots shouldn't be doing unapproved tasks, certainly not when those tasks violate bot policy. You were asked to provide the supposed task approval, which you didn't. Looking through the list of approved tasks didn't give any results either. That doesn't mean that such approval doesn't exist, but when there is doubt, you should give the requested link. Instead you restarted the bot and utter some vague threat here. I'm quite curious as to how you are going to "deal with me", if not by answering a simple request for a link to a specific bot approval page. Fram (talk) 13:21, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

You failed to stop being disruptive. Why am I not surprised? Rich Farmbrough, 15:39, 2 February 2011 (UTC).

Bot operators should be communicative about their bot. You are not willing or able to answer a very simple, specific and relevant question about edits your bot is doing. You could have ended this all without much effort from your side, assuming that the task indeed had approval, as you claimed. Instead you have made two rather unspecific posts here, and a not really helpful email one as well. You aren't helping anyone, the least of all yourself, in this way. Fram (talk) 15:45, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

William Cochran, et al

Question: Is there a presumption that any artist listed in Bryan's Dictionary of Painters and Engravers is automatically notable? I noticed William Cochran (artist) because I have the dab page on my watchlist. I checked your contribution list, and saw that you've created a number of stubs based on text from this book. My initial thought was that, the fact that it's based on only a single source, and that a (non-exhaustive) search on Google Scholar turns up no corresponding information, and the information in the stub itself, that the artist isn't notable enough for inclusion. However, this is about seventy-four steps away from any field I have experience in, so I thought I'd check with you first; I know that sometimes some fields recognize inclusion in certain reference works as automatically sufficient to establish notability (even when that doesn't necessarily match WP:GNG). Appreciate any insight you can provide. I'm watching, so you can answer hereQwyrxian (talk) 23:59, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

In general, it should be enough, as inclusion in one encyclopedia (even when it is called a biographical dictionary) warrants inclusion in another one. However, I usually do check whether enough info is available and whether the artist has received further attention, and I skip a lot of artists in Bryan's for that reason. For William Cochran, I e.g. found his biography at the National Galleries of Scotland as well[4], and he has an entry in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography[5], so he is clearly notable. I try to do a similar check for all artists I create an article on, so that Bryan's isn't the only or most recent reliable source available. Google Scholar is often not the best tool for artists though, Google Books and even regular Google (for e.g. msueum websites, or auction houses like Sotheby's and Christie's) can be more helpful. Fram (talk) 07:57, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't respond sooner; I forgot, then got ill. That makes sense to me; looking at your other contributions and info it looked like you definitely knew your subject material, so I figured I'd check first. Thanks for the detailed info! Qwyrxian (talk) 08:54, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Pyrénéistes

Thanks for your thanks. There are still many more to do! Ericoides (talk) 08:23, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

February 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Marian art in the Catholic Church‎. When removing content, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the content has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Having said that, you've been here long enough to know what you were doing. The article had been nominated for deletion just 3 months ago, and was speedily kept. Please do not try to over-ride this by making the page into a redirect. If you think a merge or redirect is the best use of the page, please discuss it on the talk page first. Escapepea (talk) 14:32, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Eupen

Hi. Can you semi-protect Eupen? A bunch of IP editors seem to think it would be a funny idea to claim its alternative name is "Charleroi-sur-Vesdre". At first I fell for it, but Google turns up nothing but Wikipedia and its mirrors. Cheers, Oreo Priest ^talk 10:51, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the note, I have now watchlisted the page. Fram (talk) 10:55, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Lo Hsieh-che

Hi, I have just created the above article, and also the redirect Lo Hsien-che. In fact, it seems that the namespaces should be reversed. Could you kindly execute a page move over redirect, please? Cheers, --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 07:52, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Done! Fram (talk) 08:06, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

• Many thanks. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 08:20, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Geo Swan might need a block

After looking at that talk page archive from November, I have to wonder--does Geo Swan need to be blocked for a bit? Clearly this guy isn't getting it. Blueboy96 20:13, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Idon't think a block is needed yet, I am trying to find a different solution. I am drafting an RfC in User:Fram/Sandbox, if you think this is a good idea you may change it as you please and see if there are things I have forgotten or have represented incorrectly. Fram (talk) 08:47, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Abd al-Muhsin al-Libi

Could you please have a look at this article: Abd al-Muhsin al-Libi. Seems to be problematic in terms of BLP. IQinn (talk) 00:16, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh yes, definite AfD candidate, negative BLP purely based on primary sources. By the way, as I just said to Blueboy96, I am drafting an RfC in User:Fram/Sandbox, if you think this is a good idea you may change it as you please and see if there are things I have forgotten or have represented incorrectly. Fram (talk) 08:47, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Request for talk page extension

This is really an annual thing now, I know the guy won't give up (yeah, he posted another abusive message after you protected my page again last year, but there would be more if you didn't) but thanks for protecting my talk, and I would politely ask that you extend the protection until such a time comes as he shall not return to preform more harassment, thanks. Btzkillerv (talk) 12:27, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

The protection is still in place until May, I have no problem extending it if the vandalism starts again, but perhaps best to simply wait until then? Fram (talk) 12:34, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Possible socking by Papermoneyisjustpaper

• Papermoneyisjustpaper (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Has this been reported to WP:SPI for checkuser investigation??? Do you think it could be related to Geo Swan (talk · contribs)? Thoughts? -- Cirt (talk) 12:30, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I have no idea, you could better ask Iqinn whether he has reported this. Otherwise he should probably stop stating his suspicions. I have never known Geo Swan to use sock- or meatpuppets. Fram (talk) 12:32, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

 Done. Left a note at User talk:Iqinn. Good idea. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 12:36, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

FYI, I went ahead and reported this to WP:SPI, now at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Geo Swan. It seems pretty conclusive on the behavioral evidence = consider that fully 100% of the AFDs commented at by the possible sock, were on articles previously created by Geo Swan. Perhaps you may have additional evidence to present? -- Cirt (talk) 13:03, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Please note [6] and [7]. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 13:14, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Update: Moved it to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sherurcij. Thoughts? Anything to add as far as more evidence and diffs and links? -- Cirt (talk) 13:24, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Nothing to add, really. Sherurcij seems a better possibility than Geo Swan, but some outsider is equally possible (there have been a number of people who have voted "keep" on a string of Geo Swan AfD's without advancing serious arguments). The editing of an article created and almost solely edited by Sherurcij is the most damning aspect to point to him, I believe. Fram (talk) 13:27, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

About the last part, agreed. Do you think it would be helpful for you to comment and point that out, at the SPI case page? -- Cirt (talk) 13:29, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think so, everything is there for the checkusers (or clerks) to see. Fram (talk) 13:30, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Alright, -- Cirt (talk) 13:34, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Showqi Al-Islambouli

• Showqi Al-Islambouli

Created by the (possible) sock and definite WP:SPA account = notable for retention on Wikipedia? -- Cirt (talk) 12:42, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Apart from the issue of possible socks, the topic as such is somewhat notable, although the actual title of the article may be incorrect. He has, according to what I could find, attempted to assassinate an Egyptian president, and did get some attention for that. Coupled with his famous relative, I think he meets WP:BIO. This is just based on some basic research though, further research may reveal whether this is correct or incomplete or biased or whatever. Fram (talk) 12:44, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I will defer to your judgment on that one, thank you. -- Cirt (talk) 12:48, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

RFC and older one

Did you notice this User:Geo Swan/RfC 2006-4-17? -- Cirt (talk) 13:31, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it was never certified, and so deleted. I thought that creating mine at Geo Swan/2 would give the impression that it already was the second RfC on Geo Swan, which would be rather unfair. Fram (talk) 13:33, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, -- Cirt (talk) 13:34, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

reply

I saw yesterdays' note on User talk:Geo Swan I am drafting a reply to it, and I request you wait until I finish that reply.

I request you read that reply, and respond to it, and engage me in civil and collegial dialog.

Thanks Geo Swan (talk) 16:42, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Considering that I filed the RfC (and notified you of this) a few hours before this post from you, I don't have the possibility to wait anymore. You are welcome to post your reply here and/or at the RfC. Fram (talk) 17:41, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

• Please see what I said at User talk:Cunard#RfC/U - when you are available, will need to talk to you off wiki. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:26, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

In case you are unaware

I have referred to you at 10:54, 16 February 2011 at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Lihaas#Uncertified_RfC. Thanks, Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:57, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

for reverting the vandalism at my user pages. I seem to have annoyed someone, somewhere! pablo 11:07, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Result of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sherurcij

• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sherurcij

This socking investigation case yielded  Confirmed results linking (7) sock accounts to each other, and they were all then indefinitely blocked. However, technical data on the suspected main sockmaster account, Sherurcij (talk · contribs) was stale, and the reviewing admin did not wish to block on the behavioral evidence alone. Do you think it is worthwhile to spend a bit more time going over the already  Confirmed and blocked sock accounts tied to each other, and link them back to the main suspected sockmaster account? Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 15:27, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I had already done a short check of their edits when I saw the results of the checkuser, but there is nothing really obvious to tie these to Sherurcij, apart from the similarities you already listed at the SPI. The six additional accounts don't give me enough information to tie these to any user, and since they are blocked anyway and the possible sockmaster is not editing at all, there isn't much to be achieved by looking any further, I fear. The initial SPI was of course a worthwhile and fruitful exercise! Fram (talk) 15:42, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Alright, thank you. -- Cirt (talk) 15:45, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Regular harassment

The reason I used the term should be clear to you. I have made it amply clear that that is how your behaviour comes across. You move between a few target editors, attacking their work. It gives the impression to your victims, if to no one else that you are attempting to drive them from the project. I thought since I explained this to you at another forum you had mended your ways and were attempting to be positive, but I see that was a vain hope. You take no account of the effect your shenanigans have upon the people you target, and that is a shame. Or worse you have some idea and glory in causing pain and distress, destroying the work of others, sewing seeds of discord and generally being the cause of more trouble than you are worth. Rich Farmbrough, 20:15, 17 February 2011 (UTC).

I have no intention to drive anyone away from the project. I notice a few editors who have among their good edits too many problematic ones. I try to see if their is a consensus that these edits are indeed problematic, and I try to get these editors to change their behaviour. Most editors don't have a problem recognising whenever they are acting against consensus, and change and move on, and I leave them well alone then. Some, very few, remain stuck in their patterns. You are apparently one of them. The only ways to get you to change your behaviour so far are either to keep a very close watch on your edits, or to block you. Neither has a lasting effect, although your SmackBot edits seem to be unproblematic now, since you stick to the approved and tested ones. The simple solution to end this problem seems to be that you would stick to approved and tested edits for your main account as well. As an editor, as an admin, it would be wrong for me to just ignore problems because the editor creating them doesn't like the scrutiny.

Apart from that, I would urge you to refrain from speculating on other editor's motives and thoughts, and stick to the facts. Had your first reply at the current ANI discussion been a factual explanation of what you attempted to do, instead of simply attacking me, you might at least have had some more support or understanding from other editors. Fram (talk) 20:24, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Had you a little more patience rather than jumping into ANI, you would not have had such a response. And it was an accurate response, that is how you behave, it is annoying, and I have asked you many times to stop. Rich Farmbrough, 21:32, 17 February 2011 (UTC).

I first posted at your talk page, but you continued regardless. Considering how the last time I raised a problem at your talk page, about the unapproved macBot task, you showed yourself a master at filibustering, making empty claims time and time again (but then again, you did the same at the RfD for the chinese torture donkey, claiming that some youtube movie was not a copyright violation without any evidence to back that up; or at the Queen's Award AfD), I didn't believe it useful to wait any longer. Fram (talk) 07:55, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I observe that there is little progress with the concerns that have been expressed about this editor's actions. Certainly he is now more willing to discuss (or at least defend) his edits, but in the end there has been no real improvement on (a) the high proportion of mistakes, (b) the unnecessary minor edits, (c) mass-editting without (or against) consensus and (d) ahering to the bot policy. I am wondering what would be the best avenue to take now. One option would be an RFCU which has not yet been tried. What is your opinion? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:23, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I also find it somewhat irritating that Fram seldom does anything else except for following Rich and Smackbot around. Its beginning to look more and more like the boy who cried Wiki!. I admit that there have been some uneeded edits but there have also been a lot more positive ones and after checking some edits myself the unnecessary ones seem to be about 1 in 20 or so. Personally I find many (but admitedly not all) of the edits that Fram points out to be "problems" to be rather petty and hardly worth mentioning unless it is his intention to drive Rich from the Project. I have already basically left and only do a few talk page edits a day (eventually I will likely stop those as well) instead of the thousand or more edits a day I was doing. It would be a shame to push yet another editor out so that a few harmless edits don't get made. I have a real problem with editors who do less than a dozen edits a day (outside talk pages) hounding those that do a lot. That is one of the reasons I stopped editing myself. But if its more important to make sure that a few unneeded edits get made then have at it. If you work hard enough at it we will push all the editors away and Wikipedia can go the way of so many other fads in history. Popular for a while, but eventually succumbing to its own weight. For all of his banter Fram can't even add a template correctly. Looking at his edits he is adding bunches of {{Unsourced}} templates which is just a redirect to {{Unreferenced}}. If you are spending the time to add the template Fram add the correct one. --Kumioko (talk) 18:53, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Kumioko, MSGJ's message is not about me, so you starting with "I also find it somewhat irritating that Fram..." is a non sequitur. Apart from that, your claim that I do seldom anything else except for following Rich and Smackbot around is quite incorrect, which would be clear for anyone who took more than a very superficial glance at my edits. As you could have seen from this talk page alone, I have e.g. had one DYK in January, and two in February. I created in March (i.e. the previous three days) 16 new articles. I have created hundreds of articles, including a few GA's. I do some admin work as well. I don't think that your complaint has any merit on that basis. Apart from that, the problem is not that Rich or anyone else makes errors, the problem is that he continues after people have pointed them out. Fram (talk) 07:57, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I was commenting on the original post. Kinda irritating when people pick out one or 2 specific things to complain about out of hundreds or thousands isn't it? --Kumioko (talk) 15:50, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

No, kinda irritating when people who have been here for a while and made thousands of edits still don't know how to properly indent their replies so it becoems obvous what you are replying to... Anyway, the problem is not with people complaining, but with people incorrectly complaining, like you did. Your remark is purely based on editcountitis, not on quality of work. I could save new articles in ten edits instead of one, increasing my mainspace number of edits, without any benefit for the encyclopedia. Number of edits is a mostly meaningless number if you ignore what is actually done in these edits. Fram (talk) 09:44, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

MSGJ, an RfCU may be the best solution. I don't have the time now to do this, I'll edit little or not the next week, but I'll get back to this afterwards. If you or anyone else starts one in the meantime, I'll obviously either certify it or add my own comment, but I may not be able to certify it in time the next week... 07:57, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Octave Uzanne

Materialscientist (talk) 00:02, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Thomas Gascoyne (cyclist)

Hello Fram, In your recent ref-link for DYK/Albert Clement/Clement Bayard ( 1896 ) the bit about 'Thomas Jefferson Gascoyne' caught my eye. Voila :-). Thank you. Chienlit (talk) 20:22, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Why

Are you restoring a type based categorization system that supports about 12 articles instead of leaving the one supports several thousand? Rich Farmbrough, 09:29, 19 February 2011 (UTC).

Why wouldn't it support more than these 12? Anyway, why did you create two categories for the same type of articles when a third already existed? Fram (talk) 17:22, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Achille Collas

Materialscientist (talk) 12:04, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Merger?

Fran: Can you merge these articles as I suggested, or provide a comment and your thoughts on the subject? It makes a lot of sense.[8] Thanks. --Yachtsman1 (talk) 22:34, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Individual AfDs?

Hi. I commented already in the AfD discussion, but I just wanted to recommend ending and then splitting this up into individual nominations. As a whole, nothings likely to get done. Individual AfDs require a bit more labor, but will make it much more likely that the undeserving articles get viewed separately from the potentially better ones. Thanks!--Yaksar (let's chat) 06:11, 25 February 2011 (UTC)