User talk:Fram

List of American suffragists by state

Hi Fram! I just reverted one of your edits and will be reverting a few more. I appreciate you putting the smaller lists inline for the list of American suffragists by state, but it's not going to work in the long run. I am doing a long-term project where I am listing all suffragists by either state or national level. Many of the suffragists on the national page need to go to the smaller pages. These lists, like the one for NY will get very long very quickly. Please leave individual state lists as stand-alone. Thank you! :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:14, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

The right thing would then have been to split them again in the long run, at the time when the length of a state list overwhelmed the general page. Not what you did now. I'll not revert as it is rather tiring to go against so insisting on the need for separate pages for some reason, but it really is not the right way to deal with these things. Please don't create other one-person lists. Fram (talk) 07:12, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

CfD nomination at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 August 3 § Early Austria disestablishment categories

A category or categories you have created have been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 August 3 § Early Austria disestablishment categories on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 18:57, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Post-resignation violence against Hindus in Bangladesh, 2024

ZeetBaralWiki (talk) 16:21, 6 August 2024 (UTC) Hi, Fram. You told 'While this topic deserves an article, it shouldn't be this one. A blatantly one-sided, very badly sourced instead of a neutral, factual one where the sources actually reference the paragraphs they follow instead of being seemingly randomly inserted' I have checked the references. There are many mistakes in them. I am removing those and inserting the correct references. How the government is viewing the matter, what steps they have taken, what international organizations and countries have commented—I can mention these with references. Also, I can include the opinions of those who are attacking. I think that will make it impartial and unbiased. Will I proceed with the article - Post-resignation violence against Hindus in Bangladesh, 2024? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZeetBaralWiki (talk • contribs) 16:31, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

You are copying sentences and paragraphs straight from the sources. This is a copyright violation and not allowed on Wikipedia. You need to write the article in your own words, summarizing the sources. Fram (talk) 06:34, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

ZeetBaralWiki, this is a very important topic that needs to be covered properly. If you engage in copyright violations or any other significant policy violations, that will only delay the coverage of this topic on Wikipedia. So please be careful to follow Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Cullen328 (talk) 06:54, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Canines Cushing-syndrome

The reason for that mess of a title is that the editor was paid to use AI to translate an article with 0 incentive to anything more than get it past AfC. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:05, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Ah yes, I know of that problematic project, recently I have taken one of their creations to AfD for being unscientific, outdated, and completely unchecked by the translator. Sounds like easy money for them! Fram (talk) 07:07, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1850s disestablishments in the German Confederation

A tag has been placed on Category:1850s disestablishments in the German Confederation 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 removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:08, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

My style of writing

Hi Fram, I just dropped you a lengthy explanation on why I use technical complex wordings to exaggerate the content articles as I also think of the fact that it is paramount important for me to convert the stub class article into a start class article by capitalizing on my strength in the form of writing. I also take inspiration from English literature subject where I have learnt the basic literary techniques like metaphors, similes, euphemism, paradox and I also take note of some of the prominent writers works such as Maya Angelou, Cat Stevens, Edward Lowbury, Gabriel Okara, Jacques Prevert, Gabriela Mistral, Yasmine Gooneratne, Sonali Deraniyagala and Wisława Szymborska on how they captured the plight of daily life situations through their exceptional writing framework. In addition to listening to cricket commentary, I have also given so much emphasis to the prominent notable literary works of the some of the highly talented writers as I have mentioned earlier. I also ended up writing an article about Barnewall Two-way Model few months ago which I in fact learnt as part of my behavioral finance module in Business Management. I literally referred to all the notes and tutes and compiled a fresh article right from the scratch and presented it a one step destination so that it can be used as an education tool by others to get a basic idea of what that model is all about. Abishe (talk) 17:06, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

I think, in terms of technique, you might want to think about Finnegans Wake :D SerialNumber54129 17:59, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

I've taken a look at Barnewall Two-way Model as not only your writing style is a problem, but the contents of that article were frankly dreadful. Things like "Passive investors do not have the bargaining ability to make crucial decisions as they work under bosses on a contractual basis and are obliged to comply with the terms and conditions set by their employers. " or "However, there is no guarantee that passive investors can have the ability to enhance their level of independence, and they will not be able to make their own decisions as they always have to depend on what their superiors instruct and act accordingly." are not supported by the sources at all. Never mind the nonsense of "Generally it is perceived and assumed that people who have fewer economic resources and especially those who have little to no access to even basic facilities tend to become passive investors." People with no access to basic facilities are not the people discussed by the model or the sources... I will keep an eye on your new creations and may request removal of your user rights as I don't think you are the kind of editor who should be autopatrolled or who should be reviewing new pages or pending changes. Fram (talk) 07:13, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

This is an eye opener for me as my article has been termed as delusional and my writing pattern lacks the basic common sense. I admit my mistakes and I take the responsibility for it. I thought of always applying whatever I studied at school or college level to full effect in practical aspects and as a result I decided to execute my knowledge prowess through such encyclopediac articles. I am always keen on enhancing knowledge and to share the same with others without expecting anything in return. Maybe I was overexcited and pumped up whenever I get an opportunity to use my knowledge to the best of my efforts. I also admit the fact that my style of writing has also been influenced with the advent of college semester report writing, assignments as we are expected to give an in-depth analysis on explaining a particular segment to gain more marks and also to top the rankings like first class honours etc. My knack of writing is clearly evident with how you are making suggestions on the necessity to trim down unnecessary wordings and to ensure a neutral point of view. I am always eager to apply whatever knowledge I have at my disposal which can benefit me and others and that is why I feel maybe I have exaggerated my style of writing. Hopefully I can turn things around to stay alive and remain upbeat about the weight of expectations on me. Hopefully I can see a glimmer of hope and possibly see light at the end of the tunnel. I strive with the emphasis on improving myself and I guarantee that I can make a resilient comeback and become an inevitable Wikipedia editor. Abishe (talk) 15:29, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Orders of magnitude

You nominated the article "Orders of magnitude (angular frequency)" for deletion. Why? Why is this article any less desirable than all the other articles titled "Orders of magnitude (quantity)"? Solomonfromfinland (talk) 09:26, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I have no idea if the other ones are better or deserve deletion or redirecting as well, but the one you created is, like I said, a random selection of examples, not based on an overarching source. An article which exists only of examples is not an encyclopedic article. Fram (talk) 09:28, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Deleting page Baron of the Bachuil

Fram, I noticed that you deleted the premier baron of the realm page that I created it's the oldest extant title of nobility. Rather than outright deletion, I believe it would have been more constructive to start a discussion about any concerns you had (as you have often poked at me), particularly given the historic significance of the title and the numerous sources included in the article. I've observed that we've had several interactions in the past, and it seems like you might be closely monitoring my contributions. I can't help but feel that this might be causing unnecessary friction between us. I would appreciate it if we could focus on constructive dialogue moving forward, rather than actions that could be seen as disruptive. Kellycrak88 (talk) 15:10, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

First, you should not have created the text someone else created as your own in mainspace, such copy-paste moves are not allowed. Secondly, the first source in the article, claimed to be checkec today, was a weird commercial casino page, not a reliable source at all, where the source was vaguely related to the pahe subject but not to the facts it sourced at all. You are an experienced editor, you should do better. And no, I wasn't "closely monitoring your contributions", I saw the page among the new pages which I was checking. The page was created at 13:33, 22 August 2024, I also edited a page created at 14:19, 22 August 2024, one from 14:03, 22 August 2024, one from 14:46, 22 August 2024, one from 11:22, 22 August 2024, ... Fram (talk) 15:29, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Plumber and I collaborated on the article, and he asked me to publish it. I wasn’t aware that this approach violated any specific rules, but I appreciate you bringing it to my attention. I'll review the sources with Plumber to ensure they meet Wikipedia's standards, and we'll work together to address any issues so we can move forward with getting the article live. Kellycrak88 (talk) 15:42, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Oh, and moving a page to draft is not "deleting" a page, it's making sure that it isn't in the mainspace when the sourcing is so dubious. It hasn't been in the mainspace since 2001, a few more days or weeks won't hurt. Fram (talk) 15:30, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

I stand corrected, thanks for the clarification. Kellycrak88 (talk) 15:42, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

(edit confmict)Finally, even without the sourcing issus, it is really not a good article. It starts with some general vague text about 1556, instead of kdiscussing the history of the actual barony, which is claimed in the infobox to be from the 9th century. Reading the article doesn't really inform readers about the barony, which should be the purpose after all. It's a jumble of largely unrelated paragraphs, e.g. suddenly talking about " In a 1951 ruling, the Lord Lyon found that the Coarbs of St Moluag had existed for centuries without acknowledging any secular authority or hierarchical structure." without any indication what this is about or why this is important. It's a lot more informative to read the existing article on Clan Livingstone. Fram (talk) 15:43, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

While I concur regarding the absence of the history section, I do not consider the text in question (which is a dedicated section) to be vague. Initially, it elucidates the essence of baronial allodial fiefdoms in Scotland, where the holders are barons par la grâce de Dieu (by the Grace of God), owing to the allodial nature of their fiefs and their refusal to acknowledge any superiors.

Moreover, I contend that the title stands as one of the oldest in the introduction. To reinforce this claim, I cite an instance where the Duke of Argyll addressed the Baron as "my lord", highlighting the antiquity of the barony and its significant seniority (allodial in origin, predating Scottish feudalism). I have appropriately attributed this information to credible sources.

Furthermore, the ruling by Lord Lyon is not arbitrary but grounded in specific findings. He observed that the Coarb of St. Moluag (Baron of the Bachuil) recognised no higher authority, as their fief is allodial, affirming the Livingstones' status. The concluding paragraph underscores the heraldic privileges linked with an allodial barony, which the Livingstones possess, thereby solidifying their position as barons "by the Grace of God".

Regarding the mention of the King of Scots, I included it solely to offer additional context (the King of Scots filled a high king position, not superior among equals, emphasising the allodial aspect in medieval Scotland). It merely serves as a starting point for the actual content. However, I agree that the Duke of Argyll's inclusion in the section is irrelevant though. Daniel Plumber (talk) 07:24, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

The Lord Lyon line came completely out of the blue, no indication at all was given what the "Coarbs of St Moluag" are or what they had to do with the Barony. Fram (talk) 07:50, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

It also helps if you link to the sources you use wherever possible (e.g. this), and please try to write in your own words instead of closely paraphrasing, like you did here (see how e.g. the aside "- which itself was a developed form of tribalism in Western Europe -" compares to the similar aside in the source "—which we shall see was, inWestern Europe at any rate, itself a developed form of tribalism—"). See Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Fram (talk) 07:59, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for the advice. Daniel Plumber (talk) 09:41, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of windmills in Friesland (T–V)

Hello, Fram,

I just noticed that this bundled nomination is not formatted correctly. This will result in our editing tool, XFDcloser, taking action on the article in the title and ignoring the other articles you meant to include. You can't just arrange the articles in a list, they have to have the proper formatting to be a real bundled nomination that will allow XFDcloser to take action on all of the articles. Luckily, the necessary changes aren't complicated. Just go review, the WP:AFD section on nominating multiple articles and follow the instructions there to redo your list of articles to be considered. It should only take a few minutes but it will save the eventual discussion closer a lot of headaches if you take care of this prior to closure. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:23, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Here's what a correctly formatted bundled nomination looks like: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Korea Jesus Presbyterian Church. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:39, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Done, can't recall having seen this before when I did multi-noms. Fram (talk) 07:15, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

New pages patrol September 2024 Backlog drive

New pages patrol | September 2024 Backlog Drive
On 1 September 2024, a one-month backlog drive for new pages patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Each article review will earn 1 point, and each redirect review will earn 0.2 points. 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.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:09, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 2

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Austro-Daimler, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Austrian.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:53, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Missing something

The title is claimed to be exactly years old [1] Polygnotus (talk) 04:19, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

numlock issues. From 1624, so exactly 400 years old! At least, that's what the infobox says... Fram (talk) 06:44, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

olive branch

Hi Fram,

I wanted to extend an olive branch and reach out directly. I know we’ve had our differences in various discussions, and things may have escalated more than they should. My intention is always to contribute constructively, and although we may not always agree, I’m hoping we can find some common ground moving forward. I’m committed to improving my contributions and continuing to learn. I’d really like to turn this into a more collaborative relationship.

Thank you for considering this, and I hope we can move forward positively.

Best regards,

Kellycrak88 Kellycrak88 (talk) 16:49, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

I have no problem with you wanting to edit constructively, and have stated in my ANi post explicitly that you are a good-faith editor. But I do hope that in the future, you will try to learn from issues you encounter, and keep your promises of being more careful and going slower, instead of just continuing in the same vein, which was what lead me to the ANI report. Articles should be factually correct, well sourced, neutral, free from copyright violations, and essentially about their title subject, not a vehicle to add loads of unrelated information or to focus on one tiny aspect only. Fram (talk) 06:48, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	For your tireless efforts in keeping the 'pedia clean, I truly appreciate your work. Frost 10:09, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Hostility on Baidwan sept of Jat-Sikh lineage

Hi Fram, you mentioned getting hostility and claims of vandalism at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baidwan sept of Jat-Sikh lineage, do you mean the edit summary the sockpuppet gave you in the edit summary when they reverted you? Or did you also get something somewhere else? Might be an unaccounted for sock if so. -- asilvering (talk) 18:08, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

The edit summaries (most of them were machine generated it seems, but a few were accusations of COI, move vandalism, ...). BTW, thank you for not letting my oppose stop you from working together like here, I've always tried to forget whoever supported or opposed me in particular discussions (even RFAs) as to not let that cloud later actions or interactions, and it's nice to see others act the same. Fram (talk) 18:17, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Always. (Honestly, I'm glad you voted as you did. A well-earned oppose from someone you respect is a badge of honour.) -- asilvering (talk) 19:38, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

And it's more realistic to be 99.5% perfect than to be 100% perfect! Fram (talk) 07:12, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Oh, and about the hostility, see User talk:Repulsive hegemony card (section "Answer Me !! My Lowkey opinion whats going on with you @User:Frost &Fram", direct link doesn't work. Top of the talk page says "humanist", but apparently not then... Fram (talk) 08:09, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Geez. I spent a while yesterday trying to figure out what was going on with all the page moves in their contribution history, but I decided I was too tired to work it out and gave up. Glad to see some admins have popped by in the meantime. Can't imagine they'll keep their talk page access for long. -- asilvering (talk) 16:12, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Unreliable Sources- Appendix N

Hi,you've flagged the Appendix N article with unreliable sources. Please could you specify which sources so they can be investigated? 46.208.1.154 (talk) 14:27, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Blogs, fandom wiki, perhaps others (I haven't checked them all, but if there are fora, fan websites, personal websites from non-recognised experts, ... then these as well). Fram (talk) 14:30, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying, Fram. How does it look to you now? I have removed the fandom wiki and one of the blog references. I left one blog reference in for the blog by games designer Martin Ralya in the "Legacy and cultural impact" section at the end as I thought it provided evidence of a notable person's involvement, but we can remove that as well if you think it is holding the article back from having the flag removed. Silverwood (talk) 15:14, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

I think this needs to go, and I don't see the value of this. A link to a store[2] to make some point that this release is related to Appendix N, even though it nowhere says that, seems more like WP:OR than something worth including. Yes, the inspirations for D&D will inspire D&D, that seems rather logical. The Hugo Award nomination can be removed as well, as the article clearly notes that they are a mockery of the original process, making nominations virtually worthless or meaningless. I doubt that the inclusion of this is warranted either, a random blog (of some quality). Otherwise feel free to remove the tag, it's just my opinion. Fram (talk) 15:36, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

These are all fair points. The release in question was a different RPG rather than D&D, and was directly inspired by Appendix N rather than by D&D, but your point is correct that the link does not support the claim, so it needs a better source or it should be removed. I will remove all of those links you have mentioned and will remove the relevant text unless I can find better sources before I consider removing the tag. It's for the best if people don't remove these kind of tags without getting input from a second editor first, so thanks for the input. Silverwood (talk) 17:16, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Question on reliability of a certain source

Hello again, I wanted to once again make some changes to the article for Contern this time adding stuff about the economy, and I stumbled across a source which looked useful, [3]. And while the data itself seems mostly sound and well sourced, one of the sections is literally directly copied from what I wrote in the article right here on wikipedia. So before using it I thought it would be best to ask you if that disqualifies the source from being usable, thanks N1TH Music (talk) 14:57, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

It's hard to be certain, but it looks computer-generated to me. Something like "The town boasts great schools, like the Contern Um Ewent Primary School, " while noting further down that this is the only school, is bizarre if it was written by a human. Compared to e.g. [4] from the same site, I note e.g.

• "Contern presents the advantage of offering a pleasant rural environment, close to nature and removed from the hustle and bustle of the capital, yet conveniently located just a short distance away, with considerably more affordable prices."

vs.

• "Leudelange presents an appealing residential option, offering a village-like ambiance away from the hustle of the capital yet conveniently close, and with significantly more affordable prices. "

This reads to me as AI-generated text, superficially different but using the exact same, rather hollow phrases. And it is typical for AI texts to take part of their info from Wikipedia, which makes it unreliable (circular referencing). So I wouldn't consider it a reliable source, but try to track down where it got its information from and you may find good sources (e.g. the history section of the Leudelange AI page is translated and slightly summarized from here. Fram (talk) 15:21, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

So I should try to track down the original source of the data of median income if I wish add the information to the article? N1TH Music (talk) 15:59, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

If that is even necessary for a 4000-person community. Not every last detail needs to be included. But if you want to include it, yes, either get a reliable primary source for it, or a newspaper or so commenting on it. Fram (talk) 16:07, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Alright yes I've found the primary source. And on the topic of whether it's necessary, I understand there's not much point to adding so much information to an article about a small commune but surely if it's all correct, encyclopedic and well sourced then there's nothing detrimental about adding it if I so please, especially since editing wikipedia is merely a hobby for me afterall. But also I was inclined to add this information after hearing some friends of mine discussing which communes were the richest, so this seems to be pretty useful information. And wouldn't having articles which have loads of detailed information about every aspect of them as is the case for Contern or also say Siddington, Gloucestershire set a precedent that all articles about similar municipalities and towns should strive to be of similar quality. If in the future, all articles about parishes in England were written to the same standard as Siddington, that's beneficial for wikipedia no? N1TH Music (talk) 16:28, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Also one more thing, I've noticed Contern is still listed as a stub, when it obviously no longer is. How does one go about changing that? Thanks N1TH Music (talk) 20:59, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't see it listed as a stub? Normally, near the bottom you would have a stub template (Luxembourg-stub or something similar), you can simply remove this once the article is no longer a stub. Fram (talk) 07:07, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Well a while ago I removed the template there but on the talk page it still says the article has been evaluated as stub class on wikiproject:Luxembourg. I’m wondering as to how it can be reevaluated. N1TH Music (talk) 09:17, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

I removed it. Evaluation is not really that important between stub and GA/FA, no one really cares if an article is C-class or B-class. Fram (talk) 09:30, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Declined speedy deletion

Hi Fram, I declined your WP:CSD#A3 nomination for St. Mary's Cemetery (Washington, D.C.) because the page is not devoid of content, and meets the bare minimum standard for a stub. As a friendly reminder, "no content" as stated in A3 means "no content at all, in any form", which was not the case here. If you believe the topic lacks notability, please use a different deletion process. Thanks, ^Complex/_Rational 14:32, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

I just posted on your talk page, basically your interpretation of A3 is incorrect, as it also includes articles which have nothing but a rephrasing of the title, as was here the case. The title and the one sentence were quasi-identical. Fram (talk) 14:34, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

De-PRODing 2015 World Youth Championships in Athletics – Boys' high jump

Hi, thank you for doing a PROD of 2015 World Youth Championships in Athletics – Boys' high jump. I took a look at the article, and I don't think the PROD was justified. Part of the WP:PRODNOM process is to consider alternatives to deletion before nomination, which includes improving the page by editing it. I found several independent sources covering the competition in-depth, for example [5][6][7][8][9], so I added them to the article. Thanks, --Habst (talk) 14:03, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

This is hardly "in-depth" coverage of the Boys' high jump competition though. And this obviously isn't independent so doesn't help for notability either. The others are comparable to what we had at the linked other AfD, i.e. discussion of one competitor, not really a discussion of the competition. Fram (talk) 14:21, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks -- that's fine, I just think the appropriate venue for discussion of these differences is at AfD. The gazzetta.it and corriere.it coverage certainly discuss many competitors, including all the medalists which is the focus of the article. I can't perform machine translation of the newspaper scan but it looks like many competitors are discussed there as well. --Habst (talk) 15:27, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1342 in art

A tag has been placed on Category:1342 in art indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, 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 removing the speedy deletion tag. ✗plicit 01:30, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1344 in art

A tag has been placed on Category:1344 in art indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, 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 removing the speedy deletion tag. ✗plicit 01:30, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1414 in art

A tag has been placed on Category:1414 in art indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, 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 removing the speedy deletion tag. ✗plicit 01:30, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

My formal apology regarding something you don't care about (or even remember)

Remember this? Yeah, sorry about that. 4 years ago from now I was fresh into 9th grade when I wrote this article. I was very upset that it was deleted because I thought it was very funny. In fact, when I got the notification I chose not to look at it, and haven't looked at it since to spare myself the embarrassment. I've chose to keep it swept under the rug, but now I've decided to finally just own up to it. Pinging Johnuniq, Bduke, Thy Pyrometer, SmokeyJoe, and Hut 8.5 who all commented on the MfD. Not that this matters at all, I'm just doing it for my sake, so I can finally stop pretending like this didn't happen.

This is me self-trouting myself for creating such a stupid article in the first place. I apologize for making it, and wasting your time with lousy, 9th-grader humor. I'm certain the article was a hard read. I think the worst part of all for me was that I cracked jokes at the expense of others, which looking back I did quite a lot unfortunately. I try to lead my life with a high regard to humility. I'm a changed man. I am funny now, I swear. I'm also very humble now. Very. No barnstars, please.

4 years may not seem like much of an age difference, but maturity-wise for teens it definitely is, and I hope you could forgive me for such a blunder. I hope you all can see me in a new light? Beyond whatever this article was? Because at this point I don't even remember what the article looked like (and at this point I never do). Panini! • 🥪 06:38, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Hey, no problem, happy editing! Johnuniq (talk) 07:26, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

English Qaballa

The sources say "discovered". Again, if you want to change it to "invented", you need to supply a source. Please stop edit warring without sources. Skyerise (talk) 15:22, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

I asked for a reliable source for "discovered", and you provided Cath Thompson, "an English Qaballist and Stellar Magickian of thirty-seven years experience"[10], neither an independent nor a reliable source. Fram (talk) 17:19, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:2010 establishments in Saint Vincent and the Grenadines

A tag has been placed on Category:2010 establishments in Saint Vincent and the Grenadines indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, 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 removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:27, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in a research

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:28, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

@UOzurumba (WMF): you are probably only the messenger, so this message is in general, not specifically for you: but do you have any idea how fucking offensive it is to ask the only admin you (WMF) have desysopped out of process, with a total lack of evidence, without a chance to defend themselves, while spreading false rumours of "off-wiki" evidence, and probably based on requests from people from the WMF inner circle, "what affects administrator retention"??? Fram (talk) 07:48, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

@Fram. I apologize for any confusion and offense we may have caused. The project meta page describes the definitions we used to guide our queries, and though we took a lot of time and care to arrive at the criteria, we obviously missed some considerations. In your case, your username was part of the random sample drawn from the en.wiki potential admin category (which is to say, people who meet the general requirements to be an admin but aren't. We did not take into account why each person wasn't). Regardless of your specific situation, we would still like to hear from you in the survey if you are willing to respond. If we re-run this survey, we will do our best to take into account the history of people's admin status when compiling our samples. BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:39, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

@BGerdemann (WMF): thank you for coming here and the apology, it's never easy coming someone where you (or your organisation) gets scolded. I'll not respond in the survey, but thank you anyway. Fram (talk) 08:18, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

@BGerdemann (WMF): as somehow you have signed this, but haven't sent this? Fram (talk) 07:50, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

It's the MassMessage extension, just like, um, this ArbCom fiasco, except this time used on a global scale. Per this log entry, you were listed at the Meta page UOzurumba (WMF)/sandbox Research announcement list for enwiki Potential Admins (yes, with that namespace), presumably because of your edit count. Graham87 (talk) 09:57, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

One would hope that they would look beyond mere edit count, but oh well... Fram (talk) 10:35, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Saw this accidentally. I did the survey, and one screen is all about why one hasn't run for admin. I am also a former admin, so this was annoying. Off-wiki, an admin who was selected to do the survey says the corresponding screen in the version they got was about whether they enjoy being an admin. WMF staffers are horribly, insultingly oblivious. In addition ... the survey I got asked me whether I had done moderation/admin work on other websites. And had a box to list them!

Have you ever received an apology from the WMF for being desysopped and blocked? Yngvadottir (talk) 22:14, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

I didn't even receive an apology for this invitation, never mind for the ban (quite an honour to be the only one ever to receive that kind of ban though). I don't expect one either, an explanation would be a nice start. That the survey is problematic doesn't come as a surprise, and the conclusions they will draw from it will not follow from the raw numbers at all, if it follows the habits they acquired over the years. Fram (talk) 07:45, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, they are so consistently incompetent, it's effectively part of their identity. That's shameful. I had hoped someone from the WMF would at least have apologised to you personally. Yngvadottir (talk) 09:39, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:22, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Dawn's Landscape XL

Hello Fram,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Dawn's Landscape XL for deletion, because it's a redirect from an article title to a namespace that's not for articles.

If you don't want Dawn's Landscape XL to be deleted, you can contest this deletion, but don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

C F A 💬 15:37, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Resubmitting drafts

Hi again Fram. I am posting this here rather than Safari's tp because it has nothing to do with their reviews. If you want to resubmit a draft on behalf of another user, you can use {{subst:submit|Creator's username}}, then accept (or even if you are not sure but think another review is warranted by another reviewer). The other option is to click the Resubmit button then change the User (u=) from your name to theirs. That way they will get the AfC communications rather than you. S0091 (talk) 19:06, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! Fram (talk) 08:21, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Upcoming expiry of your ipblock-exempt right

Hi, this is an automated reminder as part of Global reminder bot to let you know that your WP:IPBE right which gave you the ability to bypass IP address blocks will expire on 17:57, 6 November 2024 (UTC). If your IP is still blocked (which you can test by trying to edit when logged-out), please renew by following the instructions at the IPBE page; otherwise, you do not need to do anything. To opt out of user right expiry notifications, add yourself to m:Global reminder bot/Exclusion. Leaderbot (talk) 06:33, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

@Fram taking up the battle vs SafariScribe

Hello @Fram - thank you for taking the battle for the newbies against SafariScribe. I received a rejection from SafariScriber a few days ago on Draft:Phil Rinaldi based on WP:CNG and possible promotional tone. The article is not promotional at all and I doubt that Rinaldi would be very happy to see it. However, it is about a important man who has flown under the radar for decades while controlling very large businesses (some with bad outcomes). I read your research thread on SafariScribe's talk page and feel that something is a bit off with the reviewer. I would like to get your opinion on my article if you have time. Best regards. Also I see that S0091 is in the mix above (I have history with the editor and respect his/her opinions). Refineryguycanada (talk) 14:55, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I've raised the issue at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation. Fram (talk) 15:39, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I just read your post. I will hope for the best.

Please do take a look at my Phil Rinaldi article and let me know if you think I have problems with it when you can. Best regards Refineryguycanada (talk) 17:13, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Capitalization campaign?

It's funny that you accuse me of a capitalization campaign. Mostly I'm going the other way, and being accused of a lowercasing campaign. In general, just trying to get it right, and to avoid piping through miscapitalized redirects such as Ij (digraph). Dicklyon (talk) 16:25, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

I know why you do it, and how you misuse "miscapitalization" (a lowercase character isn't a "miscapitalization" at all). And your campaign is about capitalization, whether uppercasing or lowercasing. You don't seem to have learned a lot from your previous blocks for all of this. Fram (talk) 16:42, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

It isn't even indicated as a miscapitalization (because, spoiler, it isn't), it is listed as an "other" capitalization, which you certainly should leave well alone. Aren't there enough actual errors on this website which you can focus on instead of this meaningless and annoying busybody work? Fram (talk) 16:48, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

It was tagged as a miscapitalization for a bit, until yesterday. Long enough for me to notice and do some fixes. The trouble is that the lowercase "ij" doesn't make a good article title as it comes out "Ij"; and piping is needed in any case, so there's no need to link the miscapitalized Ij. Dicklyon (talk) 18:36, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

No piping was or is needed, no idea why you keep repeating this. Fram (talk) 18:44, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Maybe this edit will help. It at least makes the "other" somewhat more sensible. Dicklyon (talk) 18:38, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

I've tried to explain the difference but it seems to fall on deaf ears. I regularly find myself fixing their usage of rcats for example. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:18, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

"Don't edit war" would also be my advice to you. The point of fixing links to miscapitalized redirects such as Ij (digraph) is to get them off the report of linked miscapitalizations. When such a link is piped, it's completely pointless to not instead pipe directly through the article title. If we don't fix such things, the maintenance report can't be whittle down, so serves no purpose. Dicklyon (talk) 18:31, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

It isn't a miscapitalized redirect, it is a different, valid capitalization. if you have some maintenance report that includes links which have no issue at all and don't need any maintenance, then change your report, don't change the mainspace. We have had this discussion in the past already, you are not doing maintenance, you are just doing utterly pointless, watchlist- and history-polluting edits. I would urge you to stop this. Fram (talk) 18:38, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Let me just add the sources, what kind of vandalising are you talking about?

These platforms and projects are real and matter to the local Yugoslav region, I am referencing proof and adding to the pages as more information as I can, allow me few days to make them shiny please. NemorosusMens (talk) 15:47, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

There is zero evidence for any of this. None at all, for either the party or the radio. Fram (talk) 16:27, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

What evidence would you like? The party isn't a party per-se, it's an organisation with around 700 members and it wasn't, isn't and won't be registered in any political party registry. I never categorised it as a political party, you didn't let me finish the pages, thus I apologise for using the live pages as my sandbox - just helped me edit with more attention.

On the radio, it existed since 2010 and I have full evidence regarding this. It had a Facebook page with around 8000 likes before it got removed for sharing Palestinian anti-zionist propaganda, like the ideologies of the organisations say, they're both left-wing and political.

For Radio Yugoslavia, I have more than 1K of newsletter members, about the same for our music label, it's a whole structure that I was just starting to record here - finding it via normal Google searching won't return you anything back, thus I would once again apologise for using live pages as my sandbox, and please simply allow me to do it once more (this time I'll use references, historic articles, etc) and publish it during this week, and if you find it as a hoax or anything similar you're mentioning there, then feel free to remove them both and simply not have them exist here.

Also, public appearance and presence online on pop-social media doesn't equal organisation legitimacy, just saying. At this very moment I have around ~100 listeners to the Radio Yugoslavia Jazz channel. This costs us money, and trying to get here will just help spread the word about the people who're curious in learning about one niche, but legit organisation from the region of Yugoslavia. NemorosusMens (talk) 16:34, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

If there is zero evidence that this actually exists (and no, having a webpage which isn't even linked from anywhere else is not evidence of "existing"), the sources in the article are not about the subject, and the subject itself is highly unlikely (you are aware that Yugoslavia has been gone for 30 years?), and even the website is hardly active (half the pages are 404 errors), then why should we trust your word (as a 10-year editor who only registered last month?) that any of this is actually real and that somehow all those foreign ministries, embassies, ... know and care about your existence? Fram (talk) 16:39, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

@NemorosusMens, I see another admin has since deleted the page as a hoax. I don't think it's a hoax as we define them, so I think that particular action was wrong, but I don't think this article ever had much hope of being a Wikipedia article. You'd have to show that the topic was notable - ie, that secondary sources talk about it. This is the same thing that would satisfy Fram about it being a hoax, so in the end I suppose it doesn't much matter which criteria it was deleted under. If you don't have enough sources to meet the guidelines at WP:NCORP, we can't have an article on the topic. -- asilvering (talk) 16:42, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

No, that was trash words from my sandbox. I can reference everything, and about the website - I'm currently the only sysadmin so working everything step by step. Yugoslavia has been indeed gone for lots of decades, however this is an organisation which is active in the region of Yugoslavia, not the country.

Would it be okay for you to give me another chance where I don't get out of the sandbox, I appropriately reference everything as the projects and organisations have changed names, domains over the span of 1.5 decades, and simply publish everything on live pages as it should be, and then you decide if it's good or no?

Would appreciate it a lot. NemorosusMens (talk) 16:43, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

The substack was created 4 days ago[11]"Radio Yugoslavia Radio Yugoslavia is an international media organisation which is owned by the Communist Pirate Party of Yugoslavia, and broadcasts news, music, podcasts and more content in English language. By Andrijan · Launched 4 days ago". Everything points to something brand new, created as a joke. Fram (talk) 16:45, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Like I mentioned, I will reference everything as we've changed platforms several times. I'm gonna do it in my sandbox, reference everything like I should've the first time, include also several pages which proves our existence such as:

https://ra.co/events/1307399 (just letting you know, 170 purchases on Resident Advisor aren't a low number, especially for the location)

https://it.mk/najdete-makedonska-alternativna-muzika-vo-novata-prodavnitsata-na-podzemni-frekfentsii/

Article about opening up the first digital music store in Macedonia, the most south country of the Yugoslav region back in 2012...

Etc, etc. Sadly they were done under different domains, but as I said, we're restructuring now - we even have contributors that come from New York, USA that write music articles for us. NemorosusMens (talk) 16:50, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

You're still going to need to find articles in mainstream sources that discuss the topic in order for it to meet WP:NCORP. Linking to a page about a rave or whatever isn't going to fulfil that. We mean things like newspaper articles. It looks like you're, well, underground. Underground things aren't typically able to meet the notability guidelines (see WP:42). -- asilvering (talk) 16:53, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

There is zero evidence that the brand new party (the article claimed October 2023, but the website is from October 2024, the radiostation is from a few days ago) has anything to do with these links, and even if the same people are behind it, so what? A party or organisation doesn't get credible or notable because 13 years ago the same people operated a music site or store. Your claims about being an organisation with CIA documents, 700 members, followers in embassies and foreign ministries, ... are all complete fabrications and fabulations as you haven't provided even one shred of evidence for any of these claims about the actual YCPP, not about different stuff. Fram (talk) 16:57, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

https://soundcloud.com/radioyugoslavia

https://www.youtube.com/@radioyug

2K followers here, removed every video as it was music and simply restarting it, that's all. Bit of difficult to find when searching online because there's still no presence as strong as 'Radio Yugoslavia' (we've run as 'frekvencii' which translates to frequencies in Yugoslav languages) but our first archive is on .info.tm domain ~ as I said, we were young back then and we grew together with our audience. Our audience staid, it's just our pop-social media got wrecked.

https://web.archive.org/web/20121030083558/http://frekvencii.info.tm/

There's also this, etc, etc.

p.s. that's a mainstream source (it.mk) in Yugoslavia. The rave link I sent was simply to address the legitimacy and that this isn't any sort of hoax, you can see the logo and the prior name we used.

Underground it was, but Radio Yugoslavia isn't underground anymore. It's why I came to Wikipedia. A regional page for Yugoslavia which is valid won't do any harm. NemorosusMens (talk) 16:57, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

No, none of this helps show notability, sorry. We really could use some more editors working in Balkans topics in general, but I urge you to drop this one and to work on articles that already exist for now, until you get more used to how WP:N and WP:V work in practice. -- asilvering (talk) 17:00, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Understood, sounds fair. Thank you both @Asilvering and @Fram for being calm with me and explaining where I'm wrong, I'm gonna be sure to slowly build the platform to the standards and seek press releases on some of our friendship organisation pages, just so we can have what's WP:N and WP:V in practise - in our Radio Yugoslavia practise, so one day it can be published.

Regarding edits, yes, I have written perhaps more than 50% of the Macedonian page of Josip Broz Tito under the Coolzrock username hahah. Those were times, like I said I haven't edited a thing for decades, so I apologise for just coming here and spamming - I shouldn't have left the sandbox in first place until I finished everything that's publicly available, but hey, it happens - It'll be time when it's good to go for the English Wiki.

Thanks again and see you around! NemorosusMens (talk) 17:04, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

"press releases on some of our friendship organisation pages" won't help one bit to show notability, you need to read WP:RS to see what is needed. Fram (talk) 17:07, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

None of this is about the party or even mentions it? You seem to have a WP:COI with the musician Likvidator, who has a small following and posts on these channels (and a youtube channel with 2000 followers and 300 views total is dubious anyway). How would any of these links convince me that the claims you made in the article about the party are in any way believable? Fram (talk) 17:06, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

The party had a huge event on Facebook and Instagram, the Facebook event is lost because we got our page blocked. Here is for example Ontal with him tagging us, but it's just gone in thin air. I don't know if there's some archival tool for Facebook pages, the URL was /frekvencii. About Likvidator, that is my alter-ego I've been using since 2015 to make underground illbient music. Under the umbrella of Radio Yugoslavia, we have a music label called Milicija (.org website in progress), where you'll find more techno and stuff there from my more known moniker DJ Bazootka and more artists from around the world.

The party was crashed by the cops last moment. The location wasn't published until the last hour, and we got axed by a member of BTKRSH that was responsible for reporting the police legally to the police. Yes, despite being called Illegal - it was only marketing of course, simple basic legal registration of such a huge event (back then for a rave) was a must, however what happened happened... it's now in the past.

There were even some memes floating back in the times about Rawrave even being a reality. Yeah... Hit me up on private if you're into techno, I'm gonna send you links of stories so you can see the locations/etc.

https://www.instagram.com/p/CKUXJQJLR9l/

Ahhh, those were good times. But learnt a lot, would do it xBillion times better now with all under my experience. NemorosusMens (talk) 17:13, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

https://www.facebook.com/ontalmusic/posts/tonightrawrave-skopje-raves-illegal/2509863225770598/ NemorosusMens (talk) 17:14, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Ah yeah, also, everyone from the line-up was a local underground DJ with exception of E-Saggila, she was our only international guest, but she cancelled her whole tour like two weeks before the rave date. So yeah, it is what it is. Also, I must mention, I'm not any sorta DJ - I got on the lineup through an adventure, it shouldn't have never been me there, I was the organiser and backbones of this, I'm a producer mostly in the music sphere. I have no freaking clue how to DJ. NemorosusMens (talk) 17:16, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

As I expected, again nothing about the YCPP, only about your music and radio station. Please stop posting links to things not even mentioning the party, never mind supporting the claim in the deleted article about it; it doesn't interest me one iota, and makes it only more obvious that your claims about the party were wishful thinking. Oh, and if you intend to continue to contribute here, please see WP:COI; it is best not to write about your own creations, organisations, work, ... in Wikipedia articles. Fram (talk) 17:20, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

The structure page isn't public so you can view it, however, it's YCPP/KPPJ > Radio Yugoslavia > Milicija + sublabels. Either way, I forgot I was proving the existence of the KPPJ/YCPP, I just dived into the talk.

Have a nice day/night ahead, and see you around Wiki. NemorosusMens (talk) 17:23, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Re:quotes in question to Primefac

Hi Fram. Would you consider linking to the statements you're highlighting in your question to Primefac? I definitely recall reading them, but I didn't find as I was recused from the get-go I was not following the case when looking at the talk page of the decision or the proposed decision, on the questions page, or in his candidate statement (I did not search for the second quote). The context may be helpful to others as they consider your question and Primefac's response. Thanks for the consideration, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:00, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for asking, done. If there are other things I should link, just let me know. Fram (talk) 17:18, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Jorge Kurchan

Hi Fram,

I wanted to seek your opinion on whether this submission should be accepted at AfC given the current sourcing. Five citations are directly from the French Wikipedia, one from Google Scholar, and several others are authored by the subject. I would appreciate your perspective on this.

Regards. Hitro talk 21:13, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Moved back to draft, should obviously not have been accepted like that (notable subject though). Fram (talk) 08:14, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 14

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Romilly (given name), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Romilly.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:54, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Qaboos bin Said.

Hi Fram. It seems maybe there's canvassing going on in the Rfc. I don't know, but if you look at the history page of the instigator it could look like a SPA with prior experience here. Best regards Ip says: Work Better yes. (talk) 13:52, 15 November 2024 (UTC)