Misplaced Pages

User talk:Fram: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 13:54, 15 October 2009 editJohn Vandenberg (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users68,507 edits →Your threats: cutting in.← Previous edit Revision as of 13:54, 15 October 2009 edit undoJohn Vandenberg (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users68,507 editsm →Your threats: or endorseNext edit →
Line 226: Line 226:
However in your second message you did threaten to block him, and that isn't necessary or supported by the arbitration committee decision. The unban allows for uninvolved admins to block him for violations of the conditions they set out. The conditions do not restrict him from commenting on A Nobody, and the community also declined to restrict him in that manner. Also, you are the ''only'' admin who opposed Jacks unban, and you are now threatening to ban him without warning, so I can see why he views you as "involved". However in your second message you did threaten to block him, and that isn't necessary or supported by the arbitration committee decision. The unban allows for uninvolved admins to block him for violations of the conditions they set out. The conditions do not restrict him from commenting on A Nobody, and the community also declined to restrict him in that manner. Also, you are the ''only'' admin who opposed Jacks unban, and you are now threatening to ban him without warning, so I can see why he views you as "involved".


If he unnecessarily comments on A Nobody again in the next two months, I will start an RFC. Until then, some advice and constructive criticism at ] is probably needed. <span style="font-variant:small-caps">] <sup>'''(])'''</sup></span> 13:54, 15 October 2009 (UTC) If he unnecessarily comments on A Nobody again in the next two months, I will start or endorse an RFC. Until then, some advice and constructive criticism at ] is probably needed. <span style="font-variant:small-caps">] <sup>'''(])'''</sup></span> 13:54, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Revision as of 13:54, 15 October 2009


Template:Archive box collapsible


Living people

Thanks for your reaction. Based on your previous posts there and this edit, I am not surprised at your opinion. Nor am I burning and blazing to get it removed. But I do think it would be more proper to maintain a distinction between maintenance templates and informational templates. Let's see how the discussion will evolve. Debresser (talk) 19:47, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Northern_Sámi_Wikipedia

It would have only been polite to leave a note of some sorts for the bureaucrats and admins on the Northern Sámi[REDACTED] at the same time you decided to take this to AfD. -Yupik (talk) 22:34, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Why? We don't leave notes for other websites were the articles are deleted, redirected or merged. Nothing is done to the Northern Sami Misplaced Pages, the discussion was about the English Misplaced Pages article. I wouldn't expect to be heard if the Northern Sami Misplaced Pages would have a discussion about their article on the English Misplaced Pages either. Fram (talk) 06:40, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Articles

No, check my editing history, I haven't created those articles under this account. The reason why is because I am now focusing on quality, expanding geo articles. Look at articles like Ma-ubin if you don't believe me.... Himalayan 11:21, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah when we hit 3 million actually it suddenly dawned on me, it is just a figure, most of our existing articles are very poor and need my attention. I'd be happy actually if you deleted the Yemen stubs that Blofeld created anyway. The thing is since a few editors have added geo coordinates and spent some time sorting them out. If you could merge into a list with the coordinates given in the articles this would be better than completely deleting I think.... I think you'd find most of them are actually valid settlements. But the major problem is lack of web sources to expand and lack of anybody working on Yemen articles. I don't think there is much point in these articles hanging round. I have tried to expand a few but there is literally nothing on the web to flesh them out except geo databases like falling rain which are unreliable. Personally I think falling rain should be blacklisted as although coordinates are usually correct the other data usually isn't.. I think the best thing to do about sub stubs which use unreliable databases especially on countries in the developing world would be to merge them intoa list. Ther eisn't much point in having say 700 articles in one category and 698 of them all being one liners that at the present me can't access the knowledge to expand them, agreed? Himalayan 11:33, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

My major concern is that while some of them clearly do appear to be settlements which you can see my satellite, a worrying number of them just look like desert or just terrain and little evidence can be seen that they really exist, neither is there much proof online to verify their existence when most of the mentioning of it is by geo databases generated in the Internet ancient period of 1995-1996. It is not always easy to do, so I think in a lot of cases, particularly if there is no government sources/population data census data online a tabled list with coordinates would be better?? The thing is most of them are real places in the real world it is just the terrible uneveness of the web info for many developing Asian and African countries on here that makes it difficult for us to know what the place really is, you know a hamlet in the desrt or actually a thriving small town.. User:Calliopejen1 also shares my enthusiasm for the world on here but she also believes than generating stubs based on very questionable databses isn't a good idea in seperate articles anyway. At least in some places info is gradually becoming available online, which may have some information about small towns so I believe they should be created when we have access to it, not create a bunch of sub stubs and leave them hanging around for years and being unedited. I know I only created those Yemen stubs about 4 weeks ago but believe me I have completely changed my outlook on here as how to go about building[REDACTED] whilst not affecting quality.. Himalayan 11:41, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd recommend something like this:

Place name Official name District Description Altitude Nearest settlements Map/coordinates
Ab Gach Āb Gach 36°59′N 72°42′E / 36.983°N 72.700°E / 36.983; 72.700
Amurn Āmūrn
Andowj Andowj
Anjoman Anjoman
Arakht Arakht
Arghandakan Arghandakān
Artin Jelow Ārtīn Jelow
Arun Ārūn
Ashkasham Ashkāsham
Ashnam Āshnām
Baharak Bahārak

What are your thoughts about this. Also World Gazetteer has some data on the top ffew hundred or so towns. Maybe we ought to use that as a guideline for main cities and towns? Himalayan 11:58, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I think if population data from 2004 is known which confirms it as a town, we should keep articles like Al-Ghurfah I think and just redirects the ones where so further data can be found? Himalayan 12:12, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but that is a massive task, certainly because e.g. the Tageo name and World Gazetteer name don't match. Some are identifiable (just with or without diacritics, like Ghadran) but others are different enough to make you wonder if they are the same place or not (Yashi` vs. Yah̨īş) or can't just be found (we don't have an article on Taw'ar, but World Gazetteer lists it as having some 3000 inhabitants). I'm stil thinking about what will be the best way to proceed, balancing time spent on it with result (kepping good things, removing unreliable stuff). I'll work on it, but not immediately probably. Fram (talk) 12:19, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Cantalupo di Bevagno -> Cantalupo di Bevagna_Cantalupo_di_Bevagna-2009-09-09T15:29:00.000Z">

Thanks for sorting out the move! Cheers, Ian Spackman (talk) 15:29, 9 September 2009 (UTC)_Cantalupo_di_Bevagna"> _Cantalupo_di_Bevagna">

Sig

Hello! Just a quick note... in your top post here, you did not sign. I am not sure if we are allowed even if allowed, how to sign for anyone, but just wanted to give you a heads up. Best, --A Nobody 20:11, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Request for your opinion

Hi. Can you join this discussion in order to offer us your thoughts? It would be most appreciated. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 06:55, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Another one

Per:

Could you close: Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Sula_Kim, User:Pastor Theo has been indef blocked. Ikip (talk) 00:44, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Lord John Grey page

Sorry, but may I ask why the page is marked as unsourced? Most other pages about fictional characters aren't, and they certainly don't cite anything, not even the series/books from which they came.--little Alex (talk) 07:09, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Then those other pages need to be marked as unsourced as well. Articles about fiction are not exempt from our WP:V /WP:RS / WP:N rules. That most pages about fictional characters and so on are in a poor state is no reason to ignore this. As to why this article specifically was tagged: I often use the "random article" function, and then I tag every article I encounter that is unsourced, no matter if it is about a character, a person, a village, ... Fram (talk) 07:17, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Jan De Nul

Updated DYK query On September 19, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Jan De Nul, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

≈ Chamal  ¤ 22:08, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Sandstein's admin review

FWIW, Killer Chihuahua is female; changing the pronouns might make it a bit easier to follow, too; it's hard to tell if you are talking about Giano, Sandstein, or KC when you use "he", especially since KC is a "she". Horologium (talk) 20:33, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll try to correct it. I'm always using "he" for everyone, it's a bit careless of me... Fram (talk) 20:48, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Creating pages on non notable parishes

Your action is the act of VANDALISM. Since when historic "parishes" are not notable?. Prove it first. As the Administrator, you should act more responsible. Part of your responsibility is to improve it not remove it. This parish is one of the Polish-American Roman Catholic parishes in New England--WlaKom (talk) 13:38, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

You should be never the Administrator of Misplaced Pages. Your action to remove all historical catholic parishes (all of them have listed reliable sources) is an Act of Religious discrimination. --WlaKom (talk) 14:10, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

dePRODing of articles

Hello Fram, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD templates you added to a number of articles were removed:

Please consider discussing your concerns with the relevant users before pursuing deletion further. If you still think the articles should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may send them to WP:AfD for community discussion. Thank you - SDPatrolBot (talk) (Learn how to opt out of these messages) 20:37, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Vandal

Is Fram a vandal? The question is asked. Please answer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.177.247.202 (talk) 12:05, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The answer is "no". Fram is somebody who thinks these parishes are not each and every one of them suitable for a stand-alone encyclopedia article (as opposed to entry in the Catholic Directory). The way to respond is to explain why you think they might be. --Paularblaster (talk) 12:51, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Is Fram a vandal? No. --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:08, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Yes. If someone, without thinking, seeks to remove about 60 articles within 10 minutes, ignoring sources and the complexity of the project. Such actions are unacceptable.--WlaKom (talk) 13:21, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm with Cameron Scott and Paularblaster. Fram is following due process; the proper response is to actually give a reason why these parishes might be considered notable in and of themselves. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoLo dicono a Signa. 13:26, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Red links

Apologies re red links. When I'm doing clean up, I sometimes go the limit. l also feel a need to write the copy for red links. You're right about Ritt, so in future I'll try to write that one. Pepso2 (talk) 12:11, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

No problem. It did get on my nerves a bit though... Fram (talk) 12:15, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from Currency in Dumas' Musketeer novels

Hello Fram, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Currency in Dumas' Musketeer novels has been removed. It was removed by Solicitr with the following edit summary '(Object to deletion- see Discussion)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with Solicitr before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 20:50, 13 October 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages) 20:50, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Fram. You have new messages at Talk:Currency in Dumas' Musketeer novels.
Message added 02:28, 14 October 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I nominated the article at the AfD. Tim1357 (talk) 02:28, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you!

Somewhere I read about not building memorials honouring vandalism, maybe RBI? If I did this would be about twenty or so which I'm sure pales to many. In any case appreciate your reverting the nonsense whatever it was. I just don't see any use in giving them any energy or added attention. In any case thank you again! -- Banjeboi 11:33, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Your threats

Your threats to Jack are out of line. Jack can endorse views at an RfC (note that he has not participated the entire time it was running, while others were taking shot after shot at him, he just turned the other cheek) and he can vote in RfAs. You do not get to unilaterally impose sanctions like that, especially given the lack of consensus the last time this was brought up. I suggest you stop, or you may find yourself sanctioned. The next comment that you make to Jack, if it's other than one of the form "I'm sorry, I went too far and I'm dropping this" will result in my raising this at AN/I. ++Lar: t/c 10:27, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed you ignoring his disruption the last time I discussed them, but complaining then that the location of my response was incorrect. Feel free to start any ANI thread you want though, but don't expect me to agree with you after that previous incident. As for lack of consensus, I'm glad you so thoroughly agree with Jack Merridew about this, but most people did seem to agree that I was spot on as to what Jack Merridew was supposed to do. The only oppose was about my statement about A Nobody, but stated "Though I will reverse my opinion if this proposal garners enough support to simply apply it to JM and not merely suggest it." So basically, there was no opposition to the proposal wrt Jack Merridew, and some people supported it. To read this as a "lack of consensus" is a very one sided view of that section. Fram (talk) 11:07, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Well *I've* got AN/I watchlisted. Do note that I'm at UTC+8 so I've only a few hours left on here today. I'll check back tomorrow, though. Oh, replied at my page. Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:17, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Again, your threats are out of line, you do not get to unilaterally modify the conditions of Jack's return. They are also singularly unhelpful, starting with a threat is the wrong approach. ++Lar: t/c 11:27, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't modify the conditions of his return, I warn him that his current behaviour will lead to him being blocked, a move for which there was considerable support at the ANI section, with many people already agreing to a ban at that time. The only difference is that, withhis history, he doesn't get the benefit of the doubt anymore, no series of escalating blocks and so on. Being unbanned does not mean that whatever happened in the past is to be ignored and forgotten, although it means that he doesn't get blocked for pre-ban edits. Warning him that current actions and behaviour may lead to a new block is not "unilaterally modifying the conditions of his return", it's applying dispute resolution procedures. As for "starting...", I think this has gone on long enough already so the word is not really applicable. Fram (talk) 12:11, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
The ANI was 6 months ago. The discussion ended up saying both parties needed to work to resolve differences and to disengage.... IF both parties agreed and abided. What we have seen from Jack is an effort to do that, with some backsliding (we are none of us perfect, after all), but in my view mostly successful. What we have seen from A Nobody a failure to abide by the terms or to seek to work meaningfully to resolve the matter. (this can be seen at more recent discussions as well, such as John Vandenberg's talk page where he called for Jack's head and refused to agree to change anything about himself) He is thumbing his nose at the community... "more often than not not helpful and often actively annoying", as you yourself said... I don't think you should be threatening Jack with a block for endorsing an RfC that has been running almost a month, which contained shot after shot taken at him by Ikip, and with no participation by the subject. Jack didn't comment, didn't escalate, he merely endorsed some views... and he used a bare signature, not even the words that others used. Seriously, please reconsider your position here. I am pretty confident that if this goes to AN/I you will be admonished. Jack is not the bad guy you make him out to be... ++Lar: t/c 12:35, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
I have no problem with anyone taking action against A Nobody if and when needed. Jack Merridew was unlucky enough to make some comments about A Nobody on pages I was actively looking at, like the Kww RFC: I acted on what I noticed, I have not set out to look at theactions of either of them (or by Ikip). And I was not threatening the block for endorsing the RfC, pleae go and reread the discussion. I didn't start that thread because of the RfC, but because of the RfA. I only commented on the RfC because he left it well alone for the whole duration, but just happened to endorse 7 views first thing after I warned him to stay awayfrom A Nobody. To endorse views on an RfC is not a problem, but to do so with such an unlucky timing is telling. Fram (talk) 12:53, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
You're not listening to what I said. A 6 month old discussion that called for things to happen which did not happen is no basis for your threats. Threaten Jack again without first discussing the issues with him, and I will take it to AN/I. ++Lar: t/c 13:18, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
One of you previous comments here was "The next comment that you make to Jack, if it's other than one of the form "I'm sorry, I went too far and I'm dropping this" will result in my raising this at AN/I." I did since post in the very same thread, but not to apologize. Now again you make the same "threat" of starting an AN/I. Ooh, I'm so scared. Why don't you just go ahead and do so instead ofsimply repeating yourself and Jack Merridew here? As for the ANI discussion being six months old, it is just because it is six months old that I warned him again, just like I did on WT:AFD some time ago (you know, where you didn't mind Jack Merridew's comments about A Nobody but faulted me for replying to it on that page instead of somewhere else). If it would have been closer together, he would have been blocked. Now, I repeated the earlier warning. Don't you think he is quite aware of the issues by now? Fram (talk) 13:29, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
" Ooh, I'm so scared." ??? Not exactly a very constructive approach you have here, is it? Forget the request for an apology, one can't force apologies. But if you again open with a threat after a new incident, it won't be good. Open with dialog, not threats. Please. ++Lar: t/c 13:37, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Rest assured, if a similar incident happens in the near future, I won't start with threaths. Fram (talk) 13:38, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


I agree that Jack should avoid mentioning A Nobody where it isn't necessary, and I agree that this comment could have been delivered without the A Nobody/Ikip part. I am also disappointed by these, as Jack had steered clear of that RfC until now. I do see where you are coming from, but I also know that Jack has been trying, and is receptive to advice from the mentors. I am sorry he was not more receptive to your initial advice that he should "Drop it".

However in your second message you did threaten to block him, and that isn't necessary or supported by the arbitration committee decision. The unban allows for uninvolved admins to block him for violations of the conditions they set out. The conditions do not restrict him from commenting on A Nobody, and the community also declined to restrict him in that manner. Also, you are the only admin who opposed Jacks unban, and you are now threatening to ban him without warning, so I can see why he views you as "involved".

If he unnecessarily comments on A Nobody again in the next two months, I will start or endorse an RFC. Until then, some advice and constructive criticism at Misplaced Pages:Editor review/Jack Merridew is probably needed. John Vandenberg 13:54, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Fram: Difference between revisions Add topic