User talk:Fram/Archive 11

ISS Art page deletion

Hello, you have recently deleted ISS Art article, it is description of our company. We have just started creation of the article, not yet had time to add appropriate references to external resources. Our goal was to create article similar to Reksoft and Luxoft - companies similar to ours. Could you please restore it or give us advise, how can we create an article similar to those I have specified here? Thanks a lot for your help! ISS Art (talk) 04:02, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I have now deleted Reksoft, which was an advertisement instead of an article. Luxoft is a reasonable article. As for ISS Art: please check our conflict of interest guideline. It is a bad idea to write an article about your own company, because it is nearly impossible to be neutral about it. As an encyclopedia, we strive to be neutral and factual, mentioning the good and bad aspects of everything (if notable), with independent sources. As part of the company you would like to write about, you would always give the impression of promotional writing, even with external sources and references (selecting only the positive references is just as bad as having no references). Fram (talk) 11:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. Could you advise, whom it is better to contact to ask to write an independent article about our company? How do others usually do that? Thanks! ISS Art (talk) 07:55, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

You can always suggest your company at Wikipedia:Requested articles/Business and Economics/Businesses and Organizations, where uninvolved editors can have a look and decide if they want to write an article about it. Fram (talk) 10:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Rodrigo Possebon

Hi, i have changed the article on possebon, so that it doesnt infringe copyright law. Dont delete it —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheRadLabrador (talk • contribs) 10:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

What gives?

Why are you stalking my edits and finding any little thing you can to TRY to say they are no good? Any references or input I have put into wikipedia has related content to do with the article involved. The comic book article for instance had a reference to comicbookresources.com and Warren Ellis's (one man) suggestion to use the term original graphic novel which to me sounds the same as when I had added a suggested comic book cataloguing system that was created by someone who had actually taken library technician classes.

Now, you remove a reference to a review of the independent title Scorn written by Kevin Moyers and call it spamming the site. It was a justifiable in that it was a review of the work the article was about. I don't mean to sound bitter or to be troublesome but it seems to me that you're just following me around wikipedia and undoing any changes I make and throw up some excuse as to why it isn't justifiable when I don't understand how you can interpret the rules in such a manner. I plan to add a reference to a Kevin Moyer interview soon, will that be removed as well? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Millennium Cowboy (talk • contribs) 20:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC) I have left a number of your edits alone (e.g. the references you gave to interviews), and reverted s couple of others. Warren Ellis is a recognized authority in the field of comics, so his words carry some weight. Your cataloguing system is not in widespread use, not recognized or discussed in reliable sources. It may be the best system ever, but that is for Wikipedia quite irrelevant: it is original research, while the purpose of a Wikipedia article is to summarize the knowledge about a subject from reliable, indepedent sources. I notive that I am not the only one to remove your cataloguing system, so it may be best that if you insist on including it, to start a discussion about it on the talk page of the article. Fram (talk) 08:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

"Europe" categories

Can you take a look at these please, and see if they fall under WP:CSD#G4. Although the name on the tin has changed to "Europe" instead of "Ireland", the contents are still exactly the same. There's one article, little or no potential for growth, and I hoped it had been made clear that the categories should only be created if needed.

• Category:20 in Europe (deletion log for equivalent Ireland cat)
• Category:76 in Europe (deletion log for equivalent Ireland cat)
• Category:80 in Europe (deletion log for equivalent Ireland cat)
• Category:106 in Europe (deletion log for equivalent Ireland cat)
• Category:140 in Europe (deletion log for equivalent Ireland cat)
• Category:157 in Europe (deletion log for equivalent Ireland cat)
• Category:186 in Europe (deletion log for equivalent Ireland cat)
• Category:195 in Europe (deletion log for equivalent Ireland cat)
• Category:218 in Europe (deletion log for equivalent Ireland cat)
• Category:226 in Europe (deletion log for equivalent Ireland cat)
• Category:236 in Europe (deletion log for equivalent Ireland cat)
• Category:237 in Europe (deletion log for equivalent Ireland cat)
• Category:238 in Europe (deletion log for equivalent Ireland cat)
• Category:239 in Europe (deletion log for equivalent Ireland cat)
• Category:240 in Europe (deletion log for equivalent Ireland cat)
• Category:241 in Europe (deletion log for equivalent Ireland cat)
• Category:248 in Europe (deletion log for equivalent Ireland cat)
• Category:254 in Europe (deletion log for equivalent Ireland cat)
• Category:260 in Europe (deletion log for equivalent Ireland cat)
• Category:262 in Europe (deletion log for equivalent Ireland cat)
• Category:265 in Europe (deletion log for equivalent Ireland cat)
• Category:271 in Europe (deletion log for equivalent Ireland cat)
• Category:272 in Europe (deletion log for equivalent Ireland cat)
• Category:283 in Europe (deletion log for equivalent Ireland cat)
• Category:284 in Europe (deletion log for equivalent Ireland cat)
• Category:285 in Europe (deletion log for equivalent Ireland cat)
• Category:291 in Europe (deletion log for equivalent Ireland cat)
• Category:331 in Europe (deletion log for equivalent Ireland cat)
• Category:356 in Europe (deletion log for equivalent Ireland cat)
• Category:367 in Europe (deletion log for equivalent Ireland cat)
• Category:383 in Europe (deletion log for equivalent Ireland cat)

And there's plenty of later ones, such as....

• Category:721 in Europe (deletion log for equivalent Ireland cat)

To see the madness this is creating, a good example is Category:383. Other than the article 383, there are two articles, Category:383 deaths, and Category:383 by country and Category:383 in Europe both of which only contain one article which is 383 in Ireland. It's a nonsensical use of categories, the Ireland article should be in the main 383 cat surely? I'd hate to have to go through yet another protracted CFD and DRV to delete something we've already deleted (more than one on some occasions), so does G4 apply? Thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 15:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to delete these through any interpretation of the previous CfD, even though they are in my opinion created as a WP:POINT violation at worst or an ill-thought out, hasty decision at best. I've deleted all "Year in Ireland" categories before 1100 as essentially the same as those that were under discussion: I think that a reasonable case could be made to delete all newly-created "year in country X" (Italy and so on) categories, but because of the opposition I already got for these other deletions, I would prefer a new CfD for those. I do believe that "Year X in Europe" could potentially be a more useful category, if it was only populated with the "Year X in country" articles. This way, you could go from one country to another (althoug for many years, it would indeed be nearly empty). But anyway, the whole "years in X" category scheme needs a thorough rethinking, as it currently is a mess with many near-duplicate ones, many articles which are located both in categories and subcategories, and so on. Fram (talk) 10:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll make plans from here then. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 15:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Well as you can see by the redlinks, those were deleted per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 March 14. However in addition to the "20 by country" etc I was planning to CfD next I've just come across these recently created by Ardfern:

• Category:524 in France, Category:721 in France, Category:866 in France etc etc etc etc

Now I realise you almost certainly aren't going to delete these without a CFD, but can anything be done to stop this creation of pre-1100 (or thereabouts, even later possibly) one article categories? Thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 23:32, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I am tempted to delete them though. I do believe that the two discussions (the Ireland one, and the Europe one) have shown that the consensus is to merge them all in the general "year" category" until it becomes too large. Deleting all subcategories (in Europe, by country, and individual countries) would be perfectly in line with the results of these two CfD's. Let me think about it... Fram (talk) 07:38, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not so much the existing categories that I'm concerned about, I'm just hoping to avoid the creation of Category:531 in Spain, Category:531 in Italy and so on. Thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 08:43, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

But it's very hard around here to prevent the creation of anything... It would certainly be necessary to first start a polite discussion with Ardfern (as the most likley creator of these categories). If that doesn't help, perhaps the wikiproject categorization is the best plave to continue the discussion (perhaps with a RfC added). Fram (talk) 09:00, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Well I'd have thought a comment such as this would have been liberally interpreted to include other countries as well? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 11:32, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Obviously, but since it wasn't enough then, it may not be enough now. Anyway, if you don't discuss it directly with Ardfern first, at least notify him of any other discussion you would start, since his edits would be the most effected. Fram (talk) 11:54, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you...

		The PCHS-NJROTC Abuse Report and Antivandal Barnstar
		For reverting vandalism to Port Charlotte High School!

GO-PCHS-NJROTC (talk) 00:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Aaron Austin delete

Hello? You deleted it when there were two votes against one. Hardly consensus. I ask you to reverse your actions, which I find to be a contravention of WP's normal processes. Tony (talk) 14:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Consensus in deletion debates is based on the strnegth of arguments. Yours was very weak (of course, there are no sources that claim that he is not notable, why should such sources exist?), while the other arguments were stronger. In the Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators, it says that "Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any). Arguments that contradict policy, are based on opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious, are frequently discounted." I will not reverse my closure, but if you still believe my decision went against the normal processes, you are free to go to deletion review. Fram (talk) 14:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Python wikipedia

I am testing a bot I might use for wikipedia later it makes stubs--129.115.29.153 (talk) 15:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Just remember that for actually running a bot, you need permission. Please check our Bot policy for all info on this. Fram (talk) 15:29, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the trouble

I'm sorry for the trouble my friends and I may have caused for you when we chatted on a friend's talk page. I feel really bad about it. It won't happen again!

I must say that it is admirable how you caught us so quickly. It shows your dedication to Wikipedia. --Kaizykat (talk) 00:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

No problem, it is not obvious to know what is and what isn't allowed or expected on a site like this. Fram (talk) 08:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

"Personal attack"

The rule on personal attacks only applies to Wikipedia users.

Rachel's been permanently banned and she's a public figure.

Hence, this is akin to me saying, "President Bush is AN APE!"

Please don't edit others' comments. Thank you. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 15:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

You shouldn't make severely negative, unsourced statements about anyone on Wikipedia, no matter if they are an editor or a subject. I did not link to NPA, but what you said was a personal attack, just like your comment above about Bush. Discuss the facts, not your opinion of other persons. If you want to put it into Wikipedia policies; it is a BLP violation.

From WP:BLP: "unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without waiting for further discussion from Wikipedia articles,[2] talk pages, user pages, and project space." This was contentious, negative, unsourced material about a living person, on a talk page, and I have removed it immediately, as proscribed by policy. Please familiarize yourself with our policies, and more importantly, please refrain from negative statements about people, no matter if they are editors or public figures. Fram (talk) 20:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Please reconsider ATEasy article deletion

Can you please tell me why did you deleted it? What can I do to restore it? DrATEasy (talk) 16:51, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I deleted the page based on the discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ATEasy, where all experienced editors agreed that the page should be deleted. You can try to overturn this decision at deletion review. Fram (talk) 20:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Deletion Of A School Page, within a project BAD DELETION

You have deleted a page of importance, this page was in catagories, it is a Lower School. If you are going to delete pages such as that which do have importance, but lacked some information as it was new, then I suggest you go to every page in that catagory, and delete every informative page within them, every school and undo all of the time taking hard work of others. This page WILL be re made, it is informative and not against any guidelines. Don't be so delete button happy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FuzzyMonkeySupreme (talk • contribs) 12:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I restored it. I somehow misread the creation date, and thought it was an abandoned page, instead of a newly created one. I have undeleted it. It is an empty page (categories and infoboxes are extra's, not the core of a page), but you should have the time to edit it a bit more. Sorry for this deletion. Fram (talk) 12:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi

Hi George, how are you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.83.125.225 (talk) 12:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Luciano Pavarrotti and the WJH1992 socks at ANI

Hello Fram. This issue is on ANI, and I mentioned there that you had recently blocked two socks that were active on the case. EdJohnston (talk) 23:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll go and take a look. Fram (talk) 07:40, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Another IP is active on Luciano Pavarrotti: 212.139.127.38. This is traceable to the same London ISP as 88.111.201.28 which I believe you identified as a WJH1992 sock. If you are an admin, I wonder if the page can be protected. Thanks. Best. -- Kleinzach (talk) 10:04, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I blocked him the minute after you reverted him on the Pavarotti page. Since this user is active on many different pages and regularly moves on to new pages as well, I'ld rather not semi-protect them. It's much easier to find him once you know a number of his favourite topics. revert, block ,ignore is the easiest and fastest solution. Fram (talk) 10:42, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

OK. Thanks. -- Kleinzach (talk) 10:49, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

DYK

On 17 March, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Patrice Killoffer, 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.

Good work! Bencherlite^Talk 01:58, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! Fram (talk) 10:43, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

United States journalism scandals List

"The result was . Keep. Problems (cleanup, possible rename, ...) can be adressed at article talk page."

Busy . day? --Matt Lewis (talk) 12:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I removed it. Sticky fingers... Fram (talk) 12:55, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Wish I'd left it now - it was kind of apt - like a symbol of the hurried way the AfD has been treated. I think I'd prefer you to edit your decision! I take it you are an inclusionist no-matter what? Wikipedia will be entirely burried in forks and loony fork-lists if we allowed it to. How could honest editors manage with it all? It's way too much to cover per story. It's alright telling people like me to look after the page and iron things out there. I've tried on the AfD - with no effective suggestions via renaming forthcoming. Everyone has basically moved the "problems" on to a non-existent Talk-page "community" (community - over a list of scandals?). Why the should people like me let the Alzheimer's page, and other pages we contribute to, suffer because of this lunatic un-Wikipdia list? I just find it madness - I really do, madness. Recently we've had two people blocked over just the one "scandal"! (while only 3 or 4 people were contributing to it). All those "keeps" meant or actually said nothing. I won't repeat all my arguments again: one day It'll be up, the AfD will be properly attended, the head-count will be significantly different, and it will go.--Matt Lewis (talk) 14:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC) tract

That may well be, but for now, the arguments for deletion were not convincing, and consensus was clearly more leaning to keep. As for me being an inclusionist... :-) I guess I'm doing something right (or everything wrong), as more people would probably consider me a deletionist. Fram (talk) 14:18, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

You say in your edit-note the "best arguments" were for keeping! I didn't see any actual arguments - what were they? And what wasn't convincing about the many deletion arguments? (they've just been ignored, or lazily and passed on to future Talk.) I don't mind if you rip holes in them - it would just be nice for someone to have a go! My paranoia (fully justified) is that so few take the time to read anything on Wikipedia - hence my cynicism over the clear typo in your conclusion. --Matt Lewis (talk) 14:52, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I spend longer reading other people's comments than rereading my own, and so it happens often that my posts are typo-filled. As for arguments: 1. the previous AfD was closed as a keep only one week before this one started, which would in most cases result in a speedy keep anyway (as basically said by Dhartung in his keep, and by DGG as well). 2. The nomination gave other possibilities of mentioning such scandals, but did not really address what were the problems with this one (pointless?). The first delete: POV fork: there is nothing inherently POV about this subject, and POV problems with the current contents should be adressed on the talk page (cf. my closing statement). Second delete argeus against the current contents (includes some non notable ones, misses some notable ones), which is again an argument for cleanup. Third delete has the same argument. As for better keep arguments, I believe the posts by FT2 sum it up nicely.

If this doesn't convince you, I would prefer that you start a deletion review. Fram (talk) 15:10, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Well I'm sorry, I find that paragraph-filling waffle - I just don't go with it at all! (1 or 2 etc). We have just read two completely different AfD's I think! (and you've missed the arguments in the Comments too, and are totally dismissive of all my own!) - but I'm not interested in a "deletion review", as it strikes me as a guaranteed waste of time. Clearly, your opinion goes.

Instead I'll be bold, ref both you and KT2, and create the simple-list from the template offered by KT2 (WP:List of United States journalism scandals) re his "Conditional keep (probably as list)"). We'll see what happens in a corresponding Talk. There will always be inherent incluson and scandal-title problems, even if it makes it. Subjective (and lengthy) isn't the word! At least it won't be a fork article/list any more. I certainly normally discuss - but I'm not going to talk first here - not in an intrinsically devalued (and pest-filled) Talk page - I'll Talk afterwards. --Matt Lewis (talk) 16:17, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Re:Talk page

Uh oh. I compiled a list of orphaned pages a couple days ago from this tool and I guess maybe there was a bug or something. I'll have to be a lot more careful with that in the future. (And yes, that was a very bad accident.)   jj137 (talk) 01:38, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Final warning

You ain't going to do nothing, and now I am starting a deletion for the Nicole Wray page. 198.86.17.162 (talk) 13:50, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Traveling Wilburys

I think you accidentally clobbered my edit when reverting those of 88.111.159.8. I put back the sentence I changed in the lead section. If you meant to revert, we can talk about it on the talk page. No big deal, of course. -FrankTobia (talk) 13:58, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Education in The Simpsons

Hi Fram

Could you send me a copy of the final text of the article you deleted, "Education in The Simpsons"?. I don't have any problems with this being deleted and don't intend to repost it, I would just like to read it again. Thank you Fram.

::Manors:: talk to me 21:53, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

A nearly identican copy can be seen here [1] and here[2]. Fram (talk) 19:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Fram! ::Manors:: talk to me 16:39, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Strange editing going on

Hi Fram I created the article for William Henry Bury a while ago and it seems to be constantly edited by a variety of editors who think Scotland is in England. The infobox keeps being edited and all the edits seem to come from an IP addy in the same town in England. I noticed that you quite rightly did an undo on the article more than once and I've just done another. Have you any idea what is going on? Cheers JSL595 (talk) 21:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, sorry for the late reply. It's one editor who is indefinitely blocked but returns with many different IP addresses and usernames, and makes loads of small edits to a limited number of articles. Some of the edits are good, most are useless and some are downright bad (like the Scotland, England example). When I notice them, I block on sight and revert everything. Feel free to revert him as well, and if necessary drop a note here and I'll block him. I'ld rather not protect the article, since then he moves on to other articles and it's harder for me to track him. Fram (talk) 07:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Cheers. I'll keep a close eye on things too. JSL595 (talk) 21:22, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Tennis

Why did you delete our modern tennis dialect?

Because Wikipedia is not the place for things made up in school (or at home) one day. Fram (talk) 19:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Rocket Frog

Thanks for that - I just didn't have the time to keep an eye on that. I also assume you saw this which would to me suggest WP:COI issues. (Emperor (talk) 15:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC))

Mickie Knuckles deleted?

Hi, I was just wondering if you could explain the logic behind deleting a page for a wrestler who has wrestled for a number of promotions, and won championships.

The reason given was that a similar article had already been deleted last year due to "Non-notable indy wrestler, never wrestled in any top promotion", however, I would estimate that a good 70-80% of the indy wrestlers that have articles listed would fall under the same category? --Apsouthern (talk) 15:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The article was near identical, which means that the conclusions of the deletion discussion are still valid. That there are quite a few other articles that should also be deleted on the same grounds is probably true, but articles are discussed on an individual basis, so articles that have so far escaped scrutiny can stay while similar articles may be deleted. It's the nature of the system we use... Fram (talk) 18:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

This was my first article so I'm not completely sure on the whole system. Does this mean that there would be no point in me writing another article on Mickie, or would the fact that the article didn't mention enough in the way of her career and accomplishments make a difference? --Apsouthern (talk) 08:36, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Not bad for a first article, but the trouble is that for athletes, we normally only want to have articles for those who have played in the top league of their sport (you can checkj our WP:ATHLETE guideline for more info on this). It was decided in the discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mickie Knuckles that this wrestler did not meet our guidelines, and all the accomplishments you list in the article you created were already listed in the previous, deleted article. Since the article provided no new information, it was again deleted. You can contest deletions at deletion review in you think it went against the Wikipedia:Deletion policy. Fram (talk) 11:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the information - I think I might try again with more information regarding the notability of the subject, or do you feel this would be a waste of time? I appreciate that the WP:ATHLETE guideline is reasonably specific, although I'm not sure how that would relate to a "professional wrestler" which, although athletic, is not really a competitive sport. Also, is there any way to access the original article so that I could check the information provided back then and see what I would need to add?--Apsouthern (talk) 11:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

There is no way I know of to check the original article (it is probably too old to be still available on any of the Wikipedia mirrors), but it was very close to your version. If you have more information about his notability, you can always recreate the article in your userspace (e.g. at User:Apsouthern/Sandbox) and asking for comments there before reposting it, and/or you can check with the Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling project people what they think about it. Fram (talk) 12:10, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for all your help - I'll have a play with the sandbox and speak to the Wikiproject people as well--Apsouthern (talk) 12:20, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

DYK

On 8 April, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article List of bestselling fiction authors, 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.

--Bobet 16:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Please delete all my non-current revision

Can uou please delete my revisions on my userpage exept http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Jet&oldid=204769785. Please don't delete my userpage. Thank you. Jet (talk) 20:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

No problem, done! Fram (talk) 20:27, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Luigison V. Doran in Dutch

Hello, Fram. This appears to be about a footballer from the Dutch Antilles. Would it possible for you to translate it into English? Cheers, Dlohcierekim 21:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Done (without the POV praise used in the original though). Fram (talk) 08:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Dlohcierekim 03:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

dyk

On 15 April, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Gilbert Patten , 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.

--Well done - please feel free to help load the next update... anyone can. Best to avoid your own Victuallers (talk) 09:39, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Vereniging Basisinkomen

Thanks for the correction. I would like you to comment on the notability of the organization though, rather than on the article (as is). Take a look at Donemus, for instance. There is no attempt to establish notability in the article. Most articles on organizations are like that. Regards, Guido den Broeder (talk) 08:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

And when they are challenged (through a notability tag, a prod, and now an AfD), it is up to those interested in keeping the article to provide evidence of the notability, either in the AfD or 'preferably) in the article. But anyway, I have looked for more info on the Internet, and none of it convinced me that this is a notable organisation in the Wikipedia sense of the word.Fram (talk) 09:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Did you look at the material I added to the talk page of the article? Most of the material that I have (eg newspaper articles, other radio interviews) is not available online, but this is something at least. Guido den Broeder (talk) 13:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I did. Fringe parties like the Natuurwetpartij, trivial mentions, ... It just reminds me a lot of the ME/CVS debate, and it isn't convincing me at all. It's all so minor, so trivial... Fram (talk) 13:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I see the bar raised by exactly the same distance as the new information that was just added. That way, it will never be good enough.

In terms of the amount of material, the two don't compare (yet), we have barely scratched the surface here. The nature of the material is no different from that on almost all organizations in the world, many of which nonetheless have articles in Wikipedia, often without any independent source whatsoever. Then again, we could always add another Pokemon card. :) Guido den Broeder (talk) 13:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I raised any bar. Multiple references in reliable, independent sources. I don't consider the program of a fringe party like the Natuurwetpartij as a "reliable source" at all. Similarly, an award no one has ever heard of and which hasn't been reported in any newspapers or magazines is virtually worthless. You would expect that a notable Dutch organisation has had articles in the Volkskrant or something similar. E.g. the Vereniging van Nederlandse Gemeenten has 61 mentions in the Volkskrant archief[3], and the Mondriaan stichting is mentioned seventeen times[4]. Both are repeatedly the focus of the articles. These are the kind of organisations that can easily have an article here. E.g. the Mondriaan Stichting is not world famous or anything, but it still passes our standards quite easily. And I don't see that kind of coverage for the Vereniging Basisinkomen. Fram (talk) 14:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

You might want to take another look. [5] Guido den Broeder (talk) 14:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

And looking that way, I find 525 hits for the Mondriaan Stichting... Anyway, if one of the two relevant hits you get from the Volkskrant is an indepth source (I'm not going to pay to check it out), add them to the article, it may help your case. Fram (talk) 14:53, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

There goes that bar again. Naturally, a larger organization will be mentioned more often. Guido den Broeder (talk) 15:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Histachii

Hello! :) In March, Histachii was nominated for deletion. At the time, there was no suitable page for this article to be redirected to, so based on the consensus, you deleted the article. I have created a new page, List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters, which would be a proper destination to merge and/or redirect the article to. I'm wondering if it's possible to restore the original article, and turn it into a redirect, thus preserving the edit history? Thanks!  :) BOZ (talk) 00:21, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

There is no need to preserve the edit history if the article was deleted and not merged. You can of course create the redirect to the new list. Fram (talk) 19:20, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Please? I'd like the text to be available in case there's anything that needs to be merged into the list. BOZ (talk) 19:37, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, much appreciated.  :) I'm in no way trying to make the AFD invalid. BOZ (talk) 19:40, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

No problem, the text wa more for the information of future editors who might be tempted to revert to the complete article. I didn't mean to doubt your intentions. Thanks for staying friendly, if all editors would act like this, this would be an even nicer place! Fram (talk) 19:44, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed; and your warning to other users is not without merit, because I can understand your hesitancy. Other users could see the restored text as a sign to go crazy with restoring the article, such as Grawp sockpuppets (which is something he's done before with deleted D&D articles) but since I put the lists up a few days ago, admins have graciously restored the edit histories of... counting... 15 deleted articles including this one, and as yet not a one of them has been vandalized. I'm hoping it stays that way so I don't lose any credibility.  :) I've got them all on my watchlist, regardless, so I may as well take any blame if something goes wrong. BOZ (talk) 19:54, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey, no blame for such a thing. If it goes wrong, I can always remove the history or potect the redirect. Fram (talk) 20:18, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Might as well protect the redirect if anything goes wrong, as I've seen suggested before: [6]. :) BOZ (talk)

Hello again! :) Would you also mind restoring the edit histories of Debbi and Abrian and redirecting them to List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters? Thanks! :) BOZ (talk) 00:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again! BOZ (talk) 12:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

ITN, Jimbo, & AN

Per your message on Jimbo's talk, I posted my concerns to AN and no action has been taken there. Jimbo has since responded to my message as well. I'm appealing to you for advice on how to proceed when other admins appear reluctant to do so. Madcoverboy (talk) 16:48, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, looking over the debate, I see a form of consensus that the current criteria are too strict, but no consensus as to how it should be changed, both technically and factually: it is unclear how to include them (in ITN or as a separate section), and who would be included (importance of person? quality of article? Something else?). It is not up to admins to decide content disputes, even though in this case it is up to us to implement it once there is a consensus. So I would advise you to continue the discussion, either at the ITN pages, or at the WP:VPP page to get a broader input, if needed. Fram (talk) 19:36, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

OC Systems

Fram, You deleted OC Systems, an article that was recreated from a previous deletion. The previous discussion about the article stated that the article needed more references. I added more references from primary sources as well as added notable content. I was still deleted but there wasn't even any discussion this time. Will you give me some feedback as to why this article was deleted this time? I know you can see that I am new to Wiki, but it does become difficult to be deleted without feedback on how to improve. Thanks for your time. Amyyaley (talk) 20:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Account on fr.wp

Hello,

I'm bureaucrat at fr.wp, and saw your request. Since the editor with the name you wish to usurp made an edit just 3 days ago, I left him a message, asking if he consent to be renamed. If he accepts or if he gives no sign of life within a reasonnable time, I will rename him. Regards, Blinking Spirit (talk) 18:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I didn't notice the recent date on that last edit. If the editor wished to retain his account name, no problem of course, he has just as much right to it :-) Thanks for your help! Fram (talk) 11:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

External links

You removed external links to Vereniging Basisinkomen on Basic income and Guaranteed minimum income, claiming that the site has no English content. This is untrue and, if true, your action would violate WP:MOSLINK. You furthermore left a link to a website entirely in Portuguese be, which might make one doubt your motives. Guido den Broeder (talk) 08:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for doubting my motives, so much for WP:AGF. I have not checked the other links, but I knew from the Vereniging Basisinkomen discussion, in which I participated, that the site has no English content. I have now again checked it, and I couldn't find any English language content except on the links page. Anyway, you claim removing it violates WP:MOSLINK, but the site is not the subject of the article, did not show maps, diagrams, photos or tables, and did not contain "key or authoritative information found on no English-language site". But if you want to wikilawyer about it, please remember WP:EL: "You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent, even if the guidelines otherwise imply that it should be linked." You are the webmaster of this site... 10:35, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Which quote does in no way imply that such a link should then be removed. This particular link has been there for ages. I am not placing it, but undoing its random removal. Guido den Broeder (talk) 09:39, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

It is not random removal, it is removal in line with our guidelines. You are incorrect, by the way, since you are both the one placing the link and repeatedly reinserting it over the objections of different editors. You initially included it[7], put it back in after another editor objected[8], put it back in after I removed it[9] (with a rather misleading edit summary to boot), and put it back in even after the guidelines have been again explained to you (even though you should by now be perfectly aware of COI). You included the link in the first place, it has been explained to you over and over again that you should be wary of COI edits, and still you insist on reinserting it? I think it's time for a WP:RFC/U on you... Fram (talk) 09:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I insist on including it because it contains key material not found elsewhere. WP:COI does not forbid editing and, more importantly, does not command reverting. Be aware that randomly initiating a procedure can backfire. Rather discuss content. Guido den Broeder (talk) 10:16, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Linking to a country-specific website as an external link when there is a global website with the same goal is not appropriate. Doing so when you are the treasurer of that organization is even more inappropriate. When the external link is not in english, triply so. How is this organization informative for anyone who doesn't live in the Netherlands, and further, why can't it be linked as a footnote if it has scholarly content? If it has not scholarly content, why is an advocacy site being linked at all if wikipedia is not a soapbox? COI should prevent Guido from linking to VBI, if it's as useful as he professes, there should be no difficulty in convincing other contributors to add it; use the talk page or solicit an uninvolved contributor for their review. The page should be justified per WP:EL and WP:ELNO. WLU (talk) 17:58, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

"WP:COI does not forbid editing" - what about the nutshell for WP:COI, which reads "Do not edit Wikipedia to promote your own interests, or those of other individuals, companies, or groups, unless you are certain that the interests of Wikipedia remain paramount."? You may be sure, but other editors disagree. So convince them - if the edit is unequivocally good, it should stand. If GDB is being blinded by his own COI, a neutral review will ensure wikipedia is not harmed. WLU (talk) 18:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I have already convinced them, we already had neutral reviews. Not my job to satisfy every last one of Wikipedia's users, you should know when to stop. Guido den Broeder (talk) 18:21, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Really? Then allow them to revert the page to include VBI, and leave it alone. That way it's no longer a COI issue, and everyone who is reverting your addition becuase of COI concerns will stop. Also, I checked the talk pages and archives for GMI, BI and Derek Ross, the editor who removed the link initially, and could find no evidence of any review. Could you direct me please? WLU (talk) 18:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Sis boom bah

Would you please put it back? I am about to post the article on wiktionary and want the soft redirect in place. Also, for context, I would rfefer you to cheering. --evrik ^(talk) 15:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Done. Is there a reason not to create the wiktionary article first, and the soft redirect later? Now there was a page without contents, redirecting to a non existing page (a combination of CSD A1 and CSD R1). Fram (talk) 07:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you! I have the text and am going to paste it anon. :-) --evrik ^(talk) 15:40, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

OC Systems

Fram, you deleted my article again. I asked for some feedback and yo gave none after a week, but were quick to delete. Can you please refer to the message on the 22nd and give feedback.Amyyaley (talk) 21:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

DYK!

On 30 April, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Bernard Newman (author), 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.

—Fvasconcellos (t·c) 02:18, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks. Not having been involved in a RFC before, is it normal procedure that I should comment on this? SunCreator (talk) 13:07, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Lyme (album)

Hey!

Good call on that one (speedy vs prod). Thanks for fixing it.

Peace! SWik78 (talk • contribs) 13:52, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

No problem! Fram (talk) 13:53, 30 April 2008 (UTC)