User talk:Fram/Archive 40

Immersive paintings

1- The examples you have given are projections of paintings and not actual paintings. The art that is being projected have no connection with immersion. According to the Google dictionary (Oxford) it is the action of immersing someone or something... it dos not have to be a person that is immersed into something. 2- It's yourself stated in the temple "...one artist who inlays..." and yet removed the posting from the inlay page for no good reason. Please do not do this. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cobrahman (talk • contribs) 01:37, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

1- "artworks are projected all around you". yourself admitted it to be projection

2- Rothko, panorama paintings

3- definition of the word "immersion" 75.128.42.75 (talk) 15:46, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

What matters is what reliable sources say, not what you believe it should be. The "projections" are immersive paintings in the second meaning of the definition your search shows, the first one is placing something in a liquid: neither is about placing one solid inside a hole in another solid. The "immmersive paintings" you or the artist name are not "immersive" at all. And this. Fram (talk) 16:04, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Added source to Microsoft Musical Instruments

I added a source to Microsoft Musical Instruments and deleted the deletion template. Sk8erkid182 (talk) 16:56, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of my article

Hello. Not sure if you had noticed, the article that you had nominated for speedy deletion has a infobox informing that it's beeing worked at. Thereof, instead of removing it, it would be nice to let it become developed thru time Mcgiwer (talk) 15:55, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

I have seen way too often that that infobox is only used as a way to avoid new page patrolling and get it past most scrutiny. I checked online if the topic was notable, which it isn't (e.g. nothing in Google news, very little in Google in general). Feel free to provide a few reliable, independent sources about the website if I'm wrong. Fram (talk) 15:58, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

It's a bit late as I've deleted it. Mcgiwer, if you wish to "develop" an article over time, then use draft space, not article space.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:59, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Request to delete page.

Hi sir Can you delete the one which moved to draft of Maldives national under-20 football team. Its was my unknown mistake. I was out of network then I have submitted some statistics the first article then I seen their is two article of now. I will add now 2nd article some statis. Thanks God bless you. MD Hydrogen 123 (talk) 10:04, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi

Why did you removed second page. In Wikipedia many articles which remains with short information. I am very shock about it. Thanks.

If there is very little to sy about a subject, but it can be included as a subtopic in a larger article, then it is often better to combine articles. The U20 team hardly played, and is not really notable, and it is rather useless to have long tables for championships where they didn't ever compete: but including this information in the main article explains why we don't have a separate article (not enough info) but still can show the little bit we have. Fram (talk) 10:51, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Please remove the redirect tag I will re create it about it six months back. MD Hydrogen 123 (talk) 12:18, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't understand what you're saying here. Fram (talk) 13:07, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

I want to the page get back a reviewer was review the page now. So please remove redirect tag. MD Hydrogen 123 (talk) 13:16, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

@MD Hydrogen 123,

As mentioned on my talk page, I simply evaluated whether it was a valid redirect, not whether the page should be a redirect or not. Me having marked the page as patrolled (at the time of my viewing) has no impact on whether the page should be a redirect or not. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:24, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Can you tell me can I get the original page back. I am new I don't understanding much about it. Thanks boss. MD Hydrogen 123 (talk) 13:26, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Can you tell me why you think this team, which played a few games in 2018 and none before or after, should get a full page with empty tables instead of just one paragraph in the larger article? What is the issue with the current situation? Fram (talk) 13:28, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

I will update much more Fram let me get back it. I didn't got time before I edit you removed it? MD Hydrogen 123 (talk) 13:32, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

You can work in Draft:Maldives women's national under-20 football team for as long as you need, then you can show me what you actually think you can achieve with it. Fram (talk) 13:36, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1540s disestablishments in Germany

A tag has been placed on Category:1540s disestablishments in Germany indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:08, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1560s disestablishments in Germany

A tag has been placed on Category:1560s disestablishments in Germany indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:10, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1570s disestablishments in Germany

A tag has been placed on Category:1570s disestablishments in Germany indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:10, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1700s establishments in Germany

A tag has been placed on Category:1700s establishments in Germany indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:14, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1710s establishments in Germany

A tag has been placed on Category:1710s establishments in Germany indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:14, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Fram,

Many editors who create a lot of categories have asked me NOT to notify them when categories they have created become empty. If you would like me to omit these CSD C1 messages just let me know and you'll stop receiving them. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:34, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

You didn't reply to my query so I'll keep posting messages to your talk page about empty categories you have created in the past. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:59, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Alexander Bagrationi

Hi Fram -- Deprodded this; I thought chess grandmasters were deemed notable. It seems to have been marked as patrolled, despite a complete lack of categories -- I never know how to check who did this? Did you patrol it, or did I do it accidentally somehow? Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 00:28, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1090s establishments in Germany

A tag has been placed on Category:1090s establishments in Germany indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:59, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1530s disestablishments in Germany

A tag has been placed on Category:1530s disestablishments in Germany indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:07, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1535 disestablishments in Germany

A tag has been placed on Category:1535 disestablishments in Germany indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:09, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1540 disestablishments in Germany

A tag has been placed on Category:1540 disestablishments in Germany indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:13, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1545 disestablishments in Germany

A tag has been placed on Category:1545 disestablishments in Germany indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:14, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1564 disestablishments in Germany

A tag has been placed on Category:1564 disestablishments in Germany indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:15, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1579 disestablishments in Germany

A tag has been placed on Category:1579 disestablishments in Germany indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:20, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1580s disestablishments in Germany

A tag has been placed on Category:1580s disestablishments in Germany indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:22, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:16th-century disestablishments in Germany

A tag has been placed on Category:16th-century disestablishments in Germany indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:30, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1720s establishments in Germany

A tag has been placed on Category:1720s establishments in Germany indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:33, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1790s establishments in Germany

A tag has been placed on Category:1790s establishments in Germany indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:40, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

List of people on the postage stamps of X

I'm joining the club on prodding or AFDing all these "List of people on the postage stamps of X". Where the hell did all these lists come from? They're right up there with all the obscure two-episode reality shows I'm finding that got no RS coverage. Props to you for finding another treasure trove of cruft to clean up. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:13, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is stuffed with such walled gardens with one or two editors wanting to keep them (and in this case simultaneously not interested in developing them somehow). Fram (talk) 08:55, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

And of course this isn't limited to articles, you also get weird inclusions of trivia because one or two people take an interest, like the descriptions of the last meals of death row inmates[1]. Why anyone would think this is essential or appropriate in a biography of a criminal is not clear, but there you go... Fram (talk) 13:14, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

We had 6 entries for countries starting with a T, including rather major ones like Thailand and Turkey. One was already at AfD, and none of the other 5 was worth keeping arund any longer, so all have been Prod'ded. One of the worst groups of lists I have found so far. Fram (talk) 09:40, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

If you look at the history of Lists of people on postage stamps, you can see that it was created in 2002 by User:Eclecticology, who sadly passed away in 2016; I first saw the list in 2003, liked the idea, and expanded on it, along with a number of others, as is evident from the history. One thing you don't see anywhere in the early discussion is notability; in that time period editors were encouraged to try all kinds of experiments to grow Wikipedia, and the value of listing notable people appearing on stamps seemed so obvious it never even came up as an issue. So now with the passage of time, it looks more like a failed experiment, and that's OK. I see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people on stamps of Hungary from 2011 was almost all keeps; curious as to how a second attempt would go, many of the participants from back then are now gone. Stan (talk) 01:23, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1190s establishments in Germany

A tag has been placed on Category:1190s establishments in Germany indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:58, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1340s establishments in Germany

A tag has been placed on Category:1340s establishments in Germany indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:58, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1390s establishments in Germany

A tag has been placed on Category:1390s establishments in Germany indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:59, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1400s establishments in Germany

A tag has been placed on Category:1400s establishments in Germany indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:00, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1430s establishments in Germany

A tag has been placed on Category:1430s establishments in Germany indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:00, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Quick note

Hi Fram, I think you pasted the wrong link (a Google Books URL) in your latest edit to ANI. DanCherek (talk) 12:37, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Just checking if anyone reads my posts... Thanks, a leftover link from my previous post, now corrected! Fram (talk) 12:40, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Ah the amount of times I've pasted the wrong thing because I forgot what was in my clipboard. Canterbury Tail talk 12:47, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

As long as it's nothing embarassing ;-) Fram (talk) 12:55, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

List of years in Liechtenstein

Hello Fram, did you just recently delete the article titled List of years in Liechtenstein? There is practically an article for every country in the world titled List of years in [country], and this was the one I just created for Liechtenstein, the last European nation without one. Was something wrong with the article? A tag with the article says it is "unsourced," so I could potentially add a citation saying Liechtenstein was founded in the year 1866? This is the fourth list of years article I have created for a country, as this is just my area of interest on Wikipedia. What do I need to do for this article? Thanks!--Johnson524 (talk) 19:28, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

I would like to mention as well that these articles are more of a template than anything. You can go to other long running list of year articles such as List of years in France, which has been active since 2013 with no citations. That is kind of just the layout of these kind of articles.--Johnson524 (talk) 19:29, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Sorry Fram, at the time I wrote this I thought the article was already deleted and that you deleted it because of the unsourced tag or something. This is no longer, and was never really, relevant at all 😅 -- Johnson524 (talk) 12:34, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

No problem. I don't agree with the list, but I have no issue with your message! Fram (talk) 12:37, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

New Page Patrol newsletter May 2022

New Page Review queue March 2022

Hello Fram,

At the time of the last newsletter (No.26, September 2021), the backlog was 'only' just over 6,000 articles. In the past six months, the backlog has reached nearly 16,000, a staggering level not seen in several years. A very small number of users had been doing the vast majority of the reviews. Due to "burn-out", we have recently lost most of this effort. Furthermore, several reviewers have been stripped of the user right for abuse of privilege and the articles they patrolled were put back in the queue.

Several discussions on the state of the process have taken place on the talk page, but there has been no action to make any changes. The project also lacks coordination since the "position" is vacant.

In the last 30 days, only 100 reviewers have made more than 8 patrols and only 50 have averaged one review a day. There are currently 814 New Page Reviewers, but about a third have not had any activity in the past month. All 859 administrators have this permission, but only about a dozen significantly contribute to NPP.

This means we have an active pool of about 450 to address the backlog. We cannot rely on a few to do most of the work as that inevitably leads to burnout. A fairly experienced reviewer can usually do a review in a few minutes. If every active reviewer would patrol just one article per day, the backlog would very quickly disappear.

If you have noticed a user with a good understanding of Wikipedia notability and deletion, do suggest they help the effort by placing {{subst:NPR invite}} on their talk page.

If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process and its software.

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.
Sent 05:17, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people on the postage stamps of Burundi

Is two a new record for the fewest amount of people on one of these "List of people on the postage stamps of X" lists? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:52, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Nope, had one empty list, one with only one (wrong) entry, and one or two others with two. Amazing, isn't it, how these have been created over many years, by different editors (including one current admin), and nearly all have the same issues? Fram (talk) 07:22, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Which one was the empty one? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:11, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Don't remember, I think one for the Portuguese Colonies. Fram (talk) 07:02, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Youth Olympics

In light of our prior 2018 discussion re: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Naomi Duncan, along with the also nominated Amy Lawton and Courtney Schonell, please see the following articles in the NPP queue and share your thoughts:

1. Hungary women's national under-19 volleyball team,
2. Hungary women's national under-21 volleyball team,
3. France women's national under-19 volleyball team,
4. France women's national under-21 volleyball team,
5. Romania women's national under-21 volleyball team, and no telling how many more that are similar. Are we still deleting underage athletes?

Please ping me when you've had a chance to review & comment re: the above. Atsme 💬 📧 16:54, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Why, after spending frustrating hours trying to explain to you the most basic aspects of sport, would I want to spend any time on giving my thoughts to you unrelated articles about teams (not individuals) in the NPP queue? The worrying thing to me is that you are doing NPP, not these articles. I just checked some other previous interactions, and your completely misguided edit warring at Wikipedia:Notability (sports) yesterday, on a topic you don't know enough about. Fram (talk) 07:59, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

First of all, I was not edit warring which demonstrates how much you know. Secondly, my knowledge about equestrian sports places me at expert level, and I disagree with quite a few of the other positions you've taken. I came here in GF but I see now, it was wasted time. Your condescension is noted, and speaks volumes to your judgement, not mine. Atsme 💬 📧 12:43, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Your edit, reverted, your reinsertion. How is this not edit warring? I note your opinion of your own expertise, and I see that your proposal (the one you edit warred over) gets near universal opposition. So I'm quite confident in my judgment here, considering that you apparently don't know the difference between individual athletes and teams (question above, earlier discussions), and neither do you know the difference between athletes and competitions. Like you say, wasted time. Fram (talk) 12:57, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Lovely to see how in that talk page discussion, you seem to believe that everyone, every single one, is confused about what they are voting about, and are opposing JoelleJays change (which you don't seem to understand either) instead of your proposal; when it is equally obvious for anyone else that people have read your proposal (and seen your changes at the notability page), and are clearly opposing your proposal. I don't know what your issue is, but it shows that it isn't just me who has serious troubles communicating with you. Fram (talk) 13:02, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

I have no issues with communication, Fram, so let's don't go down that road. What needs scrutiny is your conduct when interacting with other editors, especially female editors; it hasn't been ideal. I came here in GF because I truly wanted your input and in return, with no provocation on my part, you've been condescending, unfairly critical, and have misrepresented my recent edits based on your own misinterpretations, poor judgment and obvious lack of knowledge about equestrian notability and equine sports in general. I take full responsibility for forgetting about your treatment of me & others in the past, but it won't happen again. It's also quite sad that I now have to explain edits that have nothing to do with my initial reason for coming here. Your misguided perception that my 2 edits were edit warring begs a response, so here it is:

1. This edit simply added a few other highly notable equestrian sports. The original text and its meaning remained in tact with 2 very minor grammar changes. The Olympics, jumping and eventing do not represent the entire world of equestrian sports, and in fact, are a minuscule part of it.
2. My edit was reverted, and the edit summary stated to first discuss on the TP. I did not revert that edit or edit war;
3. I went directly to the TP to discuss.
4. The editor who reverted my initial edit then made 2 completely separate bold edits here, and here without getting consensus first. This happened right after they criticized me and reverted my edits for not getting consensus first.
5. I reverted those 2 bold edits stating The same applies to you.
6. The editor then created this proposal, which I commented on here. How or why my initial edit and later revert of different material was subsequently misinterpreted, or conflated and/or blown out of proportion is beyond me.
7. I even attempted to add more clarity, but to no avail.

The whole process and the results are a mess, and best explained in this article about the "downsides of volunteerism and how volunteers can contribute to stifling innovation", particularly the 32nd para which begins It's more serious when you realize this is the basic dynamic for Wikipedia decision making and control. No editor warrants the kind of treatment you demonstrated toward me in this discussion. You can rest assured that I will never seek your input again, so let's make it a voluntary two-way IBAN. I'm done here. Atsme 💬 📧 17:24, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Ah, when you're called out for your many editing problems, if course it has to be because of your gender. Pathetic. Everyone can see that in your revert, you reinstated your own additions, you didn't simply remove the two later edits by Joellejay. If you can't even recognise or admit such blatant facts, then why should I treat you differently than how I have done here? It has nothing to do with your gender, and hiding behind it is an insult to the many very good female editors we have. And no, I will not let you decide that I should have an interaction ban either: if I happen to come across problematic edits by you, I will deal with them just like I would do with other editors. Fram (talk) 17:51, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Oh, ok, noted - no voluntary 2-way IBAN. I didn't even notice my revert grabbed those prior edits - I didn't scroll far enough down the page to notice it until you just now mentioned it. Either way, it wasn't intentional, it wasn't edit warring, and it was reverted anyway. Adios! Atsme 💬 📧 21:48, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Biography of living persons

I received a warning about living persons, controversial biography, in article "ringette" but there is no information where this occurred within the article. If I was the editor, I could remove it, but I don't know where to find it. CheckersBoard (talk) 13:58, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

I have removed it before issuing the warning. It was in the controversy section, your claims about the transgeder player. Fram (talk) 14:17, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Jibolu-Taiwo family

Hello, Fram.

I just wanted to reach out and make a clarification about some editing that you did a few hours ago. You deleted references to Funmilayo Ransome-Kuti and Fela Kuti from the Wikipedia page I just made. Your rationale seems to be that there is no proof that they belong to the family in question. You will find, however, that the Johnson-Odim book that I cited referred to Chief Ransome-Kuti being Sarah Taiwo's great-granddaughter. Mr. Kuti, meanwhile, would therefore also be a descendant as the chief's son.

I will try to get some decent sources to shore up the page's notability, but if it's alright with you, I'll restore the references to the Kutis.

Here's hoping that you're well.

O.ominirabluejack (talk) 16:44, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

So the great-great-grandmother of Fela Kuti was a Taiwo? Perhaps a bit of a stretch then to include him in the gallery, he is merely a distant relative woth a short mention but nothing more it seems. Fram (talk) 07:38, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Okay... I'll do as you say regarding Fela, although I don't feel that you understand how families work here. Distant relatives are regarded as part of the family in a very real sense amongst the Yoruba... They even sometimes lead it, if you can believe it.

O.ominirabluejack (talk) 07:51, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

But then what's the difference with the Ransome-Kuti family? I have no issue with the Jibolu one indicating that the Ransome-Kuti family is one offspring, one branch of it, but at some point the difference needs to be made clear. Fram (talk) 07:55, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

The Ransome-Kutis are the family that Chief Ransome-Kuti married into. Her family at birth were the Jibolu-Taiwos. They are two distinct yet related clans, much like how the House of Windsor and the Spencer family of Britain are distinct but related as well. We Yorubas are extensively ambilineal, so all of the chief's descendants are therefore members of both families simultaneously.

O.ominirabluejack (talk) 16:28, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	Hello Fram, I'm just dropping by to thank you, not only for your contributions, but also for moving an article to the draft, because you prevented it from being deleted, thanks for giving me a second chance to improve it. Greetings and good contributions! :) Ryenaldo Ziur (talk) 17:03, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

DYK issues

Sorry about my behavior before. I do know that there are issues with DYK, but I was having a terrible morning and I didn't use Google or that search term when I promoted the cavefish hook. Neither reason is a good excuse for the long argument though and I shouldn't have taken it personally. I admit that the long conversation to find a new hook at ERRORS and no one apparently checking for copyright violations at Frank H. Wadsworth is very grating and makes my head hurt. I recently filed a CCI report for a DYK contributor with years of copyright violations (still pending with no response since May 25) including in a few ITN promotions. Thankfully, it was that editor's first DYK nomination. I guess I'm saying that I thought editors would check for copyvios - it's pretty basic and there is even a useful tool for it. SL93 (talk) 13:30, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, and no worries. I tend to overreacht sometimes as well, we are humans and real life issues can find a release valve in editing here (for better or sometimes for worse). I'm simply frustrated that DYK seems to still (or again) be the problem factory it was when I largely abandoned it in 2016 or so. I did error checking DYK queues for years: in those days, I was an admin and I usually either corrected the hook or pulled it, and then discussed this at WT:DYK: editors with too many DYK issues I brought to WP:ANI. All of this pissed off too many people, some with friends at the WMF, and eventually lead to my WMF ban and subsequent deadminning (coupled with my civility issues). So I mostly stayed away from DYK for the past few years, but the problems obviously didn't magically disappear once I stopped looking for them. Fram (talk) 13:37, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Water (Water Saigon Kick album)

An article that you have been involved in editing—Water (Water Saigon Kick album)—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Paul McDonald (talk) 13:39, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

• By the way, good catch on the duplicates. Thank you.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:39, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

• • I saw your "merge and delete" reasoning for the speedy deletion removal. Are you certain that you are an admin? Fram (talk) 13:40, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
    • You are welcome to verify at Wikipedia:List of administrators/Active#P. The merge discussion should go quick.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:47, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

THANK YOU!!!

for this thread. I've been back and forth about doing it myself. PRAXIDICAE💕 14:27, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

No sources

I have to admit I am really confused as to why there are so many keep votes on List of people on the postage stamps of Italy when the article still has no sources. It has existed for 17 years with no sources. Are sources no longer required in Wikipedia. Do we do original reseach now, and publish it without even allowing others to have a sense of how we did it?John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:29, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Talk Pages

I apologise and my mistake for reinstating all the information on his talk page, I always assumed its not allowed as your talk page is supposed to be permanent thanks for informing me. Also I was hoping you could tell me how to create talk page archives.N1TH Music (talk) 09:46, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

You can archive manually (that's how I do it, once my page gets too long I create a new archive and copy all older discussions there: others even move their talk page to an archive completely and start a new talk page every now and then), or you can install one of the archiving bots. Fram (talk) 10:13, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Saha86830

What do you want to say?Saha86830 (talk) 09:48, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Nothing. I just restored your edits to your talk page. Fram (talk) 10:11, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank You for Filing with ArbCom

Thank you. Someone needed to do it. I was starting to write something up, and didn't really want to be the filer, because I tried that six months ago and was ignored. We shall see what happens. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:45, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alabi Oyinkansola

Hi Fram,

I think I beat you to reviewing the article. I had moved it to draft but somehow seems you were in the process of nominating for AFD. What can we do? Jamiebuba (talk) 10:46, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

No problem, I have removed the AfD notice and asked for deletion of the AfD. Draftifying is just as acceptable as AfD'ing here, so no harm done. Thanks! Fram (talk) 10:50, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Statement by Fram

"another error asked to change it, only to be met with "First, you didn't say please.""

I may start to think of some editors as errors now. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:48, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, that's ... not really what I meant :-) I'll take a look! Fram (talk) 07:54, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

G-Aerosports Archon (articles for deletion)

Hello. I just wanted to mention that I created an alternative article for a particular plane type, rather than the company, following a relevant suggestion (it was argued that the references and other documentation did not provide in depth support for the company, as they made reference to the plane itself). Please see the arguments on the discussion page. Thanks! Skartsis (talk) 08:47, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Tagging of G-Aerosports Archon

I recently removed a speedy delete tag that you had placed on G-Aerosports Archon. I do not think that G-Aerosports Archon fits any of the speedy deletion criteria  because although there is duplication, which is understandable, the contents are not similar. Although NCORP applies to the product as well, the AfD discussion steered clear of the product, and had focussed on the company only: There is possibly a case for an article about the Archon aircraft itself but the topic company fails NCORP criteria.. If you wish, you may try using the simple proposed deletion (PROD) process, or the full articles for deletion (AfD) process, instead, if this was an article, or another process such as MfD or XfD as appropriate. Jay (talk) 03:31, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Arbitration case opened

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct_in_deletion-related_editing. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct_in_deletion-related_editing/Evidence. Please add your evidence by July 9, 2022, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct_in_deletion-related_editing/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, firefly ( t · c ) 11:19, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

About the article Dünya Aydoğdu

I have added sources. Would you check?

Thanks, but none of these are reliable, indepth sources. Wikipedia should never be used as a source, the two Disizi pages tell us nothing, and youtube isn't a reliable source to establish notability either. Fram (talk) 12:19, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

The worst person you know

As a heads up I have reverted your post-prod redirect of [The worst person you know] and this article is now at AfD[2]. Artw (talk) 16:55, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Santa Margherita Ligure

Hello Fram, it's me N1TH Music again, I hope you are doing well, I just wanted to inform you that I plan to restart my editing of Santa Margherita Ligure but you know in a more encyclopaedic format and 100% paraphrased after translation. I'm telling you this because I need to clarify after I've written something that it's actually ok now so I would suggets ideally you check the article once in a while just to be safe. N1TH Music (talk) 12:58, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Please don't start readding the excessive detail, not every minor thing you can find somewhere needs to be repeated on enwiki, even when you do it in your own words. Looking at what you do at the Geography article, you seem to want to include every trivial bit, drowning out the essence by including way too much irrelevant information. Fram (talk) 13:02, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

I thought I'd take a tone more towards summary this time a you previously stated it was overdetailed. What's wrong with the geography article though? N1TH Music (talk) 08:05, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

The same that's wrong with most of your editing: poor sourcing, unverifiable claims, WP:OR, excessive detail (also in the Contern article), and so on. Fram (talk) 08:32, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

@Fram I see you reverted my edits once again due to "sourcing wikipedia" what? I'm not sure what you are talking about. I just so happen to have been making a minor edit myself when I noticed an edit coflict so now I wish to fix the issue first before I make the other edit. So where was the supposed circular referencing? N1TH Music (talk) 10:36, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Really? Fram (talk) 10:44, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

@Fram I wrote that a long time ago in one of the now deleted revisions, it was initaially the entire geography section before I made the split. I figured then that since the article was about Geography that I could add more details but since that article was deemed unnotable and overdetailed I reverted back to the section in the original article. Nobody in the months that section had been at the top of the article had ever complained about it and while I agree, some better sources ought to be found I don't recall me doing any copying from Itwiki or doing any circular referencing so I really don't actually know what exactly you are refering to. If you tell me I can fix it. N1TH Music (talk) 10:49, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

I'ld much prefer if you didn't "fix" anything further and stopped editing completely, as I just again said at the ANI discussion. Fram (talk) 10:50, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

I can inform you I've learnt from my errors and I don't plan to edit much either but when my work gets removed I want to just re-add it in a way which is acceptable and be done with it. You can't possible say it's overdetailed so therefore the issue can be resolved if you cooperated. Most of your citations for my bad edits are of older work which nobody complained about until now so I had no reason to know there was anything wrong. On the other hand if you check the deletion nomination of Blackslough Wood somebody commented with evidence that there at least was a settlement there historically and I think one of my sources was an old map. So I don't think my claims were quite "hopeless" but that's besides the point. I saw on the ANI discussion that I made the wester pipe railway which was a decent article and I can do better still just so long as I focus on more notable topics with more sources available. I hope you can realise that what has happened the past months is that I tied a noose around my own neck in the form of what I was trying to create articles for and that I am at least somewhat capable on more notable topics. N1TH Music (talk) 10:57, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Words. Your edits from the last few days belie your claims. Fram (talk) 10:58, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

@Fram I haven't done any large edits recently and everything I did was avoiding original reasearch or most of the sources which I realised aren't actually sources. Like Openstreepmap or Google maps. Also I've realised that I shouldn't be making new articles for the time being so I've refrained. My editing has been limited. N1TH Music (talk) 11:05, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

It is limited, but as I have shown even then it hasn't improved. Fram (talk) 11:22, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

@Fram Fine I'll reduce my editing further and stop creating entirely for the time being until I can learn sources better, is that what you want to hear? Because I simply don't want to have to leave permanently. I have made some ok stuff. Also check the ANI thread some of the things you brought up I have reasoning for and one was actually an unnoticed typo I made. N1TH Music (talk) 11:26, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Tintin and Palle Huld

The Palle Huld article has several sources for the claim that he was an inspiration for Tintin. I just grabbed one of them when I tweaked the addition. I don't know anything about the topic aside from that, but it may be more legitimate than the item put in Tintin made it seem. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 13:47, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

I think that a short entry for Huld is indeed warranted, but the one that was put there had too many errors to just let it stand. A rewritten version is certainly welcome. Fram (talk) 13:58, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

There are many potential influences, see Tintin_(character)#Influences. Not sure which influences belong to the series and which belong to the character, though... or whether these can even be reasonably split! —Kusma (talk) 14:31, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Some are even only for the name (Tintin-Lutin by Rabier), other for the style and the text balloons (Alain Saint-Ogan), some for the character and the stories (Huld, ...), and some for the ego of the one making the claim (Degrelle). It's a complicated and at the same time natural thing, an artist mixing a whole load of influences from his youth and his time into one new creation. Fram (talk) 14:36, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

New Page Patrol newsletter June 2022

New Page Review queue June 2022

Hello Fram,

Backlog status

At the time of the last newsletter (No.27, May 2022), the backlog was approaching 16,000, having shot up rapidly from 6,000 over the prior two months. The attention the newsletter brought to the backlog sparked a flurry of activity. There was new discussion on process improvements, efforts to invite new editors to participate in NPP increased and more editors requested the NPP user right so they could help, and most importantly, the number of reviews picked up and the backlog decreased, dipping below 14,000 at the end of May.

Since then, the news has not been so good. The backlog is basically flat, hovering around 14,200. I wish I could report the number of reviews done and the number of new articles added to the queue. But the available statistics we have are woefully inadequate. The only real number we have is the net queue size.

In the last 30 days, the top 100 reviewers have all made more than 16 patrols (up from 8 last month), and about 70 have averaged one review a day (up from 50 last month).

While there are more people doing more reviews, many of the ~730 with the NPP right are doing little. Most of the reviews are being done by the top 50 or 100 reviewers. They need your help. We appreciate every review done, but please aim to do one a day (on average, or 30 a month).

Backlog drive

A backlog reduction drive, coordinated by buidhe and Zippybonzo, will be held from July 1 to July 31. Sign up here. Barnstars will be awarded.

TIP – New school articles

Many new articles on schools are being created by new users in developing and/or non-English-speaking countries. The authors are probably not even aware of Wikipedia's projects and policy pages. WP:WPSCH/AG has some excellent advice and resources specifically written for these users. Reviewers could consider providing such first-time article creators with a link to it while also mentioning that not all schools pass the GNG and that elementary schools are almost certainly not notable.

Misc

There is a new template available, {{NPP backlog}}, to show the current backlog. You can place it on your user or talk page as a reminder:

Very high unreviewed pages backlog: 11767 articles, as of 10:00, 8 May 2024 (UTC), according to DatBot

There has been significant discussion at WP:VPP recently on NPP-related matters (Draftification, Deletion, Notability, Verifiability, Burden). Proposals that would somewhat ease the burden on NPP aren't gaining much traction, although there are suggestions that the role of NPP be fundamentally changed to focus only on major CSD-type issues.

Reminders

• Consider staying informed on project issues by putting the project discussion page on your watchlist.
• If you have noticed a user with a good understanding of Wikipedia notability and deletion, suggest they help the effort by placing {{subst:NPR invite}} on their talk page.
• If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process and its software.
• To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

Notes

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:02, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

DYK

You mentioned that there were drag shows in Beirut way before 2015. Can you please provide your source? The article was pulled from DYK for no reason and I didn’t even get the change to challenge your claim. el.ziade (talkallam) 17:11, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

The Dyk is back open, you can challenge my claim there. I poster my source at WP:ERRORS, I don't immediately have the link here (posting this from mobile). Fram (talk) 17:15, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

X was the first Y in Z

This is so often verifiable but wrong that I think some education of people is needed. In my experience, half of articles about X usually copy such sensationalist claims from each other without checking, and to be sure, you'd need an article about "The history of Y in Z" that is written by an expert. Also, very often people turn "X was the first Y in Z" into "X was the first Y".

I don't know what is the best way to get more attention to this issue. Perhaps start an essay and collect examples and link to that essay every time it comes up? A collection of times this has gone wrong might also help to convince people that this kind of statement needs more rigorous fact checking at DYK than "it is in the source". —Kusma (talk) 10:31, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

The least that is needed is that DYK regulars are made aware of this and start checking this. The amount of errors at DYK is quite staggering, and this is one of the main reasons for it (thorough carelessness by some reviewers and promotors is another one). I see that @Theleekycauldron: started a section at WT:DYK, thank you for that. Fram (talk) 10:36, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

I think it is a wider issue than just DYK, but that is where it is most visible. Nevertheless, in all articles, such statements can cause long-term damage through citogenesis. —Kusma (talk) 11:03, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Church of Singapore

Hi, Why did you nominate for deletion? Please retract the deletion notice, that includes Church of Singapore (Bukit Timah) and Impact Life Church pages as well and there are morte to do and therefo It wouldn't be nice of you to keep of removing and scheduling for deletion when I did contest the deletion when you said your search results returns as Catholic Church of Singapore when the English version of the result does returns the protestant church. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josephsolomon92 (talk • contribs) 09:35, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

You need to demonstrate notability by finding independent sources about the churches, not just the website of the church itself. The only thing that seems to have attracted attention is that a pastor got a two-week sentence for road rage, and some people got Covid while at the church. Neither of these makes any of the three churches notable. If people agree that these have no place on Wikipedia, you should be glad that I saved you the pointless work of creating even more such articles if they would get deleted anyway. Fram (talk) 09:38, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

I am not glad but furious by your actions. you could have discuss before flagging for deletion asd your statement "you should be glad that I saved you the pointless work of creating even more such articles if they would get deleted anyway." is just pure sarcasm. Josephsolomon92 (talk) 09:47, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information - it is an encyclopaedia. If we wrote articles simply on the basis that they existed and had verifiable information, we would end up with a directory instead. Furthermore, an article whose only prominent sourcing contains minor criminal charges and issues with Covid might be considered potentially libellous, so deleting these articles not only keeps the encyclopaedia on-track, but prevents harm to living people. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:27, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Retrive deleted page

Hi @Fram can I ask you to send me the page you deleted so I can edit it? Thank you Jdtw2022 (talk) 08:06, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

I can't access deleted pages, you can go to WP:REFUND to ask for it (I don't know if it is eligible, much of it were copyright violations which often aren'r refunded, but it wasn't tagged as such so you may be in luck). Fram (talk) 08:08, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Notability of Father Léo

Father Léo was a major preacher on TV (Canção Nova) and is now a Servant of God. He is known by everyone in Brazil. Gondolabúrguer (talk) 08:44, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Then you shouldn't have any problem writing an article based on independent sources, like major newspapers or books, instead of just using sources from organisations he was heavily involved with. Fram (talk) 08:48, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Deprodding of List of discontinued x86 instructions

I have removed the {{proposed deletion/dated}} tag from List of discontinued x86 instructions, which you proposed for deletion. Hey @Fram I just wanted to let you know I objected to the deletion of List of discontinued x86 instructions because it looks like it's going to get spun off to wikibooks Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_undocumented_x86_instructions. If you still think this article should be deleted, please do not add {{proposed deletion}} back to the page. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 07:46, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

NPP July 2022 backlog drive is on!

New Page Patrol | July 2022 Backlog Drive
On 1 July, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Redirect patrolling is not part of the drive. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

(t · c) buidhe 20:25, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

good luck

Hope you have better luck dealing with this than I did...it was deeply unpleasant. PRAXIDICAE🌈 15:28, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Previous encounters with that editor were often "deeply unpleasant" indeed. I just removed copyvio (plus troubling referral to Youtube) from SLC6A1 epileptic encephalopathy as well, the issues seem to happen on multiple pages and are unbecoming of an admin. Fram (talk) 15:34, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Well the fact that they're an admin doing this is deeply disturbing, take a look at the discussion on I think Irid's talk page and their own. MEDRS took a back seat for their "editathon" too. PRAXIDICAE🌈 15:38, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Um, what? They were heavily involved with an editathon, and they restored articles from that editathon which were deleted for copyvio? How is this not a serious breach of WP:INVOLVED? Has this been raised before? Fram (talk) 15:51, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes. To all of this. Yes. I gave up dealing with it when they told me that the copyvio didn't exist (because not only did they not revdel it, they restored it without proper attribution to the previous authors so the history in which the cv existed was gone, aka the old dumb way of getting rid of copyvios.) PRAXIDICAE🌈 16:13, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

It is deleted, we'll see if he restores it once again. Fram (talk) 08:05, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Spelling - Thanks

Thanks for the fixes/moves associated with my spelling error! CT55555 (talk) 12:11, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

No problem! Fram (talk) 12:12, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Speedy at Armorial of the governors general of Canada

Hello Fram. Good to see you here.

I removed your speedy tag from the subject article because I don't believe that the case for the article being a copyvio is clear-cut. I am not an expert on heraldry but it is my understanding that the textual descriptions of coats of arms are mechanical in nature and may not qualify for copyright. I believe that, at a minimum, a broader discussion may be warranted at WP:CP or some other suitable forum. Best wishes, UninvitedCompany 16:35, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

'Mechanical' is an amusing term to use here, UC, but yes, with slower change over time than major languages experience, the conventions by which coats of arms are described and often codified are such that there's general agreement in an era from language and court (an agency, typically, of which is in charge of approvals and even design commissions) to court within a broad culturesphere (Canada and what's now called UK being part of Europe's) so the retainers under other coats of arms can recognize them or describe them too in terms closer than oral historians use to tell the same tales, even if literal or historical. The way you describe a particular instance of a coat of arms succeeds to the extent it uses as close to cut and dried lingo of the period, though each visual artist and each bearer will individuate how the standardly described element is executed in detail, feeling, and to some extent hues - within that description. The description is phrased 'conventionally'.Pandelver (talk) 16:51, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Football

I most certainly was not trolling. But, I'm not going to get into a dispute over it. Too tired of editors assuming bad intentions, from me. GoodDay (talk) 16:46, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Then you should perhaps try to explain why your unlinked experience with season articles for other sports has anything, at all, to do with that discussion about Afds for bio articles about European style soccer. Neither your first post nor your followup did anything whatsoever to make this clear, and your first post had already been removed by another editor for that very reason. Fram (talk) 16:49, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hi! Thanks for the talk page messege. I won't be doing Plot or Gameplay sections anymore and I wanted to say keep up the good work. I assume you are an administrator? Timur9008 (talk) 10:12, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

No, former admin and long-term contributor. But any editor can leave warnings (if they are justified!), no need to be an admin to do this. Fram (talk) 10:32, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed the copyrighted stuff from my articles. Timur9008 (talk) 12:58, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Verifiability

Can I ask the reason for reverting talk page edits? Selfstudier (talk) 09:26, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

My apologies, I thought I had reverted something completely different, but on mobile I sometimes seem to have such hiccups. I didn´t have the intention or any reason to revert you. Fram (talk) 11:15, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Np :) Selfstudier (talk) 11:25, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined on Trip (Band UK)

Hi there, I've just declined your speedy delete on Trip (Band UK). There's not much here, but that they had a song in a film by a notable director is probably enough for CSD. Needs to go to AfD if required. Thanks. GedUK  10:11, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Good call, I have added as much extra detail as I can find and shall add more when I find it. NedRifle (talk) 15:00, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Moved St. John Florentine page to Draft

Hello! Good afternoon, I was wondering if you could state the reasons for the drafting of this page? I would like to know so that I can change it, Asap. Thank you.

Ploreky (talk) 06:25, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

The article has no independent sources, only sources from organisations he belonged to. Furthermore, the article has claims not supported by even these sources and otherwise unverifiable, like him having been a Roman Catholic bishop. Apart from that, the article needs general cleanup (capitalization), checks for neutrality, checks for copy right violations (if the source e.g. says that he was "an Achiever in the field of Public Service", then we shouldn't simply copy that because articles need to be written in your own words, and because that is not a neutral assessment but promotional language from his own church). Other sources like this don't seem to have any relation with the article. Fram (talk) 07:31, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Sonia Mukato

Hello Fram. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Sonia Mukato, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: the copyvio is the reference text title. Not a vio. Thank you. GedUK  11:34, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

@Ged UK:

Article:

"Sonia Mutako known in the movie 'Indoto Series', is one of the most popular in Rwanda cinema due to her acting style and real life behavior."

Source via Google Translate:

"Sonia Mutako, known in the movie 'Indoto Series' as Betty, is one of the most popular actresses in Rwandan cinema due to her acting and behavior in real life."

"The copyvio is the reference text title", please... Translations will not be detected by the tools, but humans can find this. Please reconsider your decision. Fram (talk) 12:25, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks!

You're good people. Hope you have a peaceful day! Littlebitof (talk) 14:25, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Sample games

Dear Fram, is Hostage_chess#Example_game something that should be allowed as part of an article? Oeoi (talk) 15:38, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Assuming it is not a copyright violation from the source (which I can't access), yes; at least it is sourced to a published book, a WP:RS, not some random website where unknown people promote a new variant without any attention from reliable sources so far. Fram (talk) 15:41, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Well, regrettably, David Pritchard passed away in 2005, so it is unlikely there will be any annotated variant games in his books anytime soon... Do you have any specific reason to believe that the game, as published, is incorrect? If not, would it not be a clear contribution to the content of the article? Oeoi (talk) 15:47, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Considering that the sample game is based on the rules of the non notable variation which was removed as well, and thus doesn't even show the rules as described in the article: no it has no place there at all. By the way, per WP:COI, what is your connection, if any, to the people involved with that new variation? Fram (talk) 15:49, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Well, "was removed" is a weird way of putting it, since all of the removals were done by one person--you:) I have a pretty strong connection to gravity chess--I've played it maybe a hundred times at the local chess club, but this means I can attest to the accuracy of the sample game (doesn't break any rules, etc). Oeoi (talk) 15:57, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

It makes no sense to discuss the inclusion or not of some sample game when the game it samples isn't included. Fram (talk) 16:01, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm a bit confused by what you're trying to say. Regardless, I have no burning desire to have this included--it just feels like if an encyclopedia has a variant, then a sample game is by definition relevant. But anyways, I don't mind waiting until some secondary sources roll in--the finals match of the tournament should be aptly covered. Oeoi (talk) 16:05, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

The "tournament" which has so far received zero attention, for a game (variant) no one has ever talked about, played between people no one ever heard of? That tournament will suddenly see the secondary sources roll in for the final? Right... Fram (talk) 16:08, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

I admit I am not entirely sure as to your motivation in keeping a sample game of gravity chess off of Wikipedia...it seems like useful, carefully annotated content, and--please correct me if I'm wrong, and I mean this with respect--your edit history doesn't necessarily make it seem like you are especially well-informed in chess variants. If you have a vendetta against chess variants in particular, then I have some good news for you--there's easily dozens of articles on variants that would hardly meet your "requirement" of being played by famous people. You can go wild with your removals:)

However, my personal belief is that if information is 1. factual, 2. useful to hundreds of people, and 3. encyclopedic, it is a net loss to the mission of Wikipedia to keep it off an article. I realize that we likely disagree in this regard, but I would strongly urge you to reconsider this view; Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and gatekeeping a carefully annotated chess game off of an article about the variant feels like you're putting yourself in a position of power that, as a member of a community project, you do not necessarily have. Oeoi (talk) 20:57, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

A vendetta against chess variants? Oh, how mistaken you are. No, I have a vendetta against gravity, a vast conspiracy of the UN and Big Tech to keep us down. Fram (talk) 07:33, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1860s comics images

A tag has been placed on Category:1860s comics images indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:28, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Redirect of r/fuckcars article

Hi! Thanks for your attention to the r/fuckcars article. The community is not directly related to r/place and would not really work as a subsection in that article – it may have increased in popularity due to the visibility gained in 2022 through that event, but that wouldn't be the reason it's notable or frequented by most of its users. I changed the redirect to go to Car-free movement instead, which is a lot more fitting; I still believe, however, that the article has potential to stand on its own. Will look forward to discussing further when you have a chance. Thank you! –Fpmfpm (talk) 07:46, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

I've restored the article. It is best if the redirect is mentioned in the article it targets. Redirect is not a good solution here. We either need to do a merge to make this so or take it to AfD or leave it as a stand-alone article. ~Kvng (talk) 13:47, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Country at the X championships

Hi! Yes, I am creating the articles of the countries in the World Championships in Athletics. And I am adding the athletes as I am correcting the articles of each athletic event. For example, now I'm with the men's 1500 meters, and I am adding the athletes from each country. When I have gone through all the events in the World Championships, the X Country in the 1983 WCA articles will be finished with the correct number of athletes. Since they were articles that didn't exist, I didn't think they'd get many views before I was done. As for the source, no problem. I'm looking at the statistics handbook of the World Athletics, so there is nothing more official. It was my fault for not putting it in the references. Itxia (talk) 15:52, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Well, France at the 1973 World Aquatics Championships gives 2 competitors for France in diving because, well, France had two competitors in diving. And the same goes for Great Britain at the 1973 World Aquatics Championships. They had 7 competitors in diving. I didn't put the number of total competitors in the main box. Itxia (talk) 16:23, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

No, but you created an awfully incomplete article on a similar subject as the ones we have here, and then abandoned it. And you included their one medal in the infobox, but not in the article, making it awfully confusing. It's just not the kind of article we should have for a while, and certainly not for 3 years. Fram (talk) 16:31, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

But don't worry, I will do all the articles in Draft and, when complete, will move them. Actually, better for me. This way there's no pressure for me and I can do the articles little by little. Itxia (talk) 16:27, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Re: Football in Saba

Generally agree with the warnings you've added, how could I not? What I'd note though on notability - St Eustatius already had its own article (a sentence at the time) so I created it for equality purposes. Could argue that the two could be merged as they're very similar places? Also, I did try and find as many sources outside of their FB page as possible, but the island is a bit of a black hole for news...sorry! Ratkiller75 (talk) 20:29, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Madonna of Constantinopli

The article is about naming items Madonna of Constantinople, pages already exist in 5 different languages. It is not the same as Hodegetria because the specific name is used to name multiple objects such as statues, paintings, and buildings as described. It also discusses a specific ritual.Tzim78 (talk) 15:50, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

New Page Patrol newsletter August 2022

New Page Review queue August 2022

Hello Fram,

Backlog status

After the last newsletter (No.28, June 2022), the backlog declined another 1,000 to 13,000 in the last week of June. Then the July backlog drive began, during which 9,900 articles were reviewed and the backlog fell by 4,500 to just under 8,500 (these numbers illustrate how many new articles regularly flow into the queue). Thanks go to the coordinators Buidhe and Zippybonzo, as well as all the nearly 100 participants. Congratulations to Dr vulpes who led with 880 points. See this page for further details.

Unfortunately, most of the decline happened in the first half of the month, and the backlog has already risen to 9,600. Understandably, it seems many backlog drive participants are taking a break from reviewing and unfortunately, we are not even keeping up with the inflow let alone driving it lower. We need the other 600 reviewers to do more! Please try to do at least one a day.

Coordination

MB and Novem Linguae have taken on some of the coordination tasks. Please let them know if you are interested in helping out. MPGuy2824 will be handling recognition, and will be retroactively awarding the annual barnstars that have not been issued for a few years.

Open letter to the WMF

The Page Curation software needs urgent attention. There are dozens of bug fixes and enhancements that are stalled (listed at Suggested improvements). We have written a letter to be sent to the WMF and we encourage as many patrollers as possible to sign it here. We are also in negotiation with the Board of Trustees to press for assistance. Better software will make the active reviewers we have more productive.

TIP - Reviewing by subject

Reviewers who prefer to patrol new pages by their most familiar subjects can do so from the regularly updated sorted topic list.

New reviewers

The NPP School is being underused. The learning curve for NPP is quite steep, but a detailed and easy-to-read tutorial exists, and the Curation Tool's many features are fully described and illustrated on the updated page here.

Reminders

• Consider staying informed on project issues by putting the project discussion page on your watchlist.
• If you have noticed a user with a good understanding of Wikipedia notability and deletion, suggest they help the effort by placing {{subst:NPR invite}} on their talk page.
• If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process and its software.
• To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:24, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. The thread is not about you, but you were mentioned by name. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:40, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Fram reported by User:Tzim78. Thank you. —Tzim78 (talk) 20:11, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

I removed the report.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:24, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard

I added our article to a discussion board for dispute resolution Draft:Madonna of Constantinople. Thank you for all your hard work.Tzim78 (talk) 21:02, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Comment

I think that the discussion at the draft talk page is the first time that I have found the writings of a native Anglograph/Anglophone to be so confusing and imprecise that I actually thought that they were having difficulty with English as a foreign language. As you have probably read by now, I think that you were right to draftify the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:36, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Indeed. I have tried to explain the basic issue with having two articles again, ignoring for the moment the problems with their writings. I don't get why they claim to have adressed the things I raised when they haven't even bothered correcting the many misspellings of Constantinople yet... Fram (talk) 07:44, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

I think that this is partly a case of someone who has become overly satisfied or overly impressed with their own status (or self-designated status) as an expert. They certainly are not an expert on Wikipedia policies, guidelines, and procedures. They seriously misread the history of their article/draft. Their claim to have addressed your issues, when they hadn't, is a reason why I thought that they didn't understand the English. We shall see what happens next. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:20, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Weesperstraat 113–117

Hello Fram. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Weesperstraat 113–117, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: A7 doesn't apply to buildings. . Thank you. GedUK  13:45, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

"2022 Hoover Dam explosion" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect 2022 Hoover Dam explosion and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 14#2022 Hoover Dam explosion until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 07:59, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Camp Mather

Can you take a look at the Draft: Camp Mather.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Camp_Mather_(San_Francisco_Recreation_and_Parks)

Is it ready for mainspace? Suggestions?

Thanks! MikeVdP (talk) 23:50, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

Hello Fram, I have started a discussion on the AfD for Cones Lake because I think sources brought to AfD have been conflated. Lightburst (talk) 14:00, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

NPP message

Hi Fram,

Invitation

For those who may have missed it in our last newsletter, here's a quick reminder to see the letter we have drafted, and if you support it, do please go ahead and sign it. If you already signed, thanks. Also, if you haven't noticed, the backlog has been trending up lately; all reviews are greatly appreciated.

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:10, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Painters from Strasbourg

A tag has been placed on Category:Painters from Strasbourg indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:10, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Karlštejn (opera)

I need the explanation on the reverting my edit on Karlštejn (opera). Best TTP1233 (talk) 16:01, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

The explanation is that you aren´t competent enough to edit the English Wikipedia, and should never have been unblocked. You make one poor edit after another, which I have raised in your latest section at WP:AN. Perhaps try to find out for yourself why I would revert your edit. It isn´t very hard... Fram (talk) 16:05, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Hmm sound more odd to me, but I understand your thought. Well this is the beginning of when I rejoin in this Wiki. But soon I will take a wikibreak for one month for some emergency work. Till then I will learn more about here.

And you could have explain me in gentle manner rather in harsh manner as I see above. People like you (which are quite not convinced) could also have oppose me in my unblock request at AN. But I waited for my good faiths which brought me here to speak.

Still! Never mind. I don't want to create an edit warring or else I will be reblocked. I'm happy to still work with you people. Once I get stable in this wiki after quite some time, then I will get satisfied I did become a productive editor irrespective of getting any rights and privileges. Because I'm a learner. TTP1233 (talk) 17:04, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

TTP1233, you added a reference to a source about a 2022 beer festival at a castle to an article about an opera written in 1916. Karlštejn is the article about the castle. The opera and the castle are different topics and your edit was bad. Cullen328 (talk) 17:13, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Deletaion of Burlaki and Nemule

Plz Don't target this as vandalised i am quickly link with accurate wiki pages to this pages give me just one day times to complete full wiki articles this is just i begain to completed whole bio-datas i know i know break wikipedia policies but plz give just a few times to complete the line chronology i have already all documents of this but just only it’s possible if you help to give me times. Ajrun Amir'za-da (talk) 12:58, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

I never do this again Promise — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajrun Amir'za-da (talk • contribs) 12:59, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Burlaki Barlas

Hello Fram. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Burlaki Barlas, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: I can't see why this is an obvious hoax. Can you list rationale on the talkpage, or take to AfD. Thank you. GedUK  15:55, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Could you find anything at all that indicated that it wasn't a hoax? Nothing in the sources provided, and nothing when looking outside these sources, should perhaps have been an indication? Anyway, it's at AfD now. Fram (talk) 07:23, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Nemule Barlas

Hello Fram. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Nemule Barlas, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: I can't see why this is an obvious hoax. Can you list rationale on the talkpage, or take to AfD. . Thank you. GedUK  16:04, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

@Ged UK Did you see the discussion on the creators talk page about these articles? Also note the lack of results when you look the names up... Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 16:09, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure GedUK looks for context anywhere, ever @Moneytrees. PICKLEDICAE🥒 16:10, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

That seems a bit harsh. I too had trouble deleting these articles as blatant hoaxes, but, unlike Ged UK, I wimped out and did nothing.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:14, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

It's more a commentary on their general declines, not just this one. PICKLEDICAE🥒 16:16, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

I did, but that's not conclusive either way for me. It's not blatant. It may well be fake, but it's just not blatantly obvious sufficient for a speedy. GedUK  08:24, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

After thinking about deleting them for a long time, I have nominated both pages at AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nemule Barlas. —Kusma (talk) 16:26, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Existence person shouldn’t be deleted Ajrun Amir'za-da (talk) 18:46, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Draft:ABS-CBN Broadcasting Center fire

You moved this subject to draft last September 6, 2022, can you check the updated references of the subject if it can publish it back to main space? SeanJ 2007 (talk) 02:18, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I see no fundamental difference, this was a very minor incident which gets the usual WP:NOTNEWS treatment. Fram (talk) 07:21, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

What about the 7:20 (UTC) latest edit of the draft? Does it sill connected the WP:NOTNEWS? SeanJ 2007 (talk) 08:08, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, no idea what difference this would make. It was a very, very minor incident, which got some attention the day it happened. That's it. It has no lasting impact, nothing which would move it beyond news and into encyclopedia material. Fram (talk) 08:43, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

So since its a minor incident, it does not need an encyclopedia article? SeanJ 2007 (talk) 09:48, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

A minor incident with no lasting impact, yes, those don't need and shouldn't have a Wikipedia article. I'm sure you can find examples where such events have an article anyway, but these either have more to them or should have been deleted and were not spotted. Fram (talk) 09:51, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Draftifying articles

Hello, Fram,

I know you mean well but please do not move-war with editors about moving articles into Draft space. According to WP:DRAFTOBJECT, editors can revert a page move from main space to Draft space if they object to it and you should only do this move with an article once, not several times. If the article is not in good shape, please tag it, noting its problems or otherwise, tag it for deletion. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:44, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I know, but that´s probably the most stupid rule we have. We leave terrible articles in mainspace because we may only draftify once, and "Afd is not cleanup". Tagging them leaves the very poor, incorrect articles readable, and even eedirecting leaves the history in the mainspace. Basically, redraftifying is what IAR is for: the rule you state clearly prevents people from improving Wikipedia in these cases. Fram (talk) 07:28, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1983 establishments in Botswana

A tag has been placed on Category:1983 establishments in Botswana indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:08, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Oversightable material

I have emailed the list suggesting that the information OS'ed at ANI should not have been and should be reversed. But your choice to repost that information, rather than use a real channel to appeal which you obviously know how to do, would make you eligible for a block. I'm not going to block you for information that I think should be unredacted but if a different oversighter, who perhaps had thought it an appropriate OS, had found the information it certainly could be used to justify an OS block. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:32, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

And then a de- oversightship and perhaps a good look at whoever asked for oversight in the first place? If it was Gamaliel, then he misused oversight to get me in trouble for information they had made publuc in the first place... I´ld rather be blocked as the result of such backchannel abuse, than hide the abuse by using the backchannels as well. WMF and WMDC have enough of a bad record, asding to it would not really help them. Fram (talk) 18:41, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Gamaliel does not have OS anymore so no it was not him and to my knowledge the person who OS'ed it has no connection to WMDC (nor do I). Barkeep49 (talk) 18:46, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

I said who asked for Oversight, not who performed it. Although the second set of oversight, which I wasn´t aware of at my previous post, comes very close to Oversight abuse anyway. Fram (talk) 18:49, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Fram, this is being discussed on the mailing list. If we conclude that the edits should not have been oversighted, the action will be undone. If you think that the oversighter who suppressed your edits committed an abuse, you can report them to ArbCom... Please, let us discuss the issue and come to a consensus. Salvio 19:05, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Then please let me know who asked for the oversight, and who performed it. Fram (talk) 19:08, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

The way I interpret the privacy policy, I am fairly certain I cannot disclose who asked for your edits to be suppressed. I can reassure you there was no inappropriate use of back channels, because the request was made through the proper channels. I am not going to disclose the identity of the oversighter who performed the suppression either, but that does not prevent you from reporting them to ArbCom and if they find that this suppression constituted tool abuse, I'm confident they will take appropriate action. Salvio 19:15, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

There was fairly extensive discussion last year around whether someone could reveal something in a log that they can only see because they are a CU/OS. The guidance from legal and the ombuds was a firm "no". As Salvio says if you are concerned about abuse you can certainly request ArbCom examine the situation. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:24, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, but I´ll probably not bother posting to Arbcom without any way of knowing who did what here. I hope OS and Arbcom check if they haven´t been fooled by an Os request by someone who knew full well that the information was out in the open and posted by themselves, but tried to get someone else into trouble. That they used the "proper channels" for their hypothetical shenanigans is not really an excuse... Fram (talk) 19:31, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

The material has been unsuppressed. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:10, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. Can the (redacted) bits also be unredacted? Fram (talk) 20:14, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

You already did, thanks! Fram (talk) 20:15, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

List of prime ministers of India

I don't understand your speedy on this page. It appears that Setswana did a c&P move from List of heads of government of India to List of prime ministers of India. Setswana now wants List of prime ministers of India moved to List of prime ministers of India. Is this non-controversial? Thanks- Cheers Adakiko (talk) 09:20, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

The article List of heads of government of India was originally at List of prime ministers of India, and was a featured list. Setswana moved it to the new title[3], added their completely incorrect content to it, and then recreated their incorrect content at List of prime ministers of India. I have reverted the original article to its original content, but it also needs to be moved to its original title again. Fram (talk) 09:24, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Due to further moves by the same editor, I was now able to move the page back myself, so no need for a G6 any longer. Fram (talk) 09:27, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Got it! My head was spinning there. Thanks for the reply. Cheers Adakiko (talk) 09:36, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Notability alpine skiers

All in all I quite agree that Wolfgang Hell is not all that notable. The trouble is that on the German and Italian Wikipedia (you can understand that alpine skiing is certainly more popular in Austria, where it is even a national sport and in Italy than in America for example), a victory in the Europa Cup is enough (and he has just one) or a national title to be encyclopedic. Rules should be established by us too. --Kasper2006 (talk) 16:26, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Every language version has their own rules, and the existence or absence of an article on other wikipedias has no bearing on what we should or shouldn't have though. The rule for enwiki is WP:GNG / WP:BIO: we tried sport-specific rules in the past, and most of them lead to serious issues. Fram (talk) 07:28, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

October 2022 New Pages Patrol backlog drive

New Page Patrol | October 2022 backlog drive
On 1 October, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled and for maintaining a streak throughout the drive. Barnstars will also be awarded for re-reviewing articles. Redirect patrolling is not part of the drive. Sign up here!
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

(t · c) buidhe 21:16, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

First football match in Spain

Hello. I have corrected another copyright infringement. Are you still detecting more? If so, I wouldn't mind your help to correct them, so we can put this page back online.

Regarding the "previous copyvios need to be history removed", well... it seems we gotta find someone who can do this kind of mission.Barr Theo (talk) 00:41, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

It would be better to completely rewrite it than to try to spot all copyvios. If the creator copied straight from 3 copyrighted articles, it is best to assume that all of it is a copyvio, instead of wasting time checking line by line. Fram (talk) 07:33, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Someone has removed all copyvios and removed the previous copyrighted versions from the history. I think you can put it back on mainspace now. Kind regards. Barr Theo (talk) 12:30, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Move-warring in draftspace

Hello Fram. Here's another reminder about WP:DRAFTOBJECT: if somebody moves a draft back to mainspace, you have to take it to AfD. This is really just a common courtesy for fellow editors who have just as much a say in whether an article belongs in mainspace as you do. On a side note, regardless of what you think of the quality of their edits, I think we both know that you systematically combing through another editor's creations does not lead to a good place. – Joe (talk) 06:45, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

How many CCIs have you opened? How would yoy do that without "combing through another editor's creations"? How many SPIs have you opened? How would you do that without "combing through another editor's creations"? Then again, you give people autopatrolled, I hope you do that after "combing through another editor's creations". I doubt it though, as you can't even read someone's talk page apparently, judging from our latest conversation. Oh, and I have reverted your irresponsible undraftifying. If you can't be bothered to fix the issues and have no problem putting a BLP with such sourcing problems in the mainspace just because you want to flex your muscles instead of doing your job by correcting your error, then you should really consider whether you should stay an admin. Fram (talk) 07:38, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

As I and Liz have said, WP:DRAFTOBJECT is crystal clear on this point: whatever your objection to the article remaining in mainspace, if your move to draft is reverted, the next step is to open a discussion at AfD. I've blocked you from editing Gonca Türkeli-Dehnert to enforce this. – Joe (talk) 07:50, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Ah, a WP:INVOLVED action, WP:ANI it is then. Fram (talk) 07:56, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Well, I'm not involved and I came here to ask that you please not move-war over Drafts. You can draftify a recently created article once but if the page creator objects or it gets moved into main space by an AFC reviewer, continuing to move it to Draft space will just get you into trouble. And this is not peculiar to you, Fram, it's a standard response to move-warring or edit-warring. If you think an article is unsuitable for main space, then tag it for an appropriate form of deletion. Better to go that route than to get yourself blocked over a draft article that you think is bad. It's not the place to draw a line in the sand. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:36, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Liz, I greatly respect the work you do otherwise as an admin, but I'm not going to follow some essays which make it harder to keep problematic articles out of the mainspace. AfD is not cleanup, as some people always like to repeat, and letting very defective articles on potentiially notable subjects linger in the mainspace, even with tags, is simply a bad idea. Someone at the ANI discussion suggested blanking, but having blank pages in the mainspace is just silly. I hope you don't make the same mistake Joe Roe made, and that you don't start blocking people who are protecting the mainspace, out of some idea that an essay magically has become policy which trumps all content concerns. Fram (talk) 07:23, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

IP sock farm

Hi Fram! Still remember the "Lampung" sock master User:Dedy Tisna Amijaya? Unfortunately, they're back, see Sumatra, and now they're starting to add rubbish all over the place (e.g. in Nusantara (archipelago)). Austronesier (talk) 10:19, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Sure looks the same, thanks for the note. Reviving the SPI about them might be a solution, although sock information might be stale by now. Requesting protection of the affected pages might help as well. Fram (talk) 10:24, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

That one is still socking all over the place, making either non-sequitur and plainly nonsensical edits or directly promoting the local aristocracy. They use the static IP 103.169.238.49 and the IP ranges 182.3.100.0/22 and 110.137.36.0/22 (and occasionally other ranges), so what's the best thing to do now? It's getting very tiring, and almost no-one seems to have the affected pages on their watchlist. –Austronesier (talk) 17:02, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Quick question re sources

I wasnt sure who to ask but you have done some reporting-related rabbithole stuff before: Is there a quick/easy way to determine how many uses of a source are used on wikipedia articles? Specifically I want to know how many photos which have the same source (prior to being uploaded to commons) are used in our articles. Is this something that needs to be done on commons? Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:02, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Oh, that's a bit more complicated. Normally you can do a search on insource:"https/whatever", but to do this for local files used in local articles only may be trickier. Perhaps ask at WP:VPT? Fram (talk) 12:22, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Cheers, may do later. For context: discussion I raised at RSN. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:26, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

About the Smurfette page

I'm sorry, I was just trying to edit some more info about Smurfette, I didn't know my info was wrong, twice. Please forgive me. Sundropie (talk) 14:54, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Why do you keep on adding "powers" as if every character needs them. "Artificial physiology" isn't a power, it's an origin. "Enhanced charisma", uh, she was turned into a "real" smurf, it's a story. She has no "alliance" with the Smurfs, she is a Smurf. Please just leave the infobox alone instead of tinkering to get something, no matter what, in it. Fram (talk) 14:59, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Okay, I understand. Thank you. Sundropie (talk) 17:43, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Mahan Air Flight 81

Just dropping a note here that I removed the prod on Mahan Air Flight 81. There's rather extensive references (not all were present when you PRODed it) that seems to clear the bar for notability, and appears more or less on par with our other articles of aviation incidents. Just dropping this note here so you're aware and can pursue a VFD nom if you feel it should go through that process. --WhoIs 127.0.0.1 ping/loopback 12:09, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll have a look and probably AfD it, as normally we only have articles on subjects with lasting notability, not just short term news coverage on the days something happened (or, like here, didn't really happen). Fram (talk) 13:08, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Thankyou

Thankyou for your comments on the AN discussion I started. I wish I had had a way to discuss even starting it before I did, but some things I was told gave me the impression that any discussion of the issue at all, no matter how unrelated to actual articles or topics, would cause someone to try to open an ANI against me. I wish I had waited a bit, but I am not sure if would have helped. Thanyou for your comments none the less.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:38, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

• • My move of an article from 1891 births to 1890s births because the opening said the subject was born in 1890, the opening text said "X person (born 1890) was a Serbian poet" and all the categories had only to do with being a poet, being attacked as "boundary testing" seems a deliberate attempt to spin my actions as negatively as possible. This was a legitimate mistake because I though "poets are not religious figures" and did not think that some poets are religious figures, and didn't think to review the body of the article. I will admit I probably should have thought through that more, but this was not boundary testing. There are people in the arts who it is clear from the opening that they are religious, but in this case it was barried in a very long body paragraph. I did not even think to look there, which I will admit was a mistake on my part, but it was not "bounadry testing", because what I knew (the person was a poet, described in cats as both Serbian and Yugoslav) in no way suggested any religion at all. I have tried to apologize for this, but some people seem to just want blood. I have also reverted the edit. I hope that is enough that people will not try to limit me more for it. However I do not like the way that the nature of this edit is being mischaracterized.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:59, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
• Three editors are now proposing a full site ban because I even brought up the possibility of overturning the topic ban on me. This does not seem at all right. It also seems very backhanded that no one had even posted anything about this possibility on my talk page. This is very distressing. I wish someone would have at least warned me to consider this before I went to AN.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:26, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

"Respublika Belarus" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Respublika Belarus and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 8#Foreign language redirects to Belarus until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 16:43, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Instigating for reverts and edit war

I don't know why, but you are creating problems and trying to instigate to make reverts and edit-wars, I suggest you please discuss on article talk pages, all your concerns will be answered. The article is already listed forGOCE, within couple of days we may be approached by CE, in that process we will definitely go thru complete peer review.  :) Omer123hussain (talk) 13:08, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

• Again, an article that needs GOCE (and has that many factual errors) is not a GA. You are not objective about this, understandably, but the DYK review alone should have been sufficient to realise this. If you don't like tags on the article, "fix the issues", don't remove the tags and pretend that one needs consensus on the talk page first. Fram (talk) 13:15, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Golconda diamonds

Thanks for digging in, I'm rather concerned that the nominator's 8k other edits are also going to need evaluation. I do think you need to create a GAR page though, to log the change. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:41, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

I consider a GAR to be for pages that were promoted correctly (or a long time ago) to GA, but which no longer meet the requirements. In this case, the GA was incorrectly approved by a brand new GA reviewer, and was simply invalid as such. A bit like the difference between simply reopening an AfD after a BADNAC, or going to DRV to contest an actual close. I do share your concern about their other edits though, and their comments on this one don't give me much hope, the badhe is obviously more important than the article quality. Fram (talk) 15:47, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree that this is essentially reversing a process that didn't do its job well, but at the moment we have Talk:Golconda diamonds/GA1, no corresponding GAR, and no GA template (no article history template either). It seems to me it would be helpful for book-keeping reasons; alternatively, would you be willing to leave a note at the first GAN? I'm going to try to make time to look through the nom's earlier work. Not looking forward to it. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:55, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

New Hampshire State Department Divisions

Thank you for proposing my articles for deletion. Unfortunately, they will not be removed. The prod tag has been removed, and the articles have been moved to draft space until they are complete. WhichUserAmI 11:41, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

If you can establish notability for them, they can become articles. Otherwise, they don't belong in the mainspace. Fram (talk) 12:05, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Whether I can establish notability or not is not a question, that will happen. There was a tag on that page if you didn't notice:

The article was not complete at the time you flagged it for deletion, as well as the tags on the others. WhichUserAmI 12:10, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

I know. It's not really best practice to tag multiple pages like that at the same time, better to tackle one at a time. But anyway, I checked their notability, and t seemed sorely lacking for thosed I tagged for deletion, and dubious (but less so) for those I tagged for notability. And the page combining two divisions for no apparent reason (no other sources seemed to make that connection) was just weird. An "under construction" tag is not a protection against tagging or deletion. Fram (talk) 12:17, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

The article New Hampshire Department of State lists UCC and the Corporation Division as a single entity, so I assumed that was true and created the article that way. Only after, once I began doing my own research, did it become obvious that they were two separate entities deserving of their own articles. It was late at night in my timezone, past one in the morning, so I had to simply do the best I could to ensure the articles wouldn't be CSD'd overnight by adding templates, some content, an infotable and a reference in good faith, knowing that I would return in the morning and complete them. The articles are no longer a redirects (sorry about that oversight), they have been {db-author}ed and will remain drafts until they are ready. WhichUserAmI 12:44, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

By the way, you should probably start thinking about archiving this page, it's over 150K bytes. WhichUserAmI 12:46, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Lists moved to draft

Hi, I have seen you have moved the two lists "List of late modern physicians" and "List of early modern physicians" to draft. The information within these lists came from a wider range of lists that were sporadically placed within list of physicians that I was trying to clean up into discrete lists as there was a lot of duplication, etc.

Should I keep cleaning up this main list, or do you not think its current information is useful enough? Jamzze (talk) 19:55, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

I think cleaning up the main list, trying to only include the most major ones, would be more fruitful. Fram (talk) 07:06, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

New Page Patrol newsletter October 2022

Hello Fram,

Much has happened since the last newsletter over two months ago. The open letter finished with 444 signatures. The letter was sent to several dozen people at the WMF, and we have heard that it is being discussed but there has been no official reply. A related article appears in the current issue of The Signpost. If you haven't seen it, you should, including the readers' comment section.

Awards: Barnstars were given for the past several years (thanks to MPGuy2824), and we are now all caught up. The 2021 cup went to John B123 for leading with 26,525 article reviews during 2021. To encourage moderate activity, a new "Iron" level barnstar is awarded annually for reviewing 360 articles ("one-a-day"), and 100 reviews earns the "Standard" NPP barnstar. About 90 reviewers received barnstars for each of the years 2018 to 2021 (including the new awards that were given retroactively). All awards issued for every year are listed on the Awards page. Check out the new Hall of Fame also.

Software news: Novem Linguae and MPGuy2824 have connected with WMF developers who can review and approve patches, so they have been able to fix some bugs, and make other improvements to the Page Curation software. You can see everything that has been fixed recently here. The reviewer report has also been improved.

NPP backlog May – October 15, 2022

Suggestions:

• There is much enthusiasm over the low backlog, but remember that the "quality and depth of patrolling are more important than speed".
• Reminder: an article should not be tagged for any kind of deletion for a minimum of 15 minutes after creation and it is often appropriate to wait an hour or more. (from the NPP tutorial)
• Reviewers should focus their effort where it can do the most good, reviewing articles. Other clean-up tasks that don't require advanced permissions can be left to other editors that routinely improve articles in these ways (creating Talk Pages, specifying projects and ratings, adding categories, etc.) Let's rely on others when it makes the most sense. On the other hand, if you enjoy doing these tasks while reviewing and it keeps you engaged with NPP (or are guiding a newcomer), then by all means continue.
• This user script puts a link to the feed in your top toolbar.

Backlog:

Saving the best for last: From a July low of 8,500, the backlog climbed back to 11,000 in August and then reversed in September dropping to below 6,000 and continued falling with the October backlog drive to under 1,000, a level not seen in over four years. Keep in mind that there are 2,000 new articles every week, so the number of reviews is far higher than the backlog reduction. To keep the backlog under a thousand, we have to keep reviewing at about half the recent rate!

Reminders

• Newsletter feedback - please take this short poll about the newsletter.
• If you're interested in instant messaging and chat rooms, please join us on the New Page Patrol Discord, where you can ask for help and live chat with other patrollers.
• Please add the project discussion page to your watchlist.
• If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be a reviewer, please ask any admin to remove you from the group. If you want the tools back again, just ask at PERM.
• To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

Speedy deletion nomination of 2021/2022 Ballon d'Or

A tag has been placed on 2021/2022 Ballon d'Or requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

No one would actually call it "2021/2022". No one uses this name in sources that can be seen on the web

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Dr Salvus 09:01, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

About the article Paper Boi

Hello dear am trying to update my article and make it notable to survive deletion, but it seem a new user who has not been autoconfirmed is trying to ruin the article. please reach out to him. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cluxer25 (talk • contribs) 12:44, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

You need to remember which account you use when. The only one who "ruined" the article is you, no one else. If you want to blame the incorrect sources like the New Yorker on Clexiiii, then you should have added them with the Clexiiii account, not with your own account. Fram (talk) 13:01, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, is there anyway my article could survive delete. Cluxer25 (talk) 13:44, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Fram, you should watch Atlanta (TV series), I think you would like it. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 15:27, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Rodolphe Töpffer

Please stop removing disambiguation links (see WP:NOTBROKEN). Please note that countries have long names and short names and we use piping for disambiguation purposes; "Republic" was part of that country's actual formal name; "first" was later added by historians to disambiguate it from successive states also bearing the formal name "French Republic". Whenever we refer to that country on Wikipedia we use the correct article name; please see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:WhatLinksHere/French_First_Republic&limit=500 --Omnipaedista (talk) Omnipaedista (talk) 15:34, 18 October 2022 (UTC) An example is Antoine Lavoisier, see his Infobox: he was born and died in France, but there are different entities called "France" that we intend to refer to, hence the piping. --Omnipaedista (talk) 15:36, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

• Nothing to do with WP:NOTBROKEN, they don't point to the same article. No, there were not different entities, there were different types of government for the same country. The French Fourth Republic and the French Fifth Republic are the exact same country, with a chage to the constitution. They are governmental periods within the same country, and where someone is born has nothing to do with the type of government at that time. Fram (talk) 15:55, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
• To put it simply: X was born in France, during the French First Republic (or the Kingdom or the Second Empire or the Fifth Republic or...). The infobox and text should display where X was born, not under what regime. Again, nothing to do with piping (well, to avoid a WP:EASTEREGG) or certainly WP:NOTBROKEN, which is completely irrelevant here. Fram (talk) 16:18, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

• The First Republic and the Fifth Republic are clearly not the same countries. The borders are entirely different and the time spans are completely different. The current Wikipedia practice is all about avoiding anachronisms, by allowing places of birth to reflect contemporary political status. This is the case across Wikipedia. --Omnipaedista (talk) 17:24, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
• Sorry, I meant MOS:SPECIFICLINK not WP:NOTBROKEN above. --Omnipaedista (talk) 17:30, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
• WP:EGG applies to things like [[2000 in film|film]] ('2000 in film' and 'film' are not synonyms). Never has it applied to things like [[Kingdom of France|France]] (a country's formal name is synonymous with its colloquial one, yet disambiguation is still needed, since, e.g., France is primarily about the current state which has different borders to its predecessor states). --Omnipaedista (talk) 17:43, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

• Where to start with this one... "clearly not the same countries. The borders are entirely different and the time spans are completely different. " The "borders" argument is invalid, the USA in 1783 or 1820 had completely different borders to the USA now, but noone calls it a different country. The "time spans" argument is even worse, obviously consecutive government forms have different timespans, else they wouldn't be consecutive. But the year of birth or death is already given right before the country of birth or death in these biographies, there is no need to convey this information in a (piped, thus invisible) link anyway. Saying that someone from 1200, 1500, 1800, 2000 is born "in France" is not an anachronism at all, another invalid argument. WP:SPECIFICLINK doesn't apply, people are born in a year, and in a country, not in a specific government form. Wikipedia is probably the only source that says that people are born in the French Fourth Republic, and not simply in France. That's just not how this is adressed in self-respecting sources. "France is primarily about the current state which has different borders to its predecessor states" United States is just as much about the current situation, and about the history (with completely different borders), as France is. Fram (talk) 08:13, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi

How are you? I hope grace of God you are well. Please don't tag notablity and move my created articles to draft. I do hard work to create them. There are many article are which are not even got a reference and not information box even. I am sure my articles are better than others Wikipedia articles. So please try to understand me. Regard stay safe.

It is unclear why a team which occasionally plays matches in front of, what was it, 30 spectators for an actual international cup qualifier, are actually notable. They have made one tournament (when there were no quaifications), the article gives no indication of coverage meeting WP:N, ... At least this one wasn't immediately obviously wrong, like the last one (which I moved to draft). And usually, if I see new articles without references, I move them to draft or nominate them for deletion as well. I don't particularly care about infoboxes, an article without them can be much better than one with it, the absence or not hardly matters for keeping or deleting an article. In any case, the problem isn't the work you put into articles, it is the obscurity of the subjects. Fram (talk) 14:45, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

I was going to make a comment that the language dropdown box is about increasing donors, same with language auto-translate

But I am going to have a guess on the obscure league - people are betting on them... https://stormfanclub.com/football-insights/smaller-leagues-betting/ Wakelamp d[@-@]b (talk) 12:32, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Asking for new Article create

Can I create Pakistan women's national under-17 team? MD Hydrogen 123 (talk) 08:27, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Are they notable? As far as I can tell, it has the same problems as the Thailand article, so I think it would be better not to create it: but perhaps you have better sources for it? Fram (talk) 08:32, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

You must tell me which Asian age levels teams are notable to create boss? MD Hydrogen 123 (talk) 10:15, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't know if any of the missing ones are notable. Why don't you improve existing ones instead? Fram (talk) 12:07, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Courtesy heads up

Not different to what I said at AfD and I have zero issue with your responses there, just courtesy heads up that I brought the AfD conduct to the AN/I thread and created a sub thread beginning with your comment yesterday: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#The_Banner_conduct. Have a great day. Star Mississippi 14:13, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks: I was adding it to ANI while you were posting here! Fram (talk) 14:14, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

realised that when I saw your follow up at the AfD. Great minds, and all that. Star Mississippi 14:17, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1971 disestablishments in Poland

A tag has been placed on Category:1971 disestablishments in Poland indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:06, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Andiga the Great

You tagged Draft:Andiga the Great with WP:G3, for deletion as a blatant hoax. I'm wondering what made you think it's a hoax? At first glance it seems plausible that there was a chief by that name living in the general time period and location the draft provides. The draft cites two sources, the first of which is basically useless (especially if you don't have a subscription, but I doubt it would be much better at verifying the information if you did have a subscription), but the second cited source is a book, A Grammar of Ma'di, with a link to a preview on Google Books that says, "Tucker (1940: 5) describes the Kaliko 'who occupy the high plateau in the southern Yei River District under Chief Aluma'"

The draft has some significant spelling differences from the cited source (Keliko instead of Kaliko; and Chief Andiga instead of Chief Aluma), but different English spellings of non-English names are not uncommon. Given the presence of this source, it's not obvious to me that this is a hoax rather than just spelling differences in the sources. But I could be missing something, so I wanted to talk to you and see what makes you think it's a hoax instead of outright declining the speedy. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 16:45, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

The author created another article for Aluma, who lived much later than this supposed Andiga the Great. Absolutely nothing in the article is verifiable. "Aluma" and "Andiga" are hardly similar names. I'm nominating it for MfD, but it's basically a waste of time. Fram (talk) 16:49, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you nominated for MFD - I was asking for clarification, not declining the speedy. Oh well. We'll let the MFD play out. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 18:55, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

List of first women's ice hockey internationals per country: 1987-1999: Revision history

To make it simple for you, if Wikipedia permits an article, do not attempt to revert it to drafts without consensus. Dweisz94 (talk) 10:50, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

That's not how this works, but thanks for trying! Fram (talk) 11:15, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1940 establishments in El Salvador

A tag has been placed on Category:1940 establishments in El Salvador indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:10, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

About 2022 City vs Country Origin

Hi Fram. If you are puzzled why some guy who usually writes articles about fine art and contemporary classical music somehow knows about the ins and outs of pretty minor rugby league representative matches, I'm just as puzzled as you are. And I am me. User:Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 10:16, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

-) Fram (talk) 11:38, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:21, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 1

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited All Together Now (The Farm song), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Peter Heller.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Yuan Xia Wang

Hello, Fram. Indeed, I should’ve not only used words and information from that one article, so I think someone else should make a page about the disappearance of Yuan Xia Wang, also it’s a good opportunity to add lesser known missing people, not just notable ones. If you or someone else can make a well sourced page of Yuan Xia Wang I would appreciate it. Sorry for any disturbances. Gatorbearratica (talk) 22:17, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Carolyn Bryant Donham

Hello, Fram. I made the article of Carolyn Bryant Donham, due to the fact she is a notable but infamous person in the case of Emmett Till. If you or anyone else would like to make a better and well sourced article about her, that would be much appreciated. Sorry for any disturbances. Gatorbearratica (talk) 22:17, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

What is the problem at Shirt swapping

I didn't understand your speedy deletion request. Don't we use dailymail source? I exchanged source from Korean newspapger Hankook Ilbo. Is it OK? Footwiks (talk) 11:24, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

How hard is to read the bold text in the deletion message? "Do not remove this notice from pages that you have created yourself". The page needs to be checked by an uninvolved admin, and even if they judge the current version to be acceptable, they will still need to delete the older versions for copyright reasons. By the way, judging from something like the "sentence" "Since this shirt swapping, facilitate shirt swapping in widely.", I wonder if youe English is even good enough to write articles here anyway, and if you wouldn't be better suited to edit a wikipedia version in your mother tongue. Fram (talk) 11:29, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Why do you only want to delet the article? There is a simple solution. I replace the source from South Korean newspaper. I didn't use the copyright of dailymail source in the near future. Anyway Thanks.Footwiks (talk) 11:33, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

We have to delete the article as the text was obviously plagiarised from the Daily Mail source. I checked, and found exact sentence matches. Every time you make an edit on Wikipedia, the notice at the top says "Content that violates any copyrights will be deleted." User:Ritchie333/Plain and simple guide to copyvios has more information. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:46, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

We cannot use the Daily Mail except for rare circumstances which don't apply here; see WP:DAILYMAIL. Robby.is.on (talk) 12:08, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Tennis tours circuits or seasons

Hello Fram just so were on the same page and pending the 1881 women's lawn tennis season (promise to keep it lower case until 1913) tennis tours and the use of that word you say did not exist, please read page 19 of Robert Lakes book A Social History of Tennis in Britain to quote "Giving its readers for some ideas for pleasant sojourns Pastime (25 July 1888), highlighted it's five week end of summer Western tour as the most attractive taking in the tournaments Exmouth, Teignmouth, Torquay , Bournemouth and Eastbourne. You can also see from results some players are moving from tournament to tournament, they are not all one off isolated events. I will use the term 'season' it's the more neutral term to use other than your objection to Tour. FYI Oxford dictionary a tour can mean a journey for pleasure in which several different places are visited or a journey made by performers or a sports team or player, in which they perform or play in several different places. As some of the players were doing look at May Langrishe's results and where she was playing. Also from 1877 the All England Lawn Tennis Club was responsible for overseeing the coordination of all tournaments in England, with the exception of the Northern Lawn Tennis Association (f.1879) formed to oversee all affiliated tournaments staged in the North of England. In Ireland in 1875 the All Ireland Lawn Tennis Club under auspices of the ICAC was responsible for overseeing tournaments federated to it. In 1877 the Fitzwilliam Lawn Tennis Club also took responsiblity for staging tournments Ireland wide. In 1881 the USTA becomes responsible for all tournaments afficlaied to it in the US and British LTA from 1888. When I eventually get to 1913 from that date I will use the term ILTF tennis tour just to give you a heads up. You can view the book again. [4]https://books.google.lk/books?id=8kyvBAAAQBAJ&pg=PA37&dq=Lake,+Robert+J.+(3+October+2014).+A+Social+History+of+Tennis+in+Britain&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjMp6Sp2en7AhUs7XMBHZsJBWwQ6AF6BAgKEAI#v=onepage&q=Lake%2C%20Robert%20J.%20(3%20October%202014).%20A%20Social%20History%20of%20Tennis%20in%20Britain&f=false Navops47 (talk) 11:21, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Dan "Plank" Rogers

What on earth are you doing? This is completely unlike you. Is your account compromised?--Bbb23 (talk) 15:04, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Nope, please see my comment on User talk Nakeep or at the AfD. On the other hand, what is wrong with our admins? Since when do we keep such unsourced BLP drivel around after it has been noticed? This "article" mocks a random non notable BLP. Why should we give this the AfD treatment as if it warrants any serious discussion and not immediate deletion? Fram (talk) 15:07, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

You can't do what you're doing regardless of your opinion on the matter. Why don't you tag it as WP:A7? Seems like the most obvious choice.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:09, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

I "can't do what I'm doing"??? WP:BLP overrules blind reversions "because it has already been declined". Feel free to delete it as A7, no one is stopping you. Either you believe it is an A7, and then why wait for me to tag it: or you don't believe it is an A7 either, and then you shouldn't ask me to tag it as such. Either way, please leave me alone if you can't recognise the problems with this article even when they stare you in the face. Fram (talk) 15:12, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

I have deleted the article. I don't believe any of us (including Barkeep49) think we should have this article, so I'm calling IAR on this, and this simply has been a discussion at cross purposes. I'll write to the creator in a minute explaining why we shouldn't have this article, politely. I think they're at least owed that. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:19, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

The right decision, thanks, it should have been deleted in the first place. We don't keep obvious joke pages about BLPs around just for the sake of "due process"...  — Amakuru (talk) 15:22, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Indeed. Fram (talk) 15:23, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Ritchie. I personally don't think anyone pushing such nonsense is owed any explanation, but it doesn't harm me or anyone else if you prefer to explain it anyway of course, so feel free. Fram (talk) 15:23, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

December 2022

Why is my article being removed? Have I written something wrong in this? TheManishPanwar (talk) 13:25, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

It has been explained at Talk:Priyanka Meher. Fram (talk) 13:29, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

MBlaze Lightning (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

MBlaze Lightning (talk) 09:11, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

@MBlaze Lightning: thank you, and best wishes for you too! Fram (talk) 08:42, 2 January 2023 (UTC)=

Happy Holidays

		Happy Holidays
		Hello, I wish you the very best during the holidays. And I hope you have a very happy 2023! Bruxton (talk) 20:17, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

@Bruxton: thank you, and best wishes for you too! Fram (talk) 08:43, 2 January 2023 (UTC)=

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:2005 disestablishments in Belarus

A tag has been placed on Category:2005 disestablishments in Belarus indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:07, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Fram!

Happy New Year!

Fram,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Abishe (talk) 03:47, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Abishe (talk) 03:47, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

@Abishe: thank you, and a happy New Year for you too! Fram (talk) 08:43, 2 January 2023 (UTC)=

Happy New Year, Fram!

Happy New Year!

Fram,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 20:52, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 20:52, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

@Moops: thank you, and a happy New Year for you too! Fram (talk) 08:44, 2 January 2023 (UTC)=

Female animals, perhaps by name?

Ah, thank you Fram!

Sorry, I imagined that here was precisely a context in which fair use was proper. What you called reposting was my working on the sizes unaware you had reverted at all. Here they are without the fair use cases, all the rest are commons. I just treble checked!. :)

Since the tableaux lines are a manageable number now, please limit removals to single images from here on, or do recommend substitutions wherever you know of better images we have in the bag. The difficulty of finding relevant images or settling for specifically illustrative surrogates underlines the need for more in this category in text and other media here at W.

Do you find the placements better now than before, since they are roughly hand-equalized, Fram? Pandelver (talk) 16:03, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't think the images are needed at all, people know what animals look like without galleries interrupting the discussion for no reason: but that is something the people at WiR can handle. I think your general idea starts from a very flawed premisse, that there is some gender gap in relation to animals (or to animal articles on Wikipedia), as if people are more likely to write about male than about female animals for some reason. Like was said, you are of course welcome to write or expand WP:NPOV articles on female animals, but it doesn't belong under the WiR label. Fram (talk) 16:16, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

I hear your points, Fram. So it depends on (1) who is a who, (2) who is woman and/or female, and while (3) humans somewhat know what humans look like (I don't know what you look like yet!); we are here individuating as we do with each human person mentioned in a W article which is individuated from all others instead of having only one article to cover all humans and what all humans do. :) Yes, there is both a tendency to write more about or to assume gender is male even with mammals other than homo, and to not bring them to individuation at all, just like a tendency to feel they are so significantly less important that they should fall beneath encyclopedic radar, or that they are not cogently related enough to the case of female homo sapiens. So what shall be interesting is to see what proportion of those committed to upredding female sapiens find they are conversely called to upredding females both within and over the borders of where they feel they share sapience (widely varying alacrities among individual sapiens). Like any SIG, what we are finding out is there is a portion of WiR, whether or not majority, for which this is part of WiR's cause celebre. Pandelver (talk) 16:35, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

I found the image placements too jarring, so put the last couple hours into them. But honestly, do you find the placements any better, meanwhile, Fram? Pandelver (talk) 16:36, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

WP:RGW. If there are notable female animals without articles, write them. If there are studies actually showing that there is a gender gap wrt animals, list them. But please don't preach/ The images add nothing to the discussion. Fram (talk) 16:40, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Jo Bogaert

Hi @Fram, I'm perplexed by your insistence on inserting on this article's talk page an exchange between us that has little to do with the article topic. Can you please explain? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 15:05, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm equally perplexed that you are edit warring to remove criticism of your actions relating to that article and your edit war on it. To be fair though, I'm no longer perplexed by your creative interpretation of facts: "an exchange between us" means that you only removed some posts by me, not some actual exchange between two people. You were wrong on every instance yesterday, so why do you not simply let it go and find some other articles to "improve"? Fram (talk) 15:09, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

It's going to be exceedingly difficult to reach a compromise or agreement with you if you insist on communicating in an accusatory and condescending manner. An example of this is your use of quotation marks around the word "improve", insinuating that I do not, in fact, do good work on Wikipedia. I resent this.

I'm not attempting to conceal your criticism of me—I openly stated that I was mistaken! All I'm saying is that your criticism has no place on the article talk page, as it doesn't relate to the article topic, so why insist on keeping it there? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 15:13, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Because it relates to the editing history of the article? Because it is not up to you to remove criticism of your actions around that article? Because you have so far cost me a lot of time and effort, without actually any benefit? Just drop it, no further compromise or agreement is needed. And then you can go on with your "improvements" like this. Fram (talk) 15:20, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Due to your intransigence on this topic, I have requested a third opinion. If you persist in reverting edits I make on other pages, I will pursue further action against you, as this consists of bullying. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 15:30, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

I improve articles, you don't. Get over it. Fram (talk) 15:33, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

New Pages Patrol newsletter January 2023

Hello Fram,

New Page Review queue December 2022

Backlog

The October drive reduced the backlog from 9,700 to an amazing 0! Congratulations to WaddlesJP13 who led with 2084 points. See this page for further details. The queue is steadily rising again and is approaching 2,000. It would be great if <2,000 were the “new normal”. Please continue to help out even if it's only for a few or even one patrol a day.

2022 Awards

Onel5969 won the 2022 cup for 28,302 article reviews last year - that's an average of nearly 80/day. There was one Gold Award (5000+ reviews), 11 Silver (2000+), 28 Iron (360+) and 39 more for the 100+ barnstar. Rosguill led again for the 4th year by clearing 49,294 redirects. For the full details see the Awards page and the Hall of Fame. Congratulations everyone!

Minimum deletion time: The previous WP:NPP guideline was to wait 15 minutes before tagging for deletion (including draftification and WP:BLAR). Due to complaints, a consensus decided to raise the time to 1 hour. To illustrate this, very new pages in the feed are now highlighted in red. (As always, this is not applicable to attack pages, copyvios, vandalism, etc.)

New draftify script: In response to feedback from AFC, the The Move to Draft script now provides a choice of set messages that also link the creator to a new, friendly explanation page. The script also warns reviewers if the creator is probably still developing the article. The former script is no longer maintained. Please edit your edit your common.js or vector.js file from User:Evad37/MoveToDraft.js to User:MPGuy2824/MoveToDraft.js

Redirects: Some of our redirect reviewers have reduced their activity and the backlog is up to 9,000+ (two months deep). If you are interested in this distinctly different task and need any help, see this guide, this checklist, and spend some time at WP:RFD.

Discussions with the WMF The PageTriage open letter signed by 444 users is bearing fruit. The Growth Team has assigned some software engineers to work on PageTriage, the software that powers the NewPagesFeed and the Page Curation toolbar. WMF has submitted dozens of patches in the last few weeks to modernize PageTriage's code, which will make it easier to write patches in the future. This work is helpful but is not very visible to the end user. For patches visible to the end user, volunteers such as Novem Linguae and MPGuy2824 have been writing patches for bug reports and feature requests. The Growth Team also had a video conference with the NPP coordinators to discuss revamping the landing pages that new users see.

Reminders

• Newsletter feedback - please take this short poll about the newsletter.
• There is live chat with patrollers on the New Page Patrol Discord.
• Please add the project discussion page to your watchlist.
• If you no longer wish to be a reviewer, please ask any admin to remove you from the group. If you want the tools back again, just ask at PERM.
• To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

January 2023

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 15:24, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Sources

Hello. I am trying to improve Draft:Double doodle. On one of the reasons you turned it to a draft, you listed that the article had unreliable sources. Would it be possible if you could tell me which sources you consider unreliable so I may delete them. Thank you and have a good day. Tvshowoflife (talk) 03:41, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Sources

Hello. I am trying to improve Draft:Double doodle. On the list of reasons why you turned the article into a draft, you stated that it had unreliable sources. I was wondering whether it would be possible for you to tell me which sources are unreliable you consider unreliable so I can go ahead and fix them. Thank you and have a good day.Tvshowoflife (talk) 03:56, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Tvshowoflife

A few I randomly checked: this has nothing to do with the Double Doodle page: it is the commercial page of the supposed employer of a person who got a whole section for very unclear reasons (looks like spam and nothing else). Your source 28, " Desk, Obituary. "Linda Sue Garner (April 6, 1951 – December 9, 2022" goes to here??? A LinkedIn profile? The whole "Individual double doodles recorded on the internet" just has to go as well. Fram (talk) 08:18, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Sorry. Thank you for responding and have a good day. Tvshowoflife (talk) 21:27, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Redirecting of lists

Hi Fram, I with regards to the recent lists that I started that you redirected, I wanted to explain myself in the hope that we can reach consensus on the topic of creating lists that are duplicative of articles that are not lists. Below, I'll share my logic and the guideline that informed it.

My thinking:

It's helpful to have a very short list that is easy to navigate in addition to an article on the same topic, because the article can have lots of bigrpahical details and yet some people might like an easy to read list. A great example of that is: Kennedy family and List of Kennedy family members. If you are in agreement with this as a concept so far, then you might also see why having various lists of notable political families is helpful to encyclopedia readers, check out List of lists of political families.

With that in mind, yesterday I worked on making sure the encycopedia had: Ford family (Canada) and also List of Ford political family members. Similarly: Layton family and also List of Layton family members

Now compared to the first example, the benefit is not as clear, because at this point in time, the extra content at the non-list articles isn't a lot, but it does help to organise content and I hope that myself and others will add information to the non list articles and therefore the differences will grow.

Regarding guidelines, I was very much guided by It is neither improper nor uncommon to simultaneously have a category, a list, and a navigation template that all cover the same topic. WP:NOTDUP. As I write to you now, I see that it is not as clearly written as I understood it yesterday, because it doesn't explicitly say that articles and lists are not duplicative, but it doesn't say they are not either, so I think we need to extrapolate (which I did) to conclude that different types of ways of presenting the same information are complimentary.

With that in mind, have I persuaded you of the net benefit of having both lists and articles on the same topic? CT55555(talk) 15:26, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your detailed explanation, but no. While things in different namespaces (Category, template, main) can have roughly the same content, two (or more) articles should not have the same content. It can be useful to spin off a section into a separate article if the original article gets too big (but that's not the case here), and I can see some benefit of having a separate, easier to navigate list when the entries in the list are present in a longer article but not in a handy format (as with e.g. the Kennedys), but for the ones I redirected, no such reason exists. You seem to indicate that you have already split them becaue perhaps the need may arise in the future, but that's putting the cart before the horse: it's better to let the main articles grow naturally, and then to create a separate family list. But in the cases I redirected, I see no benefit, only duplication of information and effort. Fram (talk) 15:53, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick and clear answer.

You said: You seem to indicate that you have already split them because perhaps the need may arise in the future...well...that was more of a side benefit than the primacy motivation.

My primary motivation was to enable the List of lists of political families and then have lists of the families in an easy to compare format so that people can learn and compare political dynasties families. Without the very simple lists, that is no longer possible. It's not easy to compare the family articles as they vary so widely in format, length, style.

This is a last hurrah at persuading you, I sense my chances are slim and I respect that you've been here for a long time and are more familiar with norms than me, so I respect your thinking on this.

But I will also verify that I understood that if myself or others do expand the family ones to make them longer, the more that occurs the more the justification of the short lists is something you would support? i.e. if/once I make a bona fide effort to expand the family articles, you will be ok if I un-revert the lists? CT55555(talk) 16:02, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Once an article gets too complicated to easily "extract" the family members with their own article, and too long to incorporate such a list as a section within it, then a separate article is justified. This shouldn't happen very often though, normally the best place to have a list of family members is within the family article. I have no idea what you would want to compare across such separate family lists though, what is there to compare between the Canadian Fords and the American Kennedys? And how do separate lists help with such a comparison? Seems all rather obscure. Fram (talk) 16:06, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Can you nominate List of largest palaces for deletion?

Hello Fram, Due to WP:NOTABILITY and WP:ORIGINAL, it should be deleted in WP:AFD, as the list is very incomplete and due to WP:NOTMIRROR and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. The vast majority of these have no source, no context, and aren't even important enough to be discussed in the article on the palace itself. Luckily the list is very incomplete, as the world has more than 5000 palaces apparently. 2001:448A:11AC:1E4A:F8AA:C72E:7A66:2099 (talk) 05:56, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

I mean that is a category-masquerading-as-an-article. It may be deleted tomorrow. 2001:448A:11AC:1E4A:A8C3:E447:F7E4:BB2F (talk) 05:36, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

How is it a category? Category:large palaces (or largest palaces) would never be accepted, but as a list it has potential. No idea what WP:NOTMIRROR has to do with it either. Fram (talk) 09:54, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Hors-la-loi (Lucky Luke)

Can you improve the article with the source you found? I cannot access it. The article has to clearly show notability, through WP:SIGCOV-meeting coverage in multiple sources (two will suffice). Otherwise it fails WP:NBOOK/WP:GNG, I am afraid. This is true for most other LL's books which like this article are just plot summary entries with a bit of catalogue publication's history. In this shape, they cannot remain as stand-alone articles, I am afraid. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:46, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Failing notability guidelines doesn't depend on the state of the article, but on the availability of sources. Fram (talk) 10:50, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Which is sufficient to save the article from deletion, but not from maintenance tagging. If the article had no lead, we would tag it with {{intro missing}} and not remove the tag with the justification that "it can be written", the tag should stay until the lead is written. Same with other tags, including this. It should stay until there is a referenced statement or more that suggests notability, not just existence. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:34, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

My userpage

@Fram based on the interactions I've had with you up to now, I am not interested in further communication, so please stay off my userpage. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 15:24, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Fine. I'll continue to check the damage you do to articles and the WP:BITE effect you have on newbies (as most of your reverts are for IPs and relative newbies), and if the issue doesn't improve may raise it at ANI. The good work you do with reverting actual vandalism or problematic edits doesn't outweight the too frequent errors. I'll not be able to discuss it with you any further before this then. You are welcome to discuss any reverts I make on the specific article talk pages, or more general here of course. Fram (talk) 15:27, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Syed Fardeen

Hello Fram, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Syed Fardeen, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Asserted to be a famous Youtuber. A7 is for articles with no assertion of significance at all, not for non-notable topics. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:07, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I only noticed that you draftified it after I had written my AfD rationale, I'll just post it here in case the article reappears:

No indication found of any notability. Source "Fox interviewer" is not reliabe at all (e.g. claims that Fardeen has more than 1 million followers on SoundCloud, but the actual number seems to be, er 13?). His youTube figures are a bit dubious as well, 160K people follow him yet most of his videos have less than 1000 views[5]? Anyway, no reliable independent sources about him, so not notable enough for an article.

Fram (talk) 16:20, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Live

I have requested a third opinion regarding our dispute at Talk:Live (band)#WP:OWN by Revirvlkodlaku. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 17:13, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

False alarm, issue resolved. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 17:55, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

I acknowledge that it's hypocritical of me to accuse you of being condescending shortly after doing the same to you. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 00:52, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Fram (talk) 08:41, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Request to join discussion

Hi @Fram:, I request you to join the AfD discussion about the article named "Alliances formed by left-wing parties in the states of India". Thank you. SharadSHRD7 (talk) 05:54, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Strange "oppose" votes at WP:V22RFC2

Hello Fram,

Regarding the votes you rolled back here, notice that the later 10-12 votes (current #128 to 140) are all still weirdly similar: all suddenly from IPs or new accounts and all using the dash (-) or m-dash (—). Æo (talk) 18:56, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

P.S. I see that Avilich has already tagged them a few minutes ago. Æo (talk) 18:58, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Portrait of Count Stanislas Potocki by David

Hi Fram! I saw your recent contributions to Jacques-Louis David and I was wondering if you would be interested in collaborating on Portrait of Count Stanislas Potocki, a painting by David from 1781. The article has been mostly abandoned for the last two years and the work as well as its history are quite fascinating. I would love to bring it to GA or FA level, though due to other commitments, I am looking to team up with more editors. And feel free to recommend someone else if this is not something you would be interested in participating. Looking forward to hearing your thoughts! Many thanks. Ppt91 (talk) 16:09, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi Ppt91, thanks for asking! It's not an artist or painting I know a lot about, and I don't speak Polish (with the painting showing a Polish subject and housed in Poland, I fear a lot of sources will be in Polish. My contribution to the David article was only reverting a mass-added category, not something substantial anyway :-) But thanks for asking, perhaps a call at Wikiproject Art may help? Fram (talk) 16:15, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Fram Thank you for your speedy reply! Totally understand. Will continue to approach editors at WP Visual Arts and Poland :) sending best wishes Ppt91 (talk) 17:06, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Regarding MfD "Iraqi..."

Should this be done with more of the "AI"-generated articles? You can find some of them that have been tagged by searching hastemplate:"AI generated" in all namespaces. Or should we wait until there's a policy? — rsjaffe 🗣️ 21:40, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

If they are equally bad, yes, we should start MfDs and Afds. Having a number of those may help in establishing that we need a policy and a CSD even. Fram (talk) 09:59, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

why did you draft Wikipedia page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vinayakbajpai123 (talk • contribs) 16:54, 1 February 2023 (UTC)