User talk:Fram/Archive 10

LDV Limited

You've reaverted the changes that I made to a page that is at least 3 years outdated, given I may have used some article words in there, but most were genuine and all facts were backed up with a suitable referance. The pictures did indeed come off the home website, however if you check the site yourself which I did before I used them, no copyright is there.

Can you either put my updates back up or send me a copy of it in order so i do not have to remember what I wrote

Bye —Preceding unsigned comment added by LDVville (talk • contribs) 14:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Unless a website is specifically claimed to be public domain (or a similar license), they are by default copyrighted. You can see your edits in here. I cannot send you a copy of it, since that would, again, contain the copyrighted pictures. Fram (talk) 15:34, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

OpenGoo

You recently deleted OpenGoo for being not notable. OpenGoo is an open source software being downloaded 10 to 20 times a day on sourceforge.net (https://sourceforge.net/project/stats/?group_id=191520&ugn=opengoo&type=&mode=60day). It has been covered in articles by reliable sources that i'm willing to include if you let me edit the page. It is an example of open source Online Office to be included in and thus enrich the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Acio83 (talk • contribs) 14:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

It is still in the alpha stage, which makes it unlikely to be notable. However, if you can find reliable, independent sources (not fora, blogs, userpages, ...) about OpenGoo, you may of course recreate the page (at OpenGoo, not at Opengoo, pleae). You can check WP:NOTE to see what we expect from our articles: the subjects don't have to be interesting, useful, popular, innovative, ..., they have to be noted by independent erliable sources. Fram (talk) 14:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Can you at least let me copy the content of what I wrote so that I don't have to re-think it again? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Acio83 (talk • contribs) 15:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Of course, it is now at User:Acio83/OpenGoo. Fram (talk) 15:19, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Acio83 (talk • contribs) 15:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Notability criteria for Sitefinity CMS

Hello, you have recently marked Telerik_Sitefinity_CMS as being non-notable. I would appreciate it if you explain your motives in more detail. This is a commercial product in its third major release version, it has a strong community and the vendor is a widely recognized. Thank you for your time.

Why are you deleting pages about scouts??

Because they don't meet our notability guidelines. Local scouts groups are in general not very notable and shouldn't have an encyclopedia article. As their webmaster, you should get a free webhost and create a website there. Creating these pages here is a conflict of interest and is discouraged on Wikipedia. Fram (talk) 15:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

We do but business' like Travel West Midlands are on Wikipedia and the only reason i am logged in via this account is because i lost all info for my other account and my browser logged me on via the reminder of password on IE7!! Webmaster 1stwordsley (talk) 15:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Zarina Wahab

Hello, I understand that you were the administrator responsible for deleting Zarina Wahab as per the deletion log. I would like to request an undelete as this article needs to be written in a proper encyclopaedic style, if only to remain at stub-class since the subject is a bona-fide Indian actor. Thanks, Ekantik ^talk 04:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

The article was a copyright violation, a straight copy from another website. This is not allowed on Wikipedia, and for that reason I will also not undelete the article. However, if you think that it is a notable subject, you are free to start a new article there. The previous deletion does not mean that any article with that title will be deleted, only that there were problems with the previous article. Fram (talk) 09:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh I see. I was under the assumption that it was correct procedure to ask for an undelete to begin writing the article. If it is OK to overwrite (and thus recreate the page) then I will go right ahead and do that, thank you. Ekantik ^talk 02:33, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

hey could i get your help

Please Review Seton Hall University Here thanks Rankun (talk) 10:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Natasha Collins

I can't understand your close and your closing comment doesn't actually clarify what actually happened. I don't want to throw accusations about, but the close appears to indicate that you have based the close on your own opinion rather than any consensus formed within the discussion. Hiding T 18:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I replied at the deletion review on Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 January 12. Fram (talk) 09:18, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't aware it had gone there. I thought the first step was to come here and discuss with you, and I hadn't seen any discussion here, so I didn't go to DRV. Apologies. Hiding T 11:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• I've made my rather fence sitting comments there. I better understand your close now, which was all I was after. I think the rest is a matter of editorial dispute rather than flawed process. Thanks. Hiding T 11:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, upon rereading, my closing comment on the AfD was not the clearest. Looking at the AfD and the DRV (so far), it seems fairly obvious that this was a borderline case. Borderline in normal situations would mean no consensus keep, but borderline in delicate situations like this often end in delete. I'm gald that someon else will have to close the DRV :-) Fram (talk) 11:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Smurf dvds

Hi Fram, I am new to this so I hope I am doing this in the right place and not messing anything up (forgive me if I did). Just wondering why there's not any info about the Australian smurf dvd releases on wikipedia? The dvd cover art on the page is not the cover art of the series released for region 4 (Australia). This was a 3 dvd boxed set and was released Wed 5th April 2006. Ref: http://www.ezydvd.com.au/item.zml/785981. There were also 9 other dvds released as can be seen here: http://www.ezydvd.com.au/mech/quicksearch.zml?f=title&q=smurf. The boxed set includes dvds 1-3. Thanks. Linda. Jibber74 (talk) 04:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

There is no info on the Australian DVD's because no one took the effort to add it :-) You are free to add some info to the article; it needs to be rewritten anyway (I'm really unhappy with it aas it stands). Australian DVD's are as notable or not notable as USA DVD's, so a short mention is certainly welcome. Fram (talk) 09:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

New section

Hi Fram, you deleted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/China at the 37th Chess Olympiad. It says in deletion review that I should first talk to the admin who deleted it. So is it possible for it get reversed? Gollenaiven (talk) 18:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for contacting me first. Do you have good arguments why it should not be deleted? It was a collection of raw facts, not an interpretative, explanatory, encyclopedic article, failing WP:NOT, as explained by a few people in the AfD. You are free to present your case here or to take it to DRV, but for the moment I see no reason to change my closure. Fram (talk) 07:47, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi again, there are many other articles like that because it's pretty much self-explanatory and it has a summary section. Everything is tabulated. See for example China at the Olympics and the four-yearly pages, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Irish national team results, NFL playoff results. And I don't think it was raw facts either because raw data means it hasn't been processed and it has been processed through the tables further down. It was from the most authoritative encyclopedia on this subject -- OlimpBase. Also the main reason it was nominated for deletion was that it was an orphan article and that it was a straight duplication of another page. I solved those problems. Gollenaiven (talk) 11:05, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Looking again at the AfD, there was only one editor who agreed with you, all others disagreed. This is a pretty strong consensus. While the nomination was perhaps not the best written or complete, most editors involved in the AfD saw the other problems with the article (being a statistics page, mainly, and being too detailed for Wikipedia), and agreed to its deletion. I'm afraid that I am not going to reverse my decision. Fram (talk) 12:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2008 wars of independence

Hello, and thank you for closing this discussion. I respectfully disagree with your closure and would like to invite you to reconsider the closure and delete the article for the following reasons:

• As a first approximation, there is a numerical majority to delete the article, with around 7 "delete" opinion including the nomination vs. around 5 "keep" opinions. The "merge" opinions also agree that an article with this scope and content should not exist.
• Since AfD is not a vote, the strength of individual arguments must be taken into account. The principal argument for deletion is violation of WP:SYNTH and WP:CRYSTAL. However, the "keep" opinions mostly do not adress these issues. Instead, they mostly argue that the article is WP:USEFUL and "well sourced", which is not the issue - the synthesis of the individual reports to advance a point is. Furthermore, one opinion is declared to be "Borderline keep, but just barely".

Accordingly, I submit that the majority of policy-based "delete" opinions should be given precedence and the article deleted. Thanks for your consideration. Sandstein (talk) 10:44, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

An article can not be crystal balling and well sourced at the same time, so the "well sourced" arguments implicitly refuted the crystal balling. The original article (and certainly the title) were crystal balling, but that was solved early during the AfD. Votecount was slightly for delete, but many of the early "deletes" and "merges" were mainly about the title (see e.g. Sarcasticidealist's opinion) and the "2008" in it. As for synthesis: the article claims that the recognition of independence of Kosovo will be used as a precedent in similar (or superficially similar) situations. This would be synthesis if there were no sources that claim the same, but the first external link makes exactly that claim, and the sources in the article show examples of such use of it as a precedent. So the synthesis claims and crystal balling claims are invalid, and the article is adequately sourced and moved to a more neutral title (though perhaps not the ideal title yet). So the strongest policy based arguments were made by those wanting to keep the article, while the arguments made by those wanting to delete were invalid because of improvements to the article during the AfD. Fram (talk) 10:58, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the extensive reply. I disagree, but see no point in pursuing this dispute further - events are bound to overtake this article soon, at any rate. Sandstein (talk) 21:34, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Sir Louis Mbanefo- Copyight Violation??

Fram, you deleted the article I wrote on Sir Louis Mbanefo, citing Copyright violation of an article from Blog Subliminalcodes in Text. Well, I am the author of the said Blog and indeed another resource on Sir Louis Mbanefo with the same text on the Helium website. This was clearly stated on the Talk page on the article and in any event, i placed a hang on. Can you please explain? Seal67 (talk) 15:33, 16 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seal67 (talk • contribs) 15:29, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I can understand your confusion, but I deleted Sir Louis Mbanefo, which had no hangon (not a speedy template either) and no talk page comments. You then created Louis mbanefo and added on that page a hangon and a talk page comment. These two pages were deleted by User:Lectonar. Please check our WP:COPYRIGHT pages. Just stating on the talk page that you are the copyright holder isn't enough: we need to have official confirmation that you are the copyright holder, which you can do via Wikipedia:OTRS (which I have never used, so I'm sorry that I can't give you more info on this). Fram (talk) 15:37, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

The Dice Tower

Hi

Is it possible for you to send me a copy of the content of The Dice Tower - I think at least some of the content that was on that page would help to improve the Tom Vasel article. Thanks - Percy Snoodle (talk) 15:30, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Userfied at User:Percy Snoodle/The Dice Tower. Fram (talk) 15:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Percy Snoodle (talk) 12:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I am unsure how you determined a "delete" consensus from a 4-4 count of deletes and keeps. I also do not understand the comment about "which hasn't been verified yet either"? Can you clarify for me? -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

• I wholeheartedly second this emotion. Half the respondents to the AfD were keep...where's the consensus for deletion? Also, what do we need to do to verify a magazine article? It exists, I've read it and seen it. Do we only count as verifiable stuff that's online? Applejuicefool (talk) 02:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

For starters, consensus is not a votecount, it is based on the strength of the arguments. The only reliable independent source just referenced that it is "one of the most popular podcasts about board games". That's not really a lot to go by. The Keep from Percy Snoodle was not really correct (wrt policy), and the Keep from Colonel Warden was not supported either. You can't judge notability by listening to the subject of the article, only quality, which is irelevant for an AfD. This leavess us with two keeps, from Applejuicefool and JHunterJ, which were mostly based on the popularity and longevity of the podcast (which is admirable, but again not relevant), and the one reliable source. One reliable source isn't sufficient anyway, and it is unclear how thorough it is on the podcast (is it a mention, a full page article, ... ?), so the stronger arguments were clearly with those arguing for deletion. Please check Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators#Rough consensus: the first paragraph is not relevant here (all arguments were made in good faith by respected editors), but the next line is: "Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any)." As always, you are of course free to take it to WP:DRV if you still feel that my close did not reflect the consensus of the AfD. Fram (talk) 08:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Right -- the other time I asked for a DRV, the closing admin suggested that I should have simply asked him first, so I didn't want to tread on the same toes of a different admin. :-) My keep was based on the source, not on the longevity or popularity of the podcast. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Deletion Review for The Dice Tower

An editor has asked for a deletion review of The Dice Tower. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review.-- JHunterJ (talk) 12:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

the dutch and the flemish

if your native laguage is Dutch maybe you should not touch this page which is about ostende which is a Flemish city in Flanders where the people speak Flemish.

The official languages of Belgium are Dutch, French and German, not Flemish, Walloon and German (East Kantonnish?). As an encyclopedia, we reflect the official situation. In Flanders, the language is Dutch. Fram (talk) 08:51, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Runningman01

User:Runningman01 is a sock of User:R:128.40.76.3 (who also edited as User:128.40.76.3 - no"R:"), as is User:Punkguy182; there are others further in the past, too. User:Pete.Hurd knows more about the older ones; he also said the User:Jon Hobynx is the same guy. These have been dormant awhile, and I tagged 'em. This awoke the guy and I guess it's time to sort this once and for all. Cheers, Jack Merridew 13:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I just noticed his vandalism to your userpage, but hadn't looked into the sockpuppet claims. Do you need a hand to sort this out (I'm no expert in sockpuppet hunting), or can you handle it? Fram (talk) 13:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I could use some help, in part because I'm about done online for today. Runningman is now reverting the userpage of Punkguy, too. User:Phaedriel blocked the R:128 account and some of the others about 4-5 months ago and there' stuff in her talk pages archives about it. Mostly this centers around the article Chris Conley and the images on it. The issue with Pete had to do with the article on him. This guy likes to mess with bios of people. If you could point me at the next step, I'll pick up on it tomorrow. Cheers, Jack Merridew 13:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

While it does seem suspicious, I don't think there is enough at the moment to block him (or punkguy), at least not from my knowledge of these things. I have protected his userpage so that he can't remove the sockpuppet tag for the time being, but apart from that it is best to continue this at the suspected sockpuppets page. I'll try to keep an eye on his contributions the next few days (when I'm around of course). Fram (talk) 14:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I think his history of messing with biographies goes back to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dr Alethea Tabor, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timothy Boyle, the best summary of his past behaviour is probably the one given here. Pete.Hurd (talk) 14:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I've just tracked-down links to archives of Phaedriel's talk page:

• User talk:Phaedriel/Archive 51#3rd party -> you
• User talk:Phaedriel/Archive 51#Redirection of Chris Conley
• User talk:Phaedriel/Archive 52#back as promised
• User talk:Phaedriel/Archive 54#R:128.40.76.3
• User talk:Phaedriel/Archive 54#Sock puppet whack-a-mole, etc
• User talk:Phaedriel/Archive 55#128.40.76.3
• User talk:Phaedriel/Archive 58#Punkguy182 (aka User:R:128.40.76.3)

oldest-to newest. Some of these are minor, bit they have a lot of links to the rest of the issue. More tomorrow. Cheers, Jack Merridew 14:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

also: I think the note re the anon reverting both userpages is telling. He wasn't logged-in and acted impulsively. Seems to have taken him 12 minutes to find the password to that account. He may not have the punkguy password. His comment on my username is really, really similar to a lot of the Qwerty of Man case accounts. I'd be glad to write this up in more detail for a sock report tomorrow. --Jack Merridew 14:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

One more bit: in this edit Punkguy refers to 'Piggy' in the edit summary. Piggy is another character from The Lord of the Flies. --Jack Merridew 14:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflicted)While I agree that all sockpuppets of this user should be blocked on sight, the problem for me is knowing if he is indeed a sockpuppet of this user. While he has hardly been a valuable contributor (one image of Conley remains, and that's about it), there has also from this account been little disruption until today. I'm a bit wary of blocking users who can claim with an appearance of righteousness to be an innocent victim of abusive admins. I'll not oppose a block of this user (his behaviour and history are suspicious of course), but I don't think letting him unblocked is a big deal either. Fram (talk) 14:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see an immediate need to block him. I'll keep an eye one him as will Pete, I expect. I know Runningman is only circumstantial, but I have dealt with this disruption a bit and the smell is the same. This is difficult to covey to others. The harassment aspects are similar, too, and I may add him to Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Qwerty of Man. Cheers, Jack Merridew 15:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

FWIW: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive822#Request block of abusive sockpuppets Pete.Hurd (talk) 15:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks like this is sorted. I'll add that Running guy's one good contrib (the image) is still part of the pattern; much of this was about bogus images such as false release of copyrighted material. One of these was even pushed to commons where it took 2 months to delete. A review of the history of Chris Conley will show lots of images added and then deleted (the image, too). Cheers, Jack Merridew 07:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

{{afd}}

I am reviewing some {{afd}}s from last fall.

We had a discussion about this {{afd}}.

Now, three months later I find myself perplexed.

What do I want from you now? Short version:

1. Userification of the content and edit history of the two articles you closed as delete, with their talk pages, for one month, for the purpose of review.
   • Please put them under User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/Fahed_Nasser_Mohamed and User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/Abdullah Gulam Rasoul.
2. Let you know that once I have a chance to review the content I may decide to request a full deletion review.

Long version -- included for completeness -- don't feel obliged to read or respond beyond this point.

In your concluding note on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fahed Nasser Mohamed you wrote:

"Since there are no reliable independent sources about this person, WP:BLP applies, as does WP:NOTE."

The summary of evidence memos are summaries of other documents -- interrogation logs, analyses of the captives' "pocket litter", clothing, and other physical evidence said to be in their possession when captured, analyses of the interrogation logs, interpretations of foreign government and other agency reports on the captives. Are you sure it is accurate to call these documents "primary sources"? I am very skeptical that summaries of other documents should be described as "primary sources".

One of the discussion participants stated that they were concerned that the article contained material that was a {{copyvio}}. I don't think I should have to remind you that unsubstantiated claims that an article contains passages that are a copyvio are not grounds for deletion. I can assure you that participant was 100% mistaken. I trust you discounted that opinion?

You quoted a passage from this paragraph of {{blp}}:

Content should be sourced to reliable sources and should be about the subject of the article specifically. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association. Editors should also be on the lookout for biased or malicious content about living persons. If someone appears to be pushing an agenda or a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability.

I believe you, and the nominator, are mis-interpreting this passage from the policy. I believe the "biased or malicious content" the policy warns editors to be on the lookout for is supposed to apply to biased or malicious conclusions or interpretations, inserted by other wikipedians. I believe that is why it says "insist on reliable third-party published sources".

The conclusion that the eminently verifiable OARDEC documents are "biased" is an interpretation -- POV, if you will.

FWIW the staff who drafted those memos were assigned to the Office for the Administrative Review of Detained Enemy Combatants. They don't answer to the commandant of JTF-GTMO. The document reveal they experienced great difficulty getting cooperation from JTF-GTMO, for simple things, like finding documents the captives knew should be in the evidence locker. Staff assigned to OARDEC were under the command of an official called the "Designated Civilian Official". You are free to conclude that, even so, OARDEC wasn't an "independent third-party". But that would be a private, personal interpretation. The kind we are supposed to keep out of our editorial contributions.

You wrote:

"While the content was relevant, the sources were one-sided, first party sources without the normal peer review and fact checking of journalistic or scientific works. We would not write an article based solely on the words of one side in a court case."

Again, I believe you are mistaken. WRT to your analogy to a court case -- in a court case, we would do our best to present to a selection of material from as many of the involved parties as possible. By your reasoning we couldn't cover the trials of anyone tried in abstentia. We wouldn't be able to cover murder trials, where the suspect was acquitted, because it was not possible to get input from the murder victim. When only one "side's" views are available it is still possible to present that topic from a neutral point of view.

When I first started expanding the wikipedia's coverage of Guantanamo captives I got some surprising criticism. Some wikipedians expressed the view that articles on Guantanamo captives could only be "POV america-bashing". I found this surprising because, so far as I am concerned, no TOPIC is "inherently POV". So far as I am concerned no topic should be out of bounds. So far as I am concerned even the most controversial topics can be covered from a neutral point of view, if contributors make enough effort. I believe I am making that effort. I feel much better when wikipedian's raise their concern first on the talk page. I find it disturbing when wikipedians jump immediately to nominations for deletion.

I find unsubstantiated allegations of policy violation disturbing too. I asked the contributor who stated that the article was a {{copyvio}} to explain what they meant on the {{afd}} I am surprised I didn't leave a note on their talk page too. But I have done so now. I hope this unsubstantiated accusation didn't influence you in your conclusion there problems with the references. Geo Swan (talk) 21:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Short reply: both pages are userfied, you are free to take it to DRV, I did not take the copyvio arguments into account, and I considered the sources as being not independent, which is in this case more important than the discussion if they are primary or secondary. All articles should be based on reliable independent sources, and BLP's more than others, and these sources were clearly not independent or neutral. But if you want to continue this discussion, I would prefer it at DRV. Fram (talk) 08:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

FWIW I am going to assume that if you were aware that the officers who sat on the Tribunals and Boards were not under the command of the Commandant of JTF-GTMO you would not assert that they were "clearly not independent". The officers who sat on the Tribunals and Boards were assigned to the Office for the Administrative Review of Detained Enemy Combatants, which was under the oversight of a civilian, the Designated Civilian Official. Similarly, the staff who drafted the memos were also under the command of the DCO.

In fact, the OARDEC staff had difficulty getting the cooperation of JTF-GTMO staff. The JTF-GTMO staff couldn't, or wouldn't find evidence which should have been in the JTF-GTMO evidence locker.

One could argue that this arms-length status, under Civilian oversight, did not really make them independent. But, since they were independent, on paper, I don't think one can say that they clearly weren't independent. As I wrote above, this is a judgment call. IMO, editorial decisions, based on unreferenced judgment calls, don't comply with WP:NPOV, whether the editorial decision is the insertion of a conclusion, or the decision to suppress the use of certain references.

Maybe I should raise this question in Wikipedia talk:Reliable Sources, or reasonable equivalent. Do you have advice as to the right venue to raise this question?

Whatever opinions are expressed by others I am going to assume you were simply unaware the officers were not under the command of the commandant at JTF-GTMO. Geo Swan (talk) 15:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that your definition of "independent" is just quite different from mine. The US military / DoD has taken these people prisoner, questioned them, reviewed the questioning , and released whatever info they saw fit. To base an article on this is a serious BLP violation, no matter if everything in those sources is correct and objective or not, since we can not be reasobaly sure that it is objective and correct. Furthermore, the fact that the only in depth sources on these persons are all from one party in the "dispute", and not from truly disinterested third parties, makes them fail WP:NOTE. These are the arguments raised in the AfD on which I based my two closes, and I haven't seen an argument that changes this. Please, if you want to continue this discussion, take it to DRV: if you want the imporve the articles first, do so in your userspace. I have no interest in continuing with this discussion. Fram (talk) 15:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I opened a discussion here. Geo Swan (talk) 16:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Categorizing redirects (for readers and editors) and talk page templates

Hi there. Thanks for carrying out the merges of Mallorn (journal) and Oxonmoot. Could I ask you to consider leaving the categories in place in future, per WP:CAT-R, to consider adding one of the MER (Middle-earth redirects) templates (the administrative stuff to help editors keep track of everything) and to remove the talk page templates? See User:Carcharoth/Notes#Checklist for merging for more. Checking for double redirects is also important to remember (though these two didn't have any). Does this all sound OK? Carcharoth (talk) 12:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I noticed on my watchlist that you (re)added the categories, and went to check categories for redirects (or whatever the guideline is actually called). I had'n tseen it yet, and was still under the impression that redirects were supposed to have no categories at all (whichis mainly correct for typo redirects and so on, but not for subsection redirects apparently). I'll try to keep it in mind in the future. I usually check for double redirects, and I knew that i had to alter the talk page as well, but just plain forgot. I'm glad that you didn't oppose the mergers. I went through a number of Tolkien articles today, merged these two, removed copyvios from a few others, and prodded a few of (in my opnion) very little notability. I have no plans to continue this, as most of the other pages related to Tolkien are better (more notable and/or better contents). As a quite involved Tolkien editor, you are obviously free to go through my recent contributions to check that I haven't mistakenly tagged some pages, or if some pages aren't better of merged or simply redirected than deleted. Fram (talk) 13:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I did have a quick look and, some of the articles are very poor and were correctly prodded, in my opinon, but someone else may contest them, in which case I'll support a redirect. AfDs should be a last resort, in my opinion. Carcharoth (talk) 14:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

semi some pages?

Feel like attending to my request at: Wikipedia:Requests for page protection; oldid, if needed. --Jack Merridew 13:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Philippe Dubois

Sorry Fram. Philippe Dubois is notable.

Could you explain (preferably in the article) exactly how he is notable, according to our WP:BIO guideline? The public prize at the NMBS saloon is hardly a major award. Just provide a few good, reliable independent sources, that's all that is needed. I can't seem to find any in the 48 Google links[1], but Google is not the only source for reliable sources of course. Fram (talk) 09:49, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I hope for you that it is not an Ethnic Conflict (Fleming & Walloon)!!! Bel brigitte (talk) 07:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

No, why would it? I have created pages for different artists from Wallonia and Brussels (François Craenhals, Raoul Cauvin, Lambil, ...). Please assume good faith. Fram (talk) 08:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Independent sources

1. Found Articles : [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]

2. Found Sites :

[7] The Art World

[8] Belgianpainters

[9] Linkism

Bel brigitte (talk) 09:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The articles are relevant, that is the kind of sources we are looking for. The sites are not relevant, the first one is a free site where everyone can have his own page, the second seems to be the homepage for two artists (since there are many more and many more famous living Belgian painters like Luc Tuymans), and the third one is also just a directory. So what we now have is a minor living artist who started as a Van Gogh copiist and later turned into an abstract painter with one solo exhibition. That may be sufficient for an article, but the best thing you can do is to integrate these sources in the article. Fram (talk) 09:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Bongwarriorsbestfriend

Thanks for such a speedy reaction! - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 14:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[FYI: No, I'm not in love with Bongwarrior. ;-)]

:-) You're welcome!

Park High School Birkenhead

Would you consider a high school article that is nothing more than an infobox (and target of vandalism) a candidate for speedy deletion under CSD A3? Or does the infobox itself provide enough info that A3 doesn't apply? I'm trying to figure out where the bar is on cases like this. Pairadox (talk) 15:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

No, I wouldn't speedy a high school as "no content" (other reasons like spam or attack page may in other cases apply). It is clear what the article is about, and enough peope consider "X is a high school" as being enough. Tag the problems (like with the notability tag, perhaps add an "expand" and "unsourced"), remove vandalism and (semi-)protect when needed. Fram (talk) 15:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I had a feeling the "high schools are automatically notable" rule might apply here. Thanks for confirming. Pairadox (talk) 15:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Template:Comicsproj

I have managed to solve the sorting issue at Category:Top-importance Comics articles. Sorry to take so long. Hiding T 12:17, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, and no worries. I'll check it out. Fram (talk) 09:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for yours deletion actions...

I'm sorry for these infractions... Do you leave me? :(

If you make no more copyright violations, you will not be blocked (but I will continue to delete older ones I come across of course). You are still free to contribute constructively, but we cannot accept copyrighted material, and repeated willful violations must be and will be treated rather harsh, since they are detrimental to the encyclopedia. Fram (talk) 14:53, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: Notability criteria for Sitefinity CMS

Thank you!

Pier Solar and the Great Architects

I object against the deletion. I believe the game, having been noteable for various popular websites, as well as having a feature in the upcoming issue of Retro Gamer to be released on February 28th (a magazine with a Wikipedia-entry itself) should be enough for Wikipedia to keep the page. The game has a steady information-flow, and is noteable for being the first newly programmed game on the system in over a decade. It is just as noteworthy as games like Beggar Prince or Last Hope, also new releases for "dead" systems. The game even has a set release date.

I believe the effort of keeping Wikipedia "clean" is getting overhand, with overly strict views on what is relieable and noteworthy and what not; this hurts Wikipedia´s mission to give information. Here we have a game that is as noteworthy as a homebrew-game can be, with the only flaw that it is not released yet. Other homebrews have entries, but I believe that the fact they have already been released is not enough to make them so much more noteable than a game that has received as much attention as this one.108 Stars (talk) 14:55, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Budget Code of Ukraine

Do I mind? Heck, I'm ecstatic! Those articles didn't make any sense, and if I could've found a speedy-delete criterion to fit, I would have gladly applied the speedy tag. Thanks! - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 18:22, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Citation Tag

Hi Fram! I happened to pass by the article Miss Earth, I was the one who added the statement which says “Miss Earth pageant is recognized as one of the three most prestigious beauty pageants in the world in terms of size and quality”, however you put a tag with a notation that “the source given is not a reliable source for such a claim”. I’m fairly new to Wikipedia, however the statement is verifiable and it is based on third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy and in lined to Wikipedia policy. Please let me know if there is another policy that I don’t know which supports your citation. Actually, if you go to google, it would give you a lot of references supporting the statement I added, not to mention the fact that not single international pageant websites, where the experts of pageantry can be found, oppose with the fact that Miss Earth is one of the three largest, as well as one of the three most prestigious beauty pageants in the world. I believe in your integrity as an administrator and I’m entrusting it to your hands, If you agree with the following citations to support the statement, please consider adding it to the source that I have provided and then just remove the citation tag that you added. In case you don’t, maybe you can delete the word “prestigious” and change it with “largest” as shown in some of the sources that I have included below. I hope to hear from you. Thanks!

Global Beauties (The leading international pageant website)[10]

The Jakarta Post [11]

ABC News (One of the world’s leading news)[12]

Vietnam Bridge Net [13]

Vietnam News[14][15]

Critical Beauty USA [16]

India Prwire [17]

Pakistan Christian Post [18]

Grand Slam Pageants [19][20]

Pageantopolis [21]

Pageant Almanac [22][23]

Grand Slam Beauties [24]

--Richie Campbell (talk) 03:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the fact tag, but changed the senyence to read "third largest" only, since that is what Global beauties, ABC News, Jakarta Post and Pakistan Christian Post all call it. "Prestigious" and "Quality" are much more subjective, and there is no need to qay that it is one of the three largest, when it is clearly (currently) the third largest. The more precise we are, and the closer we stick to the sourced facts, the better. I hope this is acceptable to you. Thanks for providing the sources, it's the best way to resolve things on Wikipedia. Fram (talk) 07:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for the reply. I think the third largest is acceptable to me, however, there should be an identifier, explaining why it is called the third largest like "third largest international beauty pageant in terms of number participants and holding of national level competitions(following Miss Universe and Miss Earth contests}" [25]. However, I think it would be safer if it state this way: "Along with Miss Universe and Miss World contests, Miss Earth is one of the three largest beauty pageants in the world in terms of the number of holding of national level competitions to participate in the world finals.[26].", since beauty pageants sometimes (e.g. Miss Universe) fluctuate in the number of national compettions, including the actual number of delegates competing in the finals e.g. in 2007, Miss Earth:88 delegtates; Miss Universe:77 delegates; Miss World:106 delegates according to their respective websites. I did not include Miss International since its highest number of delegates is 61 delegates. Furthermore, I did not include Miss Tourism Queen International because it is not considered by most international pageant websites as a "major" pageant since the delegates are all being handpicked by the organizer, with the exception of China. Anyway, either the first or the second way would work; the decision is yours. I would appreciate very much if you could do the necessary correction in the article. I have checked the Miss Earth article but you have not removed the citation, including the added POV tag as a result of the challeged statement, as you stated above. Thank you and happy editing. --Richie Campbell (talk) 04:04, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned Lindsay MacFarland image

Hello, Fram ... when you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lindsay MacFarland (second nomination), did you also tag Image:Brien Perry Elle Travis2.jpg for deletion, since now it is an orphan image? (All three subject's have had their articles deleted by AfD. :-) Happy Editing! — 72.75.72.63 (talk) _{14:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)}

No, but as far as I understand it, orphaned images get automatically tagged by a bot (Orphanbot, I believe), so this is not a problem. Fram (talk) 14:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Review deletion Adriano Bulla

In your reasons for deleting my article, you state that the sources are aunreliable.

Despite my pointing out that they match all wikipedia policies, I am not given any reason fopr their unreliability.

I pointed ouit (it might have escaped you) that my main source is endorsed by the British Library, the official UK government institution that controls publications. The British Library archives ONLY 5 websites in the whole world. How can one of these be unreliable?

http://www.bl.uk/

http://www.webarchive.org.uk/tep/13933.html

http://www.webarchive.org.uk/col/c8475.html

This clearly demonstrates without any doubt that my article is substantiated by one of the most veriafiable literary websites online.

I request to undelete the article.

Even the 'delete' party in the end admitted that the seal of the British Library on my source made it a reliable source.

TonyBrit (talk) 16:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm trying to see what it is you claim. What I see is that webarchive.org.uk archives 171 literature websites alone, which are archives by the British Library or the Welsh national library or so on. E.g. this one[27] is archived by the BL as well, and not included in your "only five in the world". So your argument is clearly invalid, and there are many, many websites which get archived by the BL. Gordon Rugg's Homepage[28], Extreme Cello Playing[29], Anti-apathy[30], ... it looks like there are hundreds if not thousands of websites which get archived by the BL... But of course, you are free to take it to WP:DRV. Fram (talk) 19:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe, didn't notice that, but this doesn't take away 2 things.

1- In its field (poetry) my source is only one of 5 in the world for reliability.

2- My source IS verified by the British Library and cannot therefore be regarded as unreliable, which was the reason for deletion, unless of course, you propose to delete all articles backed up by the British Library assuming they are not reliable, but you would find HM The Queen's authority rather hard to dispute, or let's say the UK is a republic (paradox).

I'm just being humorous, no offence intended.

Maybe because of my lenghty harrangue, it was not easy to find out in my evidence that my sources had an official seal on them? In which case, I apologise for my legalese defence, but still would point out that there is no way my source can be defined as 'unreliable'.

As to other interventions, I did invite ukpoetrylive to join, and he did, actually, let's give him a name, Stephen C Gale, and of course he is not an experienced ikepedian. His intervention was meant to provide contact details for his own website (also used as a source, in compliance with wikipedia's policies, but by no means the main source) as the argument had clearly erroneously shifted from checking the reliability of my main source to the reliability of one less relevant source. Even there, what more do we want than the editor of the website offering to even meet face to face? I said beforehand that I would invite SC Gale, so, that was done in all honesty. I have in the meantime found the neames of some of the reviewers on that site in the staff list of universities across the world, and havwe been informed that A Bulla has published another book, but have not checked it out yet, and because I base everything on evidence, will not use that as a source here. TonyBrit (talk) 11:44, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

ANI

Please see the responses to your action at Wikipedia:ANI#Blocked_for_one_week and User_talk:Zenwhat#1_week_block. —Random832 18:00, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not really surprised, sadly. Fram (talk) 19:44, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Another bad block not supported by our blocking policy or by the community. -- Ned Scott 05:58, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

You've been repeatedly asked to lift the block and consensus is overwhelmingly against it. Why haven't you unblocked? —Random832 06:11, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think consensus is pretty clear on this one. DEVS EX MACINA _pray 10:22, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I have not unblocked because I disagree with the reasons given for the unblock, but I have stated from the beginning that I would not oppose someone unblocking if consensus was for the unblock. This is what happened, and I will not continue the discussion or reblock. Since my idea of what is acceptable behaviour is in this case clearly different from the community, I'll try to stear clear from similar situations in the near future. I wonder what positive result can come from this unblock, but we'll see... Fram (talk) 19:33, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Carlos Botelho

Hi Fram,

I REcreated the uppon article as a disambiguation page that present both the famous Carlos Botelho as it appears on the french WP. Best regards. SalomonCeb (talk) 16:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for notifying me, and no problem with that disambig. Fram (talk) 16:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

An issue I am confused about

GoodTools —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anthall1991 (talk • contribs) 15:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Fram,

I am asking why the GoodTools page is not appropiate. The site www.allgoodthings.us created the page for users of the web to get infomation of the goodset which so many ROM users use. So why isn't it appropriate? Anthall1991 (talk)

Please check out our notability guideline. A page must have reliable, independent sources about the subject, e.g. articles in well-known software magazines about GoodTools (not just mentioning it in passing, but some in depth coverage). Wikipedia is not about how good, popular, useful, ... something is, but only about if something has been "recognised", talked about by newspapers, magazines, TV, ... Forums, blogs, most webzines, ... do not count as reliable sources, and sources produced by the author (persons or company) behind GoodTools are not acceptable for this purpose either (since they are not independent of the subject). For the moment, there is no indication in the article that GoodTools is notable (in the Wikipedia sense), but you are more than welcome to improve the article so that its importance and notability become clear. 15:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply.

Anyway can you give me some personal advice to make this a worthy page on the wikipedia webpage. (I have to be honest but I have read the "Mmy first article" and "editing pages" and can't find any rules I am disobeying from it)

thanks Anthall1991 (talk) 15:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Copyvio

I was surprised that here you did not provide the offending url in a link form: http://ikashmir.net/bnsharga/khatkhate.html And in the deletion summary you did not give the url at all. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 13:55, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

?? I did give the url on his talk page the first time, but forget the http://www part (the url was visible, but did not work as a link). I corrected this the second time around. I did not provide it in the deletion explanation, indeed. I usually use the automated speedy explanations, but when you use G12, you can't add the url. I'll try to remember to use my iown text for G12s instead of the automated one. Fram (talk) 14:01, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

dnvrfantj

Ya okay, I was just seeing if it actually worked because the sandbox doesnt give me an exact look. I dont know why they consider that vandalism, even though it does fit the definition, I would just call it a pointless article, I'll just keep it in my sandbox. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dnvrfantj (talk • contribs) 15:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, my "Paul Herget" article wasnt a g3 vandalism, it was a db-a7 Dnvrfantj (talk) 01:29, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, right... Fram (talk) 08:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Insurgency (mod)

Hello Fram, I think the article about Insurgency was missing sources. Have a look at List of Half-Life 2 mods#Multiplayer mods:

• Media coverage: CS-Nation - insurgency mod, IGN - Insurgency Mod Hands-On (preview), Planet Half-Life - Insurgency 2.0
• Mod DB, players' choice, #4 unreleased mod of 2006.
• Mod DB, players' choice, top released mod of 2007.

Do you think these sources would be sufficient if added? --Pizzahut2 (talk) 23:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

They would certainly be sufficient to avoid a speedy deletion (as soon as there is an assertion of notability, the article should not be speedy deleted, and the award is certainly an assertion of notability). People may stil take it to WP:AfD if they feel the sources are insufficient (if e.g. they consider the award to be of little or no significance), but I think you have a fair chance with these sources to avoid that as well. Fram (talk) 08:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

In this case, could you restore the revisions after the 6th March of 2007 (copyright issue)? --Pizzahut2 (talk) 13:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Done. I presume you'll add the sources now? Good luck with the article! Fram (talk) 13:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes I've added them. Thanks for the help. :) --Pizzahut2 (talk) 17:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Tonke Dragt

On 19 February, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Tonke Dragt, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 12:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Dustihowe

is not an admin. I've noticed your name reformatting his recent (all Feb 19) AfD closures. Check his Wikipedia namespace edits from yesterday. Just as an FYI, he has now been warned three times (twice by me) to not close contentious AfDs, non-unanimous AfDs, or deletes/merges. I believe I've caught up to him now and have repaired those that needed repair, but if you see him closing anything of the sort in the future, could you kindly revert him or go to DRV with his closes? Thanks. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:33, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Update:Dustihowe and I have been talking about these and he has agreed to stop. Thanks. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll keep it in mind! Fram (talk) 19:33, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Flashback Universe CBR file comics

Fram, I saw you deleted the notation on Flashback Universe in the .cbr files entry because my only supporting evidence that we are the first to design comics for the format was a link to an interview from All The Rage. Here's the thing - outside of such articles, blog posts, ect... I don't have anything to support this claim because, well, what I'm doing is sort of on the bleeding edge as most things like this go. Looking at the explanation for Reliable Sources didn't really help me because it'll be years before it's in a book or anything like that. Would the fact that no one to date other than me is designing comics specifically for cbr format convince you of my claim? —Preceding unsigned comment added by JimShelley (talk • contribs) 19:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

But if no one else has commented on it, and no one else is doing it, then how important can it be (to the world, not to you obviously)? It may be that it is later remembered as groundbreaking, innovative, important, ..., but it may just as well remain unnoticed. Until we know which of the two, we should not really pay attention to it as an encyclopedia. Fram (talk) 19:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. I think later this year, I might get mentioned in a book on WebComics. Would that be enough to get back in? JimShelley (talk) 11:35, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Depends on how much attention you or your work get of course (and if the book is notable, and no some self-published or small-press leaflet or so), but in general, such a mention is a good argument to establish notability. Fram (talk) 20:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: block of user:dnvrfantj

What was the evidence of sockpuppet vandalism? I agree this contibutor's first few contributions weren't particularly useful, but it's not clear to me that it was vandalism rather than just inexperience. Thanks--CSTAR (talk) 05:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

• Also you have him down as a sockpuppet of PHerget but that user isn't blocked. Please can you post some more information to help the block review. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:31, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I'll reply on the user talk page. Fram (talk) 07:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oh, and the User Pherget (minor H, sorry) is indefblocked for this situation: [31]. Fram (talk) 07:40, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

• Hi Fram. The checkuser has come in and confirmed that the ips are linked but only two are confirmed to be dnvrfantj. I have reviewed his deleted contributions and I believe that they have done a reasonable amount of decent NPP. This does look to me like exactly the kind of carnage that a college party can leave in its wake and the user is now promising to behave themselves. I honestly think that an indefinite block is too long for this infraction and that we can substitute something a little less drastic. How would you feel about the block being commuted to 72 hours, their rollback removed? If you wish I can keep an eye on future behavior. Please let me know how you feel about this. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:45, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I concur with this, except for removing rollback, because he didn't abuse that power and it will be helpful for him going back to what he was doing. He has apologized after all, and was making good contributions. Mangojuice^talk 15:25, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm OK with the user keeping rollback. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:46, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and restored rollback. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 02:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

ALF disambiguation

I want to redirect ALF to Animal Liberation Front article and want to move "ALF" page to "ALF (disambiguation)". But cannot move it manually. Can you please help. Thanks. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 14:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

This is clearly not an uncontroversial idea, as can be seen from the discussion at the article's talk page. It is not obvious that ALF is only the Animal Liberation Front and not equally the TV series. I suggest taking this to WP:RM. Fram (talk) 14:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Fram. Note to O. crassicaudatus: the move of the dab to the base name was discussesd here: Talk:ALF/Archive 1#Requested move -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Years in Ireland

Hi Fram, many thanks for the blocking and unblocking experience last night. Good to know we are being so rigorously policed. I can entirely understand the logic of not having Years in Ireland cats with only a single article in them, pre-1100, or at any point, but not when there is more than one article in the cat (eg 195 and 331). The year related article now appears in the decade cat, unrelated to the year in question. This means that readers cannot find all articles related to a single year in one place. This is not good for a reader/researcher and is simply not logical. It makes finding material relating to a year more difficult, all for the sake of establishing a year cat. Logical access is more important than Wikibureaucracy. I would request, therefore, that where there is more than one article related to a year, a year cat should be established, eg in the case of 195 and 331 above. Ardfern (talk) 11:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think a decade is unrelated to a year, actually. One can imagine people looking for all kinds of things (all articles, not for 2004 in Ireland, but for May 2004 in Ireland only), but we don't create categories to satisfy all possible questions. The benefit of having a year category when you have two articles is very small: going through the categories, you first come upon the centuries, and then upon the decades. In your proposal, you would then go to the year category, to find there two articles. In the current system, you can go directly to the articles, or you can go to the year article (instead of the year category, so still just one click away), and find all relevant articles there. This way, we have consistency (no year categories for any year before 1100), which was one of the main arguments for the cat system originally, ease of use (the same ease of use with or without the category), and a lot less categories to create and maintain. The template works, all articles are categorized and easy to find, the system is consistent (no years before 1100, years after 1100)... I think, personally, if you worry about ease of use, logic, consistency, and so on, that it may be more fruitful to o something about the overcategorization that happens in e.g. Category:1220s in Ireland, where you have 5 categories and 5 articles, all of which are also in a subcategory and in the parallel category Category:Years of the 13th century in Ireland, which has 40 subcategories and the same 40 articles... This is very confusing. Fram (talk) 13:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)