This is anarchive of past discussions withUser: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 thecurrent talk page.

Just because you dont know who he is doesnt mean he is unremarkable, asshole.—Precedingunsigned comment added byJamesr02 (talk •contribs) 18:24, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

Hi Fran. I take on your well made points but would like to mention that my brother is a copyright lawyer in the UK and he categorically stated that these images are in a giant mass distribution pool and totally covered as fair usage and no record label in the world is going to object to their employment in this context. He suggested that you look at any music magazine from Rolling Stone to Record Collector to see that images like these are used worldwide under the fair usage context. Furthermore they act as an extremely useful visual aid for people glancing through an entry who may see from a cover of a record they recall but whose title eludes them. It seems to be everything an internet encyclopedia should be about - the combination of visual and text information. Furthermore for a singles discography people can actually see these long deleted releases and gain some understanding of how they were presented. The pictures prove they actually were manufactured and show readers what they looked like. Without the reference thumbs it necessitates an entry for every single release. I think you are absolutely right that album illustrations within a Mike Oldfield essay are extraneous but in the context of a discography they are extremely useful and practical. I wouldn’t dream of altering anything without your agreement but hope that will reconsider this point as I feel it is all to the greater good of a wonderful encyclopedia. Very best to you.Yahoogiddix19:17, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Fram. Thank you for keeping an eye on Wikipedia. I put the images of the albums and singles up on the main Kevin Ayers Wikipedia entry with careful consideration and I located many precedents for doing so which informed my decision. See entries on Supertramp, Velvet Underground and many others. I thought it made for a colorful and informative encylopedia entry that would encourage others to add to. Would you therefore mind if I reinstated them and thank you once more for your diligence.Yahoogiddix14:24, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the articlelooks better with more (relevant) images, but it is a copyright violation or at least a non-permitted use according to Wikipedia guidelines. It is done in many articles, but we are slowly trying to get rid of it. Please check outWikipedia:Non-free content, section "Examples of unacceptable use" point 16: "An album cover image as part of a discography. A discography is a type of list, and such usage of images on a list normally does not significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic." The use of a fair use image for identification of the subject of the article (when no free image can be obtained) is acceptable (so a pic of an album cover in an article about an album cover is OK), and a fair use image is also acceptable when theimage in question is discussed in the article (if there had been a controversy, or an artwork award, or some such): but a fair use image mainly for decoration, like on a discography, is not acceptable. This may seem arbitrary, but we have to draw a line somewhere, and for the moment the consensus is to draw it there. So I would urge you not to reinstate the images, or else to get athird opinion about this. I have also removed the images fromMike Oldfield, and will do the same for other articles with the same problem.Fram14:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

You certainly have a point, but Wikipedia as a whole takes on a (much) stricter position than is probably needed. This has been discussed extensively on our pages on fair use (e.g. the one I linked aboce), and at the Wikimedia Foundation level (i.e. way above my head :-) ), and I'm only here to enforce our policies. The best (but slowest) way to proceed is trying to convince other people of your position, and to change thus the guidelines and policies. Until then, the images in discographies sadly have to go. See e.g. our featured articlePink Floyd and the relatedPink Floyd discography, which have no fair use images (at first glance). The same goes forAC/DC.Fram19:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not in agreement with your proposed deletion of the demo tapes I added to the Velvet Eden discography. Velvet Eden was an indies band, and therefore their discography was almost entirely demo tapes, excluding the two albums and one single that were released. I realize that it's not usual for there to be entries for demo tapes, however I have found them on other entries here on Wikipedia. I worked very hard to make them complete, and since it's hard to find information on this band, I believe it would be useful to keep this information available on this site. And I don't think I'm violating any of the Wikipedia rules you posted.User:Gothic_Mana-Sama

Thanks for replying. Are there any reliable, independent sources about these demo tapes? Reviews in music magazines? Are they (or were they) available anywhere officially? (I suppose illegal downloads and copies exist, but that's not the point)? You even listed an unreleased demo, I really fail to see the point of that. I agree that there are probably other articles on demo's out there, but in general, they shouldn't exist (some demo tapes, e.. for very famous artists, have become famous themselves, but these are the exceptions). From [WP:MUSIC]]: "Individual articles on albums should include independent coverage." They are not even albums, they are demos, and they lack independent coverage. By the way, are you certain that the band itself meetsWP:MUSIC? Two albums, one single, and in the new incarnation one (18 minutes!) album and one single, isn't a lot ,and there are no other claims to fame...

Anyway, you are free to remove the ProD notices, but if the articles aren't significantly improved, I will take them toWP:AfD instead.Fram14:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

There are actual copies of the demo tapes available out there (official ones), because several people have posted cover artwork from their copies on their websites about the band, and have talked about buying copies at their live shows. I'm not certain whether the demo tapes were ever featured in any music magazine, because 1) I don't speak Japanese and wouldn't be able to read said articles, and 2) As I said before, it's very hard to find information on the band and have searched for as much as I could, but haven't run across very many magazines articles; besides which, they're demo tapes not released in stores but at the live shows for "previews" and such of once-upcoming songs. I'm not certain what you mean by "improving the article," as I've added as much information as I can about the band and its discography. It was very incomplete until I updated it, and yet you say it isn't...and actually, the band is very well known in the visual kei scene, and as you can see in the trivia section, was known for other things (the "Arachnophobia" fashion line being modelled in the Gothic & Lolita Bible, and their associations with quite a few other J-Rockers (Mana, Hora, Dir en grey to name a few) are quite reknown as well). Various people have been updating is as well lately since I had started, and we're adding as much information as we can with what we have, trying to make it as complete as possible. So please, don't delete anything because the page is still in the process of being updated. I have a reliable source who actually is in contact with the actual band members, and I will have her help us out if possible. Could you possibly tell me what exactly I need to update the demo tape sections so they wouldn't be deleted? What "independent coverage" should I provide, and I'm sure I can find it. Because truthfully, they really are a major part of Velvet Eden's discography...of course if you deleted the demo tapes, there wouldn't be much discography left and therefore the band could be considered for deletion, but perhaps not if they were left on there. I realize you're just following guidelines, but this band is an INDIES band and therefore doesn't have alot of coverage available as some of the major labels bands do. I'm still in the process of getting more information, and will post more as I do.User:Gothic_Mana-Sama

"Improving" was perhaps a bad choice of word, I meant "expanding", adding sources and so on. That's the main thing you need: reliable, independent sources (so no sources connected to the band, and no fan sources, but a good indie music magazine or so commenting on the demo tapes). If these aren't out there, then these articles are not fit for Wikipedia, sinceverifiability is one of the main policies we have.Fram07:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'll see what I am able to come up with. Please allow me a little time before any decisions are made final. I'm sure there's something that can be done. If nothing can be found, I may merge the demo tapes into the the main Velvet Eden entry, if that's allowed.User:Gothic_Mana-Sama—The precedingsigned but undated comment was added at 15:03, August 20, 2007 (UTC).

No problem, there's no real hurry.Fram17:13, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for your patience on the matter. I'm suspecting that we might be able to get the article up to "standards" so to speak if we chat about it. I have never written anything like that, and I suspect that has hindered my ability to give the article its' proper presentation. That being said, maybe people won't think it's very good. Who knows. I started the discussion on the talk page so most people will have access to the discussion.Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat 06:20, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

No problem, I'll reply (if needed) on the article talk page.Fram07:03, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

OnAugust 23,2007,Did you know? was updated with a fact from the articleJoseph Cardijn, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on theDid you know? talk page.

--ragesoss16:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Fram. Thanks for examining the article for copyright problems. Unfortunately, even the rollback version is still rife with copyvios. The section"Residence Life," for example, is simply lifted fromhttp://www.ramapo.edu/studentlife/docs/2006_Community.pdf , and"Dining Services" derives fromhttp://www.ramapo.edu/studentlife/diningServices/locations.html . Before tagging it, I had gone right back to the earliest versions of the article in the hope of find a clean version, but except for the earliest stubs, pretty much every earlier version has large chunks of the college's recruitment material cut-and-pasted into it.

Which is a whole other problem: the tone of article is really not appropriate to an encyclopedia. The tone is decidedly promotional, which is probably not surprising since so much of it is lifted from the college's webpage. The rollback version your reverted to has removed, thank goodness, phrases like "plenty of well-lit parking" and "producing truly engaged global citizens," but I can still discover that:

"Weekdays include Lite Breakfast and Lite Lunch, served between regular meal periods. Lite lunch provides salads, deli sandwiches, grill items and pizza as a snack or meal alternative. Meal plans, Flex, Ramapo Bucks, or cash are accepted."

Material like this just doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. But I shouldn't be surprised, since, as it turns out, it's cut-and-pasted fromhttp://www.ramapo.edu/studentlife/diningServices/locations.html

Finally, you may want to cautionUser:Bgoletz about restoring articles under review for copyvios. The template advises users not to do so, but he/she saw fit to do it anyway --[1],[2],[3] -- despite a message on his talk page (User_talk:Bgoletz#Copyright_problem:_Ramapo_College) and edit summaries asking him/her to refrain[4],[5]

--Rrburke^(talk)14:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

A followup: I see now you have already cautioned the editor. --Rrburke^(talk)14:05, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict, so you may ignore the last bit) I'll check the article further, it looked at first glance that only the last two editors had added copyvios, but my check was apparently not thorough enough. As for Bgoletz, I have already given him a final warning for copyvio (and a warning for 3RR as well), so if he reintroduces any copyvio, he will be blocked.Fram14:06, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi again, Fram. I hate to be a pain in the neck, but even the remaining text is mostly lifted out of the college's webpage. The first paragraph derives from the "Faculty" subhead on the pagehttp://www.ramapo.edu/about/index.html , while the second paragraph is lifted from a press release:http://www.ramapo.edu/news/pressreleases/2006/08_23_2006.html . As I was saying, there just isn't a clean version to revert to: it's shot through with material that's both promotional and violates copyright. If I could've found a suitable version I would have preferred to restore it rather than tag it copyvio; there just wasn't one. I don't know if it wouldn't be better just to either restore the earliest stub or just delete it as unsalvageable and leave it to be rewritten from scratch. --Rrburke^(talk)14:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

You are right. I've deleted it all, it is easier to start all over again and not have to worry about those copyvios in the history. Let's hope that the future version will be better!

An editor has asked for adeletion review ofKerry Marie. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review.Epbr12313:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Will you please reconsider this deletion? - To quote WP:NOT "Biography articles should only be for people with some sort of fame, achievement, or perhaps notoriety. One measure of publicity is whether someone has been featured in several external sources (on or off-line)."

In this respect, either surnamed as Ogilvy or as Mowatt, she certainly has been so featured. She isnowadays only 36 in line to the British Throne and I agree that neither of her children fail to meet the criterion I quote above. However, her former status and attendant publicity/notoriety as the child of a royal princess, makes her continued omission untenable. BTW her ex-husband has not been deleted.Saga City16:57, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

To start with the end: the article on her ex-husband was not included in the AfD, and was kept through an OTRS ticket for some (to me) unknown reason. I'm not going to interfere in that. As for Marina, I followed this part ofWP:NOT: "Wikipedia properly considers the long-term historical notability of persons and events, keeping in mind the harm our work might cause. The fact that someone or something has been in the news for a brief period of time does not automatically justify an encyclopedia article." If you look at the article as it was, she was not notable for anything she has done, but only for her family. It wasn't clear from the article or the AfD that she ever actively sought publicity or has done anything which makes her notable in the historic sense: she only was notable for the paparazzi, the royaltywatchers. Per BLP and precedents of do no harm and avoid sensationalist journalism, there was no reason at all to have an article on her (and even less on her children). If you still disagree (which is of course your right), you can take it toWP:DRV, but please be aware that that is mostly a discussion on procedural grounds, not a new AfD.Fram19:33, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Spotted you in action there, and as you've got a mop, can I also ask you to have a look atTeh OT, where there's been a speedy delete tag for a while, with IPs carrying on their stupidity regardless? The tag's already been removed once. Thanks.Bencherlite^Talk09:20, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Deleted, of course. Thanks for the notification and the good work.Fram09:23, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

No problem.Bencherlite^Talk09:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I am part of an effort, called Wikipedia, in which editors develop content in good faith for the benefit of the community as a whole. You seem to have taken it upon yourself to decide that articles related to cemeteries in the United States should be deleted, despite the fact that multiple reliable and verifiable sources have been provided, unlike other articles on such subjects asThe Smurfs and communism which are completely nonencyclopedic and have no reliable sources provided whatsoever. Do you believe that burial information is as nonencyclopedic as Smurf communism and should be deleted, or do you believe that they don't merit standalone articles. If you insist that the material is nonencylopedic, there should be no burial information on Wikipedia; if the information is encyclopedic, why pursue the destructive and disruptive option of deletion and not propose a merge? What purpose are you trying to accomplish? How is Wikipedia being improved through your actions, when, at worst, a merge would rid Wikipedia of an article that seems to offend you so greatly?Alansohn18:11, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Smurfs and communism versusWikipedia:Articles for deletion/North Church Cemetery, Hardyston. Apart from that, please refrain from making it personal, and from dividing Wikipedia in those who develop content and those who delete it. I create and improve articles as well (see e.g.Willy Vandersteen orPolly and Her Pals), so I am just as much a part of the first line of your post as you are. And you agree that some articles should be deleted as well[6]. But we have to decide which articles, which subjects, we want to include on Wikipedia and which ones are too obscure, too small, too non notable or too unverifiable to include. But you try to turn it into a false dilemma, where there isn't one. Some cemeteries or burials are worthy of note (I e.g. did not nominateBeverly National Cemetery when going through the category), some aren't. If you think that other articles shouldn't have an article, feel free to nominate them for deletion. Everyone has different standards, but judging from the above mentioned AfD, the current consensus of the community is that cemeteries which have no info except for some notables being buried there (i.e. find-a-grave like info), aren't notable. I don't see how deleting these articles is disruptive. And for the record; I don't have an issue withUnited States cemeteries, I just started with those in the category Cemeteries in New Jersey because I happened to stumble on one when using the random article function. Since you object to the deletions, I will have to take them to AfD.Fram07:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• • Other than making aWP:POINT, you still have not explained why you refuse to consider a merge to rid Wikipedia of an article that so greatly offends your sensibilities. One would assume that at some point an admin would recognize that there are articles that are pure unencyclopedic original research, such asThe Smurfs and communism, that should be deleted, and that deletion is not the only option for articles you just don't like. Using AfD, when merge is clearly preferable (and already done before you nominated the article), is unjustifiable and patently disruptive.Alansohn16:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
    • As I haven't got the faintest clue what you are talking about in some parts of your post, and can't be bothered discussing other, completely unrelated articles because you are upset about the possible deletion of some articles you created, I'll just stop it here. Please don't post on my user page anymore unless you have specific questions, I won't answer anymore otherwise.Fram17:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I've just discovered that Kerry Marie was the 2004 Voluptuous Model of the Year[7]. Surely this makes her notable enough.Epbr12323:31, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for splitting this article off from Vasari's page. It as something that I thought about doing, but never did. --Stomme16:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

My pleasure! I'm going throught the articles which reference it (but without links until now), and it's amazing how many articles will link to it. Feel free to improve the article, of course, as it is just a first version with still lots of problems and room for expansion. 19:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

This DRV addresses an article you deleted after a PROD. You may want to participate in that discussion. --Jreferee^(Talk)14:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks ,I have participated.Fram15:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry Fram for not discussing the issue w/ you first and my unblock doesn't mean i disagree w/your block. i, in fact, disagree w/ the way the whole mess has been handled. Some admins still need some guidance just like editors. My unblock was seeking equal treatment. As i explained at the ANI, the guy has probably gone away after all the fuss regarding his userpage in where he was talking just about the same admin misguidences. He had agreed to fix his userpage but then he was faced w/ an RfC. Imagine yourselves in his place. That was a clear personal conflict and all i saw is that the admin was treated better than the editor unfortunately. --FayssalF -^{Wiki me up®}13:24, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Allright, as I said, I have no real problem with him being unblocked, it just came rather out of the blue. As for admins still needing guidance, I know I make enough mistakes (as editor and as admin), so I agree with you there.Fram13:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your understanding Fram. --FayssalF -^{Wiki me up®}14:00, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry for the incomvineiance this account has caused. the last time i tryed to log on i found out that my account has been hacked and had on several occations caused problems editing pages. i have got my account back now and am going to change the password momentarily and again i apoligise for what has been caused. please do not block my account as i assure you my password wil be a lot safer. and if it is no trouble could i have a list of all the times this account has been logged on as i am suspicous of my brother.Magahitoa13:45, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

With, as far as I can tell,all your edits until now consisting of vandalism, I don't think you have any chance of becoming an admin anytime soon, no (we have no mods). But apart from that, you are free to edit constructively as much as you like, and as long as you do that, your history will not be held against you.Fram13:49, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

cheers i will.Magahitoa13:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I invite your attention to the anon edits from 212.50.168.7 which seem to consist of vandalism only.LeadSongDog15:20, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Last edit was at 11:44, and user was warned at 11:45 to stop it. No frther action is needed at the moment, but thanks for the notification!Fram15:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Next time I'll pay closer attention to the timestamps. Thanks.LeadSongDog17:20, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I reviewed the article according to thegood article criteria, and my analysis is on the talk page. Thanks for your nomination!GreenJoe20:52, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for the conflict of interest. I was assigned to complete an article, and was not aware of the policies regarding conflict of interest and and conflict of interest.Is there a way to write this article introducing a small-town newspaper company and it's history without deletion? I'm going to attempt to write one in a third-party tone if I may. Please let me know if it's against the terms of use to write an article about Prague, Oklahoma and it's newspaper, The Prague Times Herald.Andersoncorp21:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for reverting vandalism on my talk page. :)*Cremepuff222*14:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello. I am Evil Owen, a resident of Morden Manitboa. A couple of us have been adding/editing the Morden Manitoba page; we were experimenting as to how long our edits would last. Longer than we thought, I assure you.I have no problem with the edits you cleaned up, but I am wondering about the "notable residents" section. all the people I had listed are real, and well known in the community. Wayne Bergman in particular was quite popular, and has recently had a bench dedicated to his memory.I am still new to Wikipedia, and checked the edits history. It said that these individuals were "redlined" or something to that effect. To solve this problem, do I have to create an entirely new entry for these people? Or if the names are not verifiable over the internet, are these new entries going to disappear as well?Any advice you could give me would be helpful. I am personally embarassed by the lack of information available about this town on both Wikipedia and Youtube, and several of us would like the town to be better remembered on the web.Thanks in advance.

The names were redlinked, meaning that they have no Wikipedia article (if they had, they would be bluelinked). A short Google search seemed to indicate to me that they were indeed not notable, but Google is not the sole indicator of notability, of course. You may create an article on these people if they are truly notable (seeWP:NOTE and more specificallyWP:BIO for our criteria), but be sure to include sources (these may be offline, but must bereliable sources). I am all for expanding articles on cities and towns with correct, notable info, but all too often people just add the names of themselves, their parents, friends, girlfriend, boyfriend, ... to the names of "notable residents", and in removing those sometimes a truly notable local may get removed as well. I try to avoid such collateral damage, but sometimes it happens anyway.

As for experimenting with edits to see how long they will last: no harm done, they are gone, but please don't try this too often, as editors in general frown upon this kind of thing (obviously).Fram08:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that you deleted the page for the free-to-play MMORPG Ghost Online. I'm rather perplexed by the cited reasons: "Expired prod. Does not assert notability."; the game is active and has a significant (if not huge) and growing player base in English, and it is very successful in its native language. I'm not aware of any specific consensus on notability requirements for video games, but this game would certainly score higher than many that have active articles. I would request that you revert the deletion, if that's still possible; otherwise I'll restart the article.Snowboardpunk04:26, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

It is not vandalism and not all of the in formation on the infobox is correct, the school does not want all of that information to be placed on the article in wikipedia. The school mascot is NOT a Lion, I am going to erase all the information that is not accurate, out of context and that the school does not consider necessary.

--Swebs16:26, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

You can remove all the content that is inaccurate. Content that is out of context: I would like to see that explained on the talk page (if you already did, my apologies, I haven't checked it yet). As for info that the school does not consider necessary; I'm sorry, but that is completely irrelevant. The school has no say in what info is necessary or not, as long as it is accurate and relevant, it may be included. Please check our policies "owning articles" and "conflict of interest" to see why this is so.Fram08:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello Fram, I hope all is well. I would ask you to reconsider your decision to delete articleNareg given the following reasons: First, the article did have context as it referred to a specific person and another Wikipedia article on a notable person (Gregory of Narek). The example given underWP:CSD A1 is a valid example of a statement without context. The article which was deleted, however, specified that it was anArmeniangiven name derived from the name ofGregory of Narek, offering both context and substance. Second, there are dozens (that I've seen so far) of Wikipedia articles that refer to given names of various races that are similar in design, content, and context. Thanks very much for your consideration in this matter. --SimpleParadox16:50, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your reasonable request. I have restored the article, as you are probably right that judging it as "no context" was probably too harsh. On the other hand, I still believe that the article is not fit for Wikipedia, so I have put it up for AfD (a general discussion to see if the article should be deleted or not). Most other articles about given names are alist of articles on Wikipedia on persons with the given name, with some additional info on the name given. Pages which only have info on the name should IMO be deleted, although you are right that there other examples of such articles still around.Fram07:31, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Fram. I will participate in the discussion. --SimpleParadox16:59, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about this. Was a revert mixup. Once again, thanks for fixing things up. --Anonymous Dissident^Talk07:47, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

No problem, my first revert was not a good one either :-) I have explanied to the last IP that his edit was well intended but not perfect, hopefully we'll end with a new good contributor this way.Fram07:49, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. --Anonymous Dissident^Talk07:50, 27 September 2007 (UTC)