User talk:Fram/Archive 15

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Fram. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

→

Honorific titles

In the edit summary for your recent edit to St John's College, Cambridge, you say: " ‎(Removed all honorifics per WP:MOSBIO#Honorific titles)".

My reading of WP:MOSBIO#Honorific titles is that the part at which you are looking refers to inline use within biographic articles. The reference you quoted says: "Therefore, as with regular titles, the honorific title should be included in the initial reference and infobox heading for the person, but is strictly optional upon subsequent references since mandatory usage inline implies its application as an honorific rather than a title. Except for the initial reference and infobox picture, editors should not add honorific titles to already existing instances of a person's name where it is absent, since doing so implies that the unedited version is incorrect (similar in spirit to the guideline on British vs. U.S. English spelling). Correspondingly honorific titles should not be deleted from inline usage for a particular person unless there is consensus it is being used excessively inline as an honorific rather than a title."

I'm not sure, therefore, why you are using it as the justification for removing the honorific titles from single mentions of individuals in a non-biographical article. Have I misunderstood?

David Biddulph (talk) 17:14, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

These are not honorific titles, but honorifics, which are discussed in the first line of the linked section: "Wikipedia guidelines permit inline use of titles but forbid inline use of honorifics." Honorific titles are "Sir" and "Dame". But the best explanation (which I'll try to link from now on in my edit summaries is at the guideline Wikipedia:Writing better articles#Other issues, which explicitly lists these honorifics. Fram (talk) 19:40, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

You changed 'Dr. Manmohan Singh' to 'Manmohan Singh' - but his article says he got a PhD from Oxford, which (I think) means that it's a title, not a honorific, and therefore should be left there? The Stumo (talk) 02:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Then it should at least be put outside the [[]], since article titles should never include the Dr. part but only his name. Furthermore, while he is a Dr., it is not what he is known for. He is the prime minister, that is the reason he is included, not because he has a PhD. But if you want to readd the Dr. part before his name (outside the []), I'll not revert this. Fram (talk) 04:35, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi, with regard to "Order of Precedence in England and Wales", I think the honourifics of HM and HRH should be kept. This is a list of certain personnages, and the HM/HRH helps to distinguish peers from royal peers. As well, it provides a logical explanation as to why certain people are higher than others. I completely agree, that "His Royal Highness" should not be in the opening line of biographies, but these lists are of a totally different issue. Eddo 15:14 27 October 2008 (UTC)

They are located in the first group, under the heading "Members of the Royal Family". I think it is pretty clear why they are there. The Queen should be equally clear as HM the Queen to everyone, and is in line with our guidelines. Fram (talk) 07:44, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

The Adventures of Tintin

The Adventures of Tintin has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. --TheLeft orium 18:25, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Eagle awards

Great work!! The formatting has been a big mess and while I have done bits and bobs it was a daunting task so I (and others I'm sure) am grateful you got stuck in there and wrangled it under control. I'll have a loo over it and see what I can do - I suppose I should start thinking about the next stage expanding the background (like the ceremony report for the most recent one). (Emperor (talk) 15:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC))

Thanks! It was my pleasure. I'll try to continue with linking all entries, since we have articles for most (all?) of the comics, characters and authors. Fram (talk) 20:35, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Apart from some of the small press comics, yes they mainly all have articles (and/or should be red linked). Anything you want me to do? (Emperor (talk) 21:58, 2 October 2008 (UTC))

Strange you should mention it but Star Hunters was one of the titles I'd forgotten about but discovered when I indexed my comics - I have all but the last issue (I was young and a sci-fi nerd - I got older). Further details: [1] [2]. So a DC Comics title that has an award nomination? Yes it probably deserves an article, even it means its creation might force me to dig the comics out. Just checking and I see I have 6 John Carter, Warlord of Mars which beat it to the top slot and is looking skimpy. (Emperor (talk) 20:46, 3 October 2008 (UTC))

Yes, John Carter could use some work. By the way; Beverly Switzler, nominated for Best Supporting Character, is a redirect to Howard The Duck. But I can live with supporting characters without their own articles ;-) Fram (talk) 20:51, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Move

Hello, I just haven't seen any other articles with the "()" on it and it looks messy IMO. For example I've seen articles titled Geoffrey II, Duke of Brittany, rather than "Geoffrey II (Duke of Brittany)". Thanks. - True as Blue (talk) 20:46, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

For nobility, it is considered a part of the name. For others, including clergy, it is considered a job description. Fram (talk) 04:30, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Bible infoboxes

I notice you have removed scripture quotes from various bible translation info boxes. Though there are no actual quotation marks, the infobox is obviously quoting very small sections from the work, and is not making any attempt to construe the material as not being from the bible translation in question. The entire purpose of the infobox makes it perfectly clear that the bible translation is being quoted.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:18, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Quite agree this editing is edition is close to vandalism. There is a comparison between versions that is going on that you are breaking with this very "legalistic" approach. Please desist. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 11:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Please don't use words like "vandalism" lightly. Nothing is being "compared" by adding things infoboxes in different articles, comparisons happen in one article. Quotes should be used like images: when copyrighted, thet must be valid "fair use", e.g. as a reference for a statement. "Brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea." (from Wikipedia:Non-free content). No point is illustrated, no context is established, no idea is attributed. Two random pieces of copyrighted text are included in the infobox of dozens of articles, without a good reason. Fram (talk) 11:30, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I notice that you have reverted all instances. I have started a discussion at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Fram (talk) 11:39, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

The cited texts are not random, but are commonly referenced texts from each of the 'Old' and 'New' Testaments. The purpose of the infobox makes it perfectly clear that the quotes are sourced from the translation in question. As it is not practical to list all of the translations on one article, this is the most practical way of allowing readers to compare different translations across articles.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:41, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

They are random in that they have nothing to do with the rest of the article. I have not said that it is unclear that they are quotes from the discussed Bible versions, so that is a non-issue. And I disagree that this is a practical method of comparing texts. John 3:16 already lists 12 versions of this text. A comparison of fifty versins would still be a much more accessible comparison tool than the current infoboxes, where people have to guess why the quotes are included.

Sorry I was just amazed! The comparison is between bible articles and the quotes are clear the same for OT and NT elements are a intended to provide a view to the translations treatment of the text. If this is unclear from the article or the infobox then it can be improved not just removed. "comparisons happen in one article" Why? I don't see why that should be the case. This needs some careful consideration and open debate before removal of text that is heavily quoted elsewhere and used in limited form for a specific purpose. Ok see the discussion point. Thanks for that. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 11:43, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Discussions of possible text-based copyright violations does not belong at the Image and Media area. I have moved the discussion to Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:58, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

European comics categories

I propose to merge Category:French comic strips and Category:Belgian comic strips into Category:French comics titles and Category:French comics titles. These categories have the same purpose, to make a list of French and Belgian comics series, they must be merge. If you agree, I start the process. --Pah777 (talk) 16:40, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree - there must be lots of French comic strips and they are a distinct medium in their own right. I'd favour trying to populate the respective categories rather than merge them. Feel free to open up a CfD but they strike me as viable categories and it'd be better to work on fixing them. (Emperor (talk) 17:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC))

I agree that the category can be filled. The concern is that almost all Franco-Belgian comics series are comics strips: I defy anybody to find a French or Belgian comics series that has never been published in a magazine. If you fill the category, you will have to cite almost all the comics series: this category is pointless. --Pah777 (talk) 19:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not that versed in French comic strips, but certainly for Belgium, there are quite a few true comic strips, including Spike and Suzy, Nero, Jommeke and Kiekeboe. The comic strip culture is quite different from the weekly magazine culture, and showing this in the categories is good in my opinion. So no, I wouldn't merge them either. Fram (talk) 19:59, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

There is a confusion about the definition of comics strips. "in English, comic strip refers to a short (typically 3 panels or at least less than one page in length) serial that appears regularly in a newspaper or magazine. Many comic strips have been collected into larger books, for example Pogo, Asterix, or Bloom County." from Category:Comic strips by country. I think there is an mistake: Asterix is not a comic strip. If we consider the definition given by Fram, I agree that the category does have an interest. --Pah777 (talk) 20:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I also propose to create the following categories: 1) "Franco-Belgian comics magazines" for there is a Category:Comic book publishing companies of France. 2) "Spirou (magazine)" and "Tintin (magazine)" and other magazines to establish a list of series published in these magazines. There are already categories dedicated to publishing houses, such as Category:Dargaud titles and Category:Dupuis titles. The category Pilote already exist. --Pah777 (talk) 17:02, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Won't Spirou (magazine) be a near duplicate of Dupuis titles? Looking at the latter, the only ones not included in the former are The Forever War, HUMO, Largo Winch maybe, Musti, Sarajevo Tango and Xink. On the other hand, I can't imagine any comic in Spirou (magazine) that would not be included in Dupuis titles (or you would need to put Superman and Brick Bradford in Spirou (magazine), but I don't think that is the purpose. So I don't think these new categories are a good idea, as they are very much overlapping existing ones. The general "Franco-Belgian comics magazines" one may be useful though, although it is a near duplicate of Category:Franco-Belgian comics. We have had the discussion about magazines, comics, anthologies, ... recently on the Wikiproject page, and no resolution was reached IIRC. Fram (talk) 19:59, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, but why À Suivre, Le Petit Vingtième, Spirou (magazine), Tintin (magazine) are in the Category:Franco-Belgian comics ? This is not the right place. Where can we place them ? There are not categories directly linked to comics magazine, and none of the existing categories are relevant to include comics magazine. I agree that Dupuis titles are the same as Spirou titles, but there are a lot of magazines, and very few are in the same case. Dupuis is a unique case, so I think creating a new category is very useful. And we cannot contenting ourselves with including magazines in the category named after their publisher, because magazines can be mistaken for titles. For example, if we include Pilote in Category:Dargaud, people can think "Pilote" is the name of a comics series. To avoid this mistake, we must create a new category. I promise you it is very useful, all the more since comics magazine has an essential role in the Bande Dessinée culture and history, whereas it is not the case with anglo-saxon comics. This is why we should create a Category:French comics magazines and Category:Belgian comics magazines --Pah777 (talk) 14:28, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest that the discussion of the magazine categories is taken up on the Wikiproject Comics talk page, to get a broader input. Fram (talk) 07:57, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Categories to be rearranged

There is some mess with categories called after comics series. In "Belgian comics", there were the subcategories "Buck Danny", "Smurfs", "Tintin". Is it the right place ? I suggest to delete them (I have already done it), and to cite them into "Belgian comics titles" or "Dargaud/Dupuis/Le Lombard titles". It would be more convenient to group them in one category, for exemple in "Belgian comics titles" (it is the more logical solution, and it is the scheme used for the category "French comics"). --Pah777 (talk) 14:28, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Good move (in general, I haven't looked at the specifics yet :-) ) to take them out of Belgian comics and move them to more specific categories. As for the publisher's categories: do we want them to be as complete as possible, or to only include the publisher-specific comics? The latter option would mean that Isabelle was a Dupuis comic until a few years ago, but should now no longer be in that cat. I prefer the "complete" option. Fram (talk) 07:57, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I also wonder what subcategory we can add in Category: Belgian graphic novels. There are two possibilities: 1)no subcategories 2)all categories named after series, such as "Asterix", "Tintin", etc. However, I really wonder what is the point of this category. What does means "graphic novel" ? What should be included in it ? Is it really different from Category:Belgian comics titles ? I demand it to be deleted, because pointless categories must be deleted.--Pah777 (talk) 14:28, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

There are some clear Belgian graphic novels (Schuiten-Peeters, the recent works of Marc Legendre, ...), but from our European perspective, I would not include Tintin and the like. I don't think that apart from Les Cités Obscures we have many articles on Belgian graphic novels yet.. Fram (talk) 07:57, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Best-selling comics series

I suggest having statistics of the sales for Franco-Belgian comics series. I propose to add a column "Approximate sales (millions)" in the List of Franco-Belgian comic series. The only concern is to find reliable sources. If you allow me to do so, I work on it. --Pah777 (talk) 20:02, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

While you are obviously allowed to do so, numbers for most of them will be nearly impossible to find. Yearly sales can sometimes be found through the ABCD (or ACBD, I always forget the correct abbreviation). I have collected a small number of online sources for such a list (but about all comics and mangas) here, feel free to use this of course. Fram (talk) 20:16, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

As there is a list for books, I think we can do the same for comics. I have proposed Emperor to do so. I had also worked on some statistics here. I will try to include your sources. --Pah777 (talk) 20:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Forever Red Undeletion

First, please understand that I have Asperger Syndrome, so I am bound by tactlessness. Please be patient with me.

I'd like to ask you (in the politest way my aspergers will allow) to undelete the Forever Red article. It is just as significant to the Power Rangers as Once a Ranger. In fact, it is even more significant than the Power Ranger Punks episode. Why is it Power Ranger Punks gets its own article, but Forever Red doesn't? Many fictional series have entire articles for every single episode, not just significant ones. Examples include Family Guy, South Park, and Futurama. To add insult to injury, these shows are even more fictional that Power Rangers, because they're cartoons. If you delete Forever Red, it's only consistent that you delete every other insignificant episode of every other TV show (and Forever Red is not even insignificant), as is outlined in the article Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. In the second paragraph of that article, it says, and I quote, "...the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes."

Think of it like deciding whether or not Pluto is a planet. All the definitions any established astronomer could come up with that would include Pluto would also include many moons and some astroids, leaving the solar system with over twenty planets. It's much easier to get rid of one planet than to add a dozen. Likewise, it's easier to have one article on an episode (and a significant episode at that) than to delete every episode of the other series.Dstebbins (talk) 15:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I have never deleted the Forever Red article, and furthermore, it has never been deleted either, so I can not undelete it. I have concluded an AfD discussion with the result that it should be redirected (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Forever Red), which is a different result. If you have evidence that the article is notable enough for an independent article, you can create it in your userspace and have it reviewed at WP:DRV. Fram (talk) 13:03, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Userspace

Fram, please do not remove pages from my user space. If you think something is wrong with one, discuss it. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 23:25, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Funny. Claiming that it is vandalism, and that I need to discuss it, but in the mean time making sure that the new version of the page no longer has the problem that caused the deletion the first time, which indicates that my edit summary was all the discussion you needed. Fram (talk) 13:07, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Which shows that you simply could have discussed it, rather than secretly deleting the page. I do not believe that I deserve the aggression that you are constantly displaying against me. By the way, there was no GFDL violation; a userspace is still part of the same project. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 13:47, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Just a quick note: A copy/paste "move" should indicate that in the edit summary, as well as a direct link to where the information was copied from. It's something to be very careful about. - jc37 13:50, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I am not "constantly displaying aggression" against you. Removing good faith and correct talk page posts as "nonsense"[3] is more aggressive than removing clear GFDL violations.

And looking at Wikipedia:User page#Copies of other pages, I have to ask you: what is your intention with this page? "Last more or less npov version (before it was thrashed), text copied for my convenience." is very unclear. Since "this space is not intended to indefinitely archive your preferred version", if you have no current plans of using it for any Wikipedia-related purposes, it will be deleted. Fram (talk) 07:50, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Michel Vaillant

If you look more carefully at the sources used in the articles, most of them are reliable (newspapers, interviews, etc) and there is only one fan site. What about this fan site ? All the assertions in this site are reliable, because each is illustrated by a picture from the series. And above all, this site only give information about the content of the comics series. For example, it asserts that Michel Vaillant is a Formula One driver: this assertion is not invented, because the site only give a description of the content of the series. I find you a bit severe in your judgement. --Pah777 (talk) 14:42, 12 October 2008 (UTC) Be a bit pragmatic and undestanding: the so-called unsuitable references were 1) a list of the cars driven by the main character of the series 2) a list of albums 3) a list of commercial products. Do you fear that the website lie or invent the informations it gives ? Remember that all existing fan sites are allowed by the owners and the authors of a series, so that these sites are always reliable. If they were not reliable, they would not be allowed. This is why the WP policy on this point is stupid. --Pah777 (talk) 19:55, 12 October 2008 (UTC) Anyway, I have removed the so-called unsuitable references and reassessed the article. If you think the article does not comply with the B-class criteria, please explain why here before modifying its status, and modify the stuff that needs to be changed in the article. Thanks. --Pah777 (talk) 20:16, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

That a fan site probably con,tains correct information is not enough, nor that it is accepted by the author or publisher (where doi you get that idea, by the way? Who says that Graton in any way is endorsing Jimontheweb or Cartype?). You have sourced from blogs[4][5][6] (see [[WP:EL#Links normally to be avoided point 11), linked to huge images from MV comics[7], which is linking to copyright violations(WP:C#Linking to copyrighted works. Other sources include a fan site. In general, you have very few reliable independent sources. Fram (talk) 07:38, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

The concern is that sometimes, reliable sources are very difficult to find, and this is the case for Michel Vaillant. In such cases, there are three arguments to support the presence of non-reliable sources in an article: 1) all fan sites have to ask for the authorization to display copyrighted images in their site: this is a manner for publishers and authors to control the creation of such websites. 2) if one deletes all the non-reliable sources, the article is likely to remain C-class for lack of references. 3) citing non-reliable sources is better than citing no sources at all. --Pah777 (talk) 13:50, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Andre Nickatina

Why did you delete Andre Nickatina? He is a popular and established rap artist in the San Fransisco Bay Area. I've lived in a dozen counties in various states in the past four years and have yet to find a place where he is unknown. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.161.120.50 (talk) 22:37, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

The page has been deleted six times, but I am not listed as one of those deleting this page, nor can I recall having done so. Furthermore, the page again exists since May 20. So there is not much I can do here... Fram (talk) 07:20, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

For restoring my archive. Kind regards, MoiraMoira (talk) 15:24, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Comics Rating system

Hi Fram, I'm very concerned about this - the rating system is so broken as to be of no use at all. For example Fictional history of Spider-Man, which is pretty much everything a wikipedia article should not be - is rated as a B. I have no idea where we go from here but We cannot be promoting such low quality article as examples of what we are doing "right", it's a complete disaster. --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:32, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I know, I regularly go through the highest rated articles (usually by importance, not by class though), and there are always a number to be demoted. There has been a grilling of the B-class articles recently, with the creation of C-Class, which has led to the removal of many b-Class articles to C-class, but much more needs to be done. On the other hand, an article like Burne Hogarth was assessed as low importance(!) until I came along[8] :-) B-Class should be scrutinized, but it's not so bad as A-class and GA-class, which should really be good to very good articles, not articles with loads of text but a lack of good sources.

However, I don't think your AfD has any chance, as people will prefer WP:SS over WP:NOT#PLOT in cases like these, certainly when the previous AfD is only three months old. Fram (talk) 13:43, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

It more than likely doesn't have a chance but I still have to have a go. There has been a shift over the last couple of years where people have started to understand that we aren't writing comic book guides but articles like that depress me - they are extreme examples of everything that was wrong in the past. If that doesn't work, I guess I'll have to do it the hard way and go in and remove the in-universe perspective. The two paragraph article should be most informative. --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:50, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Just don't overdo it, or people will accuse you of WP:POINT violations... On a related note, I have reassessed already three top importance articles from B to C, since they did not meet the B criteria in any reasonable way. I still have some to do, but on a total of 22 articles, this is pretty bad. Fram (talk) 13:53, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

User talk:PUG406

User talk:PUG406 is requesting an unblock and protesting innocence. I have tried to research the WJH1992 situation, but I don't readily see the connection between the two accounts. Could you respond on User talk:PUG406 and let others know, in more detail, what the evidence is we are supposed to look at? Thanks! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 16:04, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Jacques de Serisay

OK, thanks. matt br 20:17, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

A matter of debate

Hello! As per our ongoing discussion regarding the notification of editors with articles that are nominated for AfD -- I just wanted to clarify that this is strictly a policy procedure discussion, which I feel strongly about (I believe it is inherently unfair for editors to be unaware that their work is facing possible erasure). This is not a personal slam against you, by any stretch of the imagination -- I am stating that because I've found some people take AfD discussions very seriously. I believe it is possible to disagree without being disagreeable. I am extremely aware of your contributions to Wikipedia, and this is merely one case where our opinions run parallel. I do not agree with you in this matter, but I respect your right to state it freely. Thanks. Ecoleetage (talk) 12:54, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Good. While everyone is free to participate in an AfD and people who have edited an article are welcome as well, "defending your work" runs basically foul of WP:OWN. We are not supposed to notify an article creator when we rewrite, expand, stubify, redirect, ... their work beyond recognition: why make an exception for deletion? Fram (talk) 12:57, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Very simple -- when we rewrite, expand, etc., we are attempting to enhance the article. We are working together on a common goal (in theory, we are supposed to be doing this -- reality is another story, of course). Deletion does not enhance the article. You cannot enhance something by killing it. Defending one's contribution to Wikipedia from being permanently deleted does not violate WP:OWN; if it did, there would be no specific request to have the author(s) notified that the AfD is in process, since that request would be a policy violation. I can see where you are coming from, and I hope you can see where I am coming from. Thank you for allowing me to visit your talk page to share my thoughts. Ecoleetage (talk) 13:30, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Killing an article is an attempt to enhance the encyclopedia. You can enhance something by killing something else, and the common goal is the encyclopedia, not an article. Fram (talk) 13:34, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, you may believe you are enhancing the encyclopedia, but you are going in conflict with those who worked on the article and believe otherwise. Again, alerting an article's author(s) of an AfD is not a violation of WP:OWN -- the project specifically requests that (it is the fourth and final step in AfD). It is also a basic tenet of respect, or at least I see it that way. Thanks. Ecoleetage (talk) 13:42, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

No, it is not. Will you please stop repeating it as if that makes it true? It is listed as a courtesy, and it is a courtesy I do not extend. If you want to turn it intoan obligation, start a discussion on WT:AFD. Fram (talk) 13:57, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

The latest of many discussions on this subject was a shortlived one in August: Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Archive 47#Going about an AfD. No consensus there, not many contributors either. Fram (talk) 13:57, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Looking at current standard practice: of the 20 most recent AFD nominators today, 12 have notified at least one editor, 8 haven't. Most that have used an automated tool like Twinkle. So no matter what the policies and guidelines say, it is not really exceptional not to notify any editors of an AfD, and if consensus can be gauaged by looking at actual practice, there is no consensus to make this obligatory. Fram (talk) 14:29, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

And, last word from me on this...I do respect your input. Like I said, we can disagree without being disagreeable, and I appreciate your contributions to the discussion and to the project. Thank you for your fine work. Oh, can I please put the smile back? After all, intelligent people make me smile. Ecoleetage (talk) 13:45, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Ecoleetage (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Vietnam protection

Do you have any reason to protect this page with indefinite expiry? Vinhtantran (talk) 13:43, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I only made the move protection indefinite, User:YellowMonkey did the edit protection. Fram (talk) 13:46, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

IP

This IP continues to edit on his talk page. Can it be protected? Thanks! RoyFocker (talk) 18:05, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

He hasn't edited in a week, and hasn't really abused it yet (although the edits are not useful either), so I'ld rather leave it as it is for now. If he returns and continues to make userpage edits unrelated to his block, he will be warned and ultimately the talk page semi-protected. Fram (talk) 06:29, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Wolfberry

You reverted my removal of a self-published book from Wolfberry and other articles[9]. The problem is not that the book does not exist, but that it is not a reliable source. Anyone who is willing to pay the production costs can publish a book with BookSurge, and every book that is printed by BookSurge is available through Amazonand a number of other online sellers. Perv WP:V#Self-published sources, this is not an acceptable source. Fram (talk) 13:22, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

By those definitions, what book isn't self-published?

The book had independent editorial review by the publisher and is an accurate scientifically-based text, the only one available not associated with a commercial product. There is nothing invalid about this book.

Also, according to WP:V#Self-published sources, the author is an independent expert who has written for several other publishers.

Your objections are unclear. I can think of no book interpreting wolfberry science that has higher qualifications or more independence than this one.--Paul144 (talk) 13:35, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Um, have you actually checked what BookSurge is? It is a self-publisher[10], not a publisher where someone reads the books before they decide to publish them or not. No "independent editorial review" is done at BookSurge. Furthermore, a book on science should have reviews, being used in scholarly publications, and so on. This book has 21 Google hits[11], and no Google News, Books, or Scholar hits. The book has no qualifications whatsoever. Fram (talk) 13:45, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

An independent editorial review was submitted to Booksurge with the book manuscript. Given the subject of wolfberry is hardly in the view of American science (there are no US-derived publications on wolfberry at PubMed), it's no surprise scholarly reviews of this book haven't been done. Given its long history retained in China until recently, the subject is obscure to North American and European scientists. One wonders, who other than a scientist specifically interested in wolfberry would review a book about it? So with these conditions, it's difficult to meet the criteria of peer-review as described in WP:RS.

Looking at every book listed in the Wikipedia wolfberry article, all would be removed by your criteria.

Bottom line is that the book meets these Wiki criteria [12] and is recognized by other publishers as the authoritative text on wolfberry, making it a valid objective and comprehensive reference.--Paul144 (talk) 14:43, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

"An independent editorial review was submitted"? Either you are making this up, or you are very closely connected to the author... Wikipedia is not about American science, it is about science in general. If there are no good sources on the medicinal aspect of wolfberry, then the whole section should be removed as WP:FRINGE. If there are good non-American sources about it, use those. If the only good sources are in other languages, use those (sparingly). If the other books listed are not from reliable publishers, remove them. But this book is not a source "about itself": this would mean that the article is about either the author or the book, which it obviously isn't. Fram (talk) 14:52, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

As an experienced editor of many Wikipedia pages, particularly of the wolfberry article, I can say this article is well-referenced across subsections with science from many sources, and the books listed in the bibliography are acceptable sources of information. I don't understand your motivation which seems narrow, limiting and exclusive. The book in question is one I have researched extensively and it stands as the best scientific, non-commercial reference text available, easily meeting the needs of RS. It deserves to stay by all criteria. --Paul144 (talk) 15:42, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Conflict of interest. Fram, I think there's a solid conflict of interest issue here that I've raised at WP:COIN. See Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-03-28 Antioxidant, where Paul144 has self-identified [13] as "a contributor to a few of these {online publications), e.g., http://www.npicenter.com/news/DrPaulGross_articles.aspx". The link goes to a bio of a Dr Paul Gross, "senior author of a 2006 book on the goji berry entitled Wolfberry: Natures Bounty of Nutrition and Health (Booksurge Publishing)". Given this involvement, WP:COI guidelines definitely cover his restoring a link to it, and indeed puffing it on the Talk page without this involvement made clear. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 09:21, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Further SPS

Yo Fram. I appreciate your quest to rid the encyclopaedia of dubious sources, but Kevin Carson's Studies in Mutualist Political Economy is kosher. The Journal of Libertarian Studies Vol. 20 issue 1., published critiques of Carson's work in the field by four notable economists, and a rejoinder by Carson (thus satisfying WP:SPS). If you have any questions about this, feel free to ask at the Anarchism task force talkpage. Regards, the skomorokh 17:05, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I noticed that a few self-published sources were good anyway. This seems to be one of them (contrary to the one in the previous section), so feel free to add it again where appropriate. Self-publishing is probably ideologically understandable for anarchism-related works anyway :-) Fram (talk) 06:42, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Haha, perhaps so! In future, I think I'll make sure that either the author or the work is bluelinked to indicate to editors that the source might be acceptable. Thanks for your understanding, the skomorokh 12:43, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

My Article has been Redirected

Hello, you recently redirected my article, I thought I lost it for a second but thank god I saved a copy of it on microsoft word, other than that I would've been really upset. When articles get redirected, what happens to all the information? And I understand why is was redirected, I tried contacting someone on the Dabke article talk page, but no one has replied to me yet, please notify me first before doing anything to the article. If it becomes such a big deal then I will just edit that single article. I just wanted to concentrate on one particular group of people, but I guess I will edit all that in the Dabke Article. Thanx

wikiraw31 (talk) 00:11, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

When an article gets redirected, you can still read, copy, ... the older content through the "history" tab at the top of the page (next to "edit this page" and so on). So your work is not lost, it is just made "invisible". If you go to your page, it will automatically redirect you to Dabke, but the first or second line of that article reads " (Redirected from Palestinian/Jordanian Dabkeh)" (in small print, above the "needs sources" box). Click on the text "Palestinian/" and so on, and you will go to the original title, where you can access the history of the article (i.e. your text). Fram (talk) 07:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Comics Wikiproject userbox

Hi there, you might like to know that you can just use {{User WikiProject Comics}} now for their userbox, rather than typing the code out. It Is Me Here (talk) 15:35, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that's a lot better. Fram (talk) 15:39, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

No problem. It Is Me Here (talk) 15:39, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

If you are around?

This will ring a bell. I imagine there is puppetry - personally I'd indef block but as you've just been dealing with it under another guise I'm more than happy to leave it with you :). Cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 09:15, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I hadn't noticed. I indefblocked the account as a sock, and raised the main block to one week for the socking. We'll see what happens then... Fram (talk) 09:54, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Turnips

I've decided to write a book. It'll be called Science Says Turnips are Wonderful, be produced by the leading Dorset turnip vendor Uz 'B' Turnips, and co-written with Josiah and Jethro Mangold, the proprietors of said Uz 'B' Turnips, to whose website sciencesaysturnipsarewonderful.com will have reciprocal links. I'm sure everyone will believe my assurances that my interest in turnips is strictly non-commercial. :) Gordonofcartoon (talk) 17:51, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

As long as you make sure that your actual name is a tiny bit different from your accunt name here, so that anyone pointing out your COI can be accused of harassment... Fram (talk) 20:51, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Closure of WP:GEOBOT

Regrettably I have come to inform you, that this bot project will not go into operation and therefore the project will be closing down. Thanks everybody for their time and support but there is a clear reason why it failed. Dr. Blofeld (talk) 11:56, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Your move of Princess Alexandra

Sorry mate, but Princess Alexandra is not "Princess Alexandra, Lady Ogilvy". She's not the wife of "Lord Ogilvy", and she's not the wife of "Sir X Ogilvy". She's the wife of "The Hon. Sir Angus Ogilvy", so she's "Princess Alexandra, The Hon. Lady Ogilvy" and that's that. The title you have moved the page to if completely incorrect. Now, I'm aware that this is part of a crusade against honorifics fuelled by MOSBIO, but you can't go around making things wrong whilst you do so. Please undo you move and the associated redirects. Cheers D B D 12:21, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

She is either "Princess Alexandra" (which would need disambiguation, as there are quite a few of those), "Princess Alexandra of Kent" (which would be quite allright by me) or "Princess Alexandra, Lady Ogilvy". The new title may be completely incorrect according to you, but is the one used by e.g. the National Portrait Gallery[14], so I'm not the only one using it at least. Oh, and the Guardian[15]. And the New York Times[16]. The article itself (which I did not change) indicates as much, in her titles and styles sction: "Her Royal Highness Princess Alexandra, The Honourable Lady Ogilvy": the italicized parts (in the original) are the styles, both of which should be removed for article naming purposes. Fram (talk) 12:51, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Her official title is as DBD describes, and how she is always known officially. Why not start a discussion on the article's talk if you feel it should be moved.--UpDown (talk) 12:55, 31 October 2008 (UTC)