@Fram, Time to read up,https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers

How to avoid biting:7. Avoid filling a newly created page with maintenance templates or nominating them for deletion. Wait a few days to see how the page evolves first. If moving an article to draft "for improvement", do not do so without saying what improvements are needed.

Bypassers (talk)01:04, 3 September 2025 (UTC)Bypassers[reply]

But I did say what improvements are needed, I even started on them, which you repeatedly reverted.Fram (talk)05:14, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fram, I noticed the above and saw that fortune 'closed' (not sure if that is the correct term) a section, and they are not an admin. Is that procedurally fine for non-admins do that on the Administrators'_noticeboard? No slight meant to fortune, I'm wondering how things work there.Halbared (talk)09:25, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That usually isn't a problem (should be an experienced editor, which Fortuna certainly is), I have done it myself. Best only to do it in straightforward cases probably, but the non-admin part isn't really an issue here.Fram (talk)09:28, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Is there a 'guide/how to' page explaining procedural stuff like this?Halbared (talk)09:45, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I'm aware of, it's more something you pick up along the way. The admin policy pages may have more about this.Fram (talk)09:48, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.Halbared (talk)09:55, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the discography template at the bottom of the article. Doesn't even list a total of three... -UtherSRG(talk)15:10, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the article for the rapper. Lists 5 solo albums and a collab album. And the tour is clearly in the past as well...Fram (talk)15:14, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discography template lists only the existing articles, not all albums.Fram (talk)15:15, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah... so I see now. Thanks. -UtherSRG(talk)19:46, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please clarify what would constitute sources too closely associated with the subject? For the article I just wrote.Tzim78 (talk)14:06, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The only sources mentioning the painting seem to be from the owner of the painting (the national museum). The other sources are about the artist or about similar topics but don't mention the painting (creating also aWP:SYNTH/WP:OR issue as you are placing this painting in a tradition and comparing it to other works, when none of the sources do this). When all you have is two paragraphs from the owner's website, and you turn it into a lengthy article, then you aren't summarizing the source but creating a new narrative.Fram (talk)14:11, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And your addition ofthis doesn't help one bit. This is just Google scraping info from collaborating websites, i.e. the info you see is the info from the National Museum website, not info written and checked by anyone at Google. Please don't add such refbombing.Fram (talk)14:15, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will add some more references. Thank you for the critique.Tzim78 (talk)14:26, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, and thanks for the extra sources!Fram (talk)14:40, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do a search of "List of people with given name" or "List of people named" and you will find lots of high-profile given names: Michael, Thomas, Boris, Andrew, Alan, Stephen, Rebecca, etc. So you are enforcing a "standard" that doesn't exist; one format may be far more common but that's no excuse for discarding a perfectly acceptable title. Also, you didn't moveList of people with surname Martin, which I find annoyingly inconsistent.Clarityfiend (talk)13:08, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't move the other one because Ican't move the other one for technical reasons (the target has too much history). Most of the pages where there is a separate "List of people" page is because there isalso a page about the name itself, e.g.Boris (given name) andList of people with given name Boris; this is not the case here.Fram (talk)13:11, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Fram: I reviewed the nomination/copyvio report forHildegard of Egisheim. The report comes up with 0%. Where is the disconnect? Thanks. —ERcheck (talk)14:25, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Use your brain, not tools. Do Ireally have to explain why the tool gives 0%???Fram (talk)14:26, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK Fram, pleaseWP:AGF. You could kindly say to look at a translation - which I've been doing. We're both trying to contribute positively to Wikipedia. —ERcheck (talk)14:30, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, you are removing copyvio speedies without doing the necessary checks, coming here with a "but it's 0%", not doing revdel or anything else.

If you really believe that there is 0% copyvio between e.g.

• "Hildegard was buried in St. Faith's Church, Sélestat, which she had established. During renovations in 1892, the crypt was uncovered, revealing a brick grave positioned before the altar. Inside were the remains of a woman, coated with a thick layer of lime, a treatment often linked to plague deaths. The lime retained the contours of her face, allowing a bust to be cast from the impression. Based on the style of clothing, the burial was dated to the 11th or 12th century, leading to speculation that the remains were Hildegard's. However, due to the cast depicting a woman closer to the age of 40, while Hildegard died in her 70s, the remains are not concretely confirmed to be her, and could be her daughter Adelaide, who predeceased her."

and

• "Hildegard of Egisheim was buried in the church of the former St. Fides monastery in Sélestat (Schlettstadt), which she had founded. In 1892, the crypt was rediscovered during restoration work. In a brick tomb in front of the altar, the remains of a woman were found. She was covered with a thick layer of lime, suggesting she was a victim of the plague. Her facial features had been imprinted on the lime, allowing casts of her bust to be made. Since the deceased's clothing was consistent with the 11th or 12th century, there is reason to suspect it was Hildegard. However, she died at the age of about seventy, while the bust more accurately indicates a woman of forty. It is therefore also suspected that it is her daughter Adelaide, who died shortly before her."

A direct translation is a copyright violation whether you do it in your own words (or that of a different tool) or in Google Translate (as I used here). That's not "0%", that's 100%. You claim that you have been looking at the translation, but still you saw nothing untowards? Then leave this copyvio-checking work to others please.Fram (talk)14:36, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And afterthis you should either revdel the older edits, or (if you don't have the necessary rights) tag the page for such deletion. Removing copyvio from current versions (assuming you have removed all of it) and not from older versions is only half the work.Fram (talk)14:38, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, I looked closer at the translation and saw my mistake (which I acknowledged on the article's talk page). Nonetheless, you want totrout me, which I will take. —ERcheck (talk)15:11, 10 September 2025 (UTC) I[reply]

In San Antonio Express News article. That source is credible in the eyes of by credible journalists. (https://www.expressnews.com/news/article/tall-texas-interchanges-loop-1604-21031030.php)

“ Panethos, a blog that keeps a list of the tallest interchanges in the U.S., currently ranks the tallest as the Judge Harry Pregerson Interchange between Interstate 105 and Interstate 110 in Los Angeles.”Bypassers (talk)10:40, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

John Derrick Goze's animated short filmSecond Love has been selected at the film festival.^[1]GeniusTaker (talk)15:15, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't move without discussion, there are no links to mounds only to pyramidsBildete (talk)16:11, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion is on, please stop editing links till conclusionBildete (talk)14:07, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You used the "look how many pages link to the Pyramids" as an argument to keep that title, but you added these links in the first place... I just wanted to show ho easy it was to reverse that argument, "look at how many pages use "Tombs", but I guess you didn't like that.Fram (talk)14:14, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's not only templates links. LikeWietrzychowice, Kuyavian-Pomeranian Voivodeship orNatalia Kicka name was there always, I only add links [[ ]].

But just don't vandalise to prove point.Bildete (talk)14:30, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing was vandalized, all these links still worked perfectly and pointed to the same article as before...Fram (talk)14:38, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thank you for bringing the case to the administration. I really appreciate your action. This user keeps harassing me on WikiMedia. Seehere.JohnDavies9612 (talk)15:27, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! I don't deal with Commons though, if it continues you should try to find some admin there.Fram (talk)15:41, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AtUser talk:Shemgeneri, whom you warned a while back about a different issue. My concern is their use of AI to create new articles - I just rejected their DYK submission which seems to have include an irrelevant source. They are creating a lot of new articles recently, and IIRC you handle some RPP..._{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here}12:52, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to have been dealt with for their most recent creations, their previous articles about recent events seem to be based correctly on news sources.Fram (talk)08:36, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! I wanted to let you know that I've declined yourG10 speedy deletion nomination ofMurder of Aboubakar Cissé because I could not decipher how the page met the criteria, given that G10 is forpages that disparage, threaten, intimidate, or harass their subject or some other entity, and serve no other purpose. If you could explain why you nominated this page for G10, I can take a second look. Thank you!Significa liberdade(she/her) (talk)14:22, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The page fully names a non-convicted BLP and states that he committed murder and details everything he allegedly did. While this may be correct (or not, he may be considered as mentally incapable of committing murder and considered temporarily or permanently insane or whatever), it is a severe BLP violation anyway until convicted.Fram (talk)14:37, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Significa liberdade:?Fram (talk)15:04, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be offline, so I reinstated the CSD.Fram (talk)15:52, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if this matters, but the article is a translation froman entry on French Wikipedia [fr] which has been up since May without any major controversies.StopRejectingMyUsername (talk)18:17, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, frwiki may have other rules than ourWP:BLPCRIME and the like.Fram (talk)18:26, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, do you think this userDwud (talk ·contribs) could be this oneOmarkhalid8292828 (talk ·contribs)? Because they both created draft articles on the same topics, their edit summaries are almost the same, and the draft articles created by the new user seem to be created with poor resources like Dwud's. I wanted to share this with you since you reported the user to ANI months ago.[1]Kajmer05 (talk)16:56, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They're certainly similar, but it's not clear to me yet if they are socks or not. If you have more evidence, you can always start a case atWP:SPI.Fram (talk)07:13, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

TheWP:VPP RFC survey on these is clearly against their creation, but I'm not sure what the next step from here should be.FOARP (talk)22:44, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wait for an uninvolved person to close the RfC (after 30 days normally), and then either draftify or delete the articles (assuming consensus stays the same as it appears now).Fram (talk)07:10, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Finally done, but the process was far from smoothas can be read here.FOARP (talk)09:16, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Judging by your talk page, you're passionate about deleting and getting into conflict with other users. Are you Wikipedia's director of publication? You haven't try to improve articles through discussion, you put banners, you delete and you leave. Luckily there are people like you to move things forward...Glabb (talk)14:25, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not "passionate about getting into conflict with other users", many users react passionately when content they added is reverted because it is out of scope, a copyright violation, a BLP violation, ... I don't have the necessary user rights to delete pages, I can move pages to draft space or redirect them, or I can nominate them for deletion where other editors will check and possible discuss the issues before acting on them. And there are many articles where I try to discuss issues, when I have the feeling that discussion might be productive.Fram (talk)14:37, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Could you please explain why you changed the name fromChaussée d'Alsemberg toAlsembergsesteenweg? There are specificnaming conventions for Brussels, and since the street mostly runs through the Brussels region and is located in a bilingual area, I believe the Brussels conventions should take precedence here.Jhowie_Nitnek (talk)19:07, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I thought my edit summary was quite clear. 9 of the 11 sources are in Dutch, the route is partly in bilingual territory and part in Dutch, so why not go with the Dutch? The Brussels naming convention is only part of what should be taken into consideration, and it doesn´t require to give precedence to the French name anyway.Fram (talk)20:20, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Fram: Jhowie_Nitnek is right — as the article is mostly about the Brussels section of the road, the naming conventions do take precedence here. The French name is consistent with those of all the other chaussées/steenwegen in Brussels, perWP:TITLECON. Please see theChaussée de Waterloo, theChaussée de Charleroi and theChaussée de Wavre for comparison — two of which cross Flemish Brabant. The Chaussée d'Alsemberg also ends in a monolingual French area (Braine-l'Alleud), so I do not think your argument provides sufficient basis for renaming. I have thus reverted your page move. If you still wish to carry out this change, please discuss it on the talk page.Jason Lagos (talk)19:37, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Waterloo, Charleroi and Wavre are all three in the French language part of Belgium, Alsemberg is in the Dutch language part. Applying the convention from thise 3 to the new one is not logical.Fram (talk)20:12, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your quick response. The fact that the three cities after which the other roads are named are in the French area is irrelevant here, in the same way that we would not necessarily choose a German name if the road ended, or was named after, a place in theEast Cantons. The important thing is to choose theWP:COMMONNAME that is most suited to the context of the article and consistent with all theCategory:Streets in Brussels (which the article mostly covers), as well as being in line with the naming conventions. As far as the English-language Wikipedia is concerned, that name is 'Chaussée d'Alsemberg'.Jason Lagos (talk)20:57, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No such thing has been established, and I don´t see why the non-Brussels part of the road is dismissed so out of hand here.Fram (talk)06:44, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitutevandalism and have beenreverted. If you would like to experiment, please useyour sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in theloss of editing privileges. Thank you.

I noticed that you reverted my contribution (see[2]). I consider this is a vandalism.

And pleasedo not delete my contribution onList of United Nations observances. If you consider my article does not have notability, you can use{{notability}} but not{{db}}.

About why I created it because I saw there is no articles on Wikipedia about the observances of the UN. I read on[3] and numerous contents are shown. In addition, I checkedWP:NOTE to ensure the notability.

Noordpunt (talk)02:04, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please readWP:VANDALISM and especiallyWP:NOTVANDALISM. Neither your creation of that article, my redirection, or your revert, were vandalism. They were standard content presentation disputes. "there is no articles on Wikipedia about the observances of the UN": then what isUNESCO International Days? My redirection / call for deletion are not about notability, but about duplication. We don't need two articles about the same subject.Fram (talk)07:28, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the articleYallaValue, which you previouslymarked as reviewed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according toWikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should bedeleted. The article will be discussed atWikipedia:Articles for deletion/YallaValue until a consensus is reached, and you are welcomed to contribute to the discussion.SodiumBot (botop|talk)10:22, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

These updates are delivered bySodiumBot. To opt out of these messages, add{{User:SodiumBot/NoNPPDelivery}} to your talk page.

A discussion is taking place as to whether the articleJean de Reyn is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according toWikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should bedeleted.

The article will be discussed atWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jean de Reyn until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Go D. Usopp(talk)12:37, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have contested this deletion inthe article's talk page. This is to provide more detail about his early life rather than the main article. As you may see, these two are not very similar.Babin Mew (talk)11:33, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to follow the source way too closely in phrasing and order though.Fram (talk)12:13, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will fix it. This is just a foundation. Hence, the under construction template.Babin Mew (talk)12:29, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you remove the speedy deletion now?Babin Mew (talk)15:19, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]