User talk:Franamax/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Thank you

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		You are an honor to know and an honorable person. Thank you for going out of your way to help me during a time of trouble. I couldn't think of a way to say thank you so I hope this shows you how much what you did for me means. I also agree with what you had to say. Thank you again, --CrohnieGalTalk 11:14, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Links to userpsace

• User:Franamax/Ucontribs-0.3b/Kirill Lokshin
• User:Franamax/Ucontribs-2009/Kirill Lokshin

Hi, I'd like to know why these two pages link to User:White Cat/Wikistress status. Thanks -- Cat ^chi? 09:57, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Presumably Kirill edited those pages often enough to get on those reports. All those pages need to be blanked anyway, I've been putting it off for a while now. Franamax (talk) 14:33, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Ah OK. I was just confused. :) -- Cat ^chi? 00:33, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Just a note

If Beyond my Ken mentions it, the message I posted to his talk page is not meant as harmfull, the if you guys like, i'll be happy to discuss the reason behind it on my talk page, thanks. Comet Egypt I Am Mewtwo 05:05, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

1RR

You mentioned why 1RR wasn't tried. If you go back and check the discussions it was brought up several times, even by me, but it couldn't get anywhere. That is a direct result of noise, and blatant interference. Several times Delta discussions were closed out of process just as it seemed we were hitting a point where we could compromise, or come to some kind of conclusion. The last time Masem and I had started a productive conversation about it, I had to leave or it was late or something, and when I returned I found the discussion had been inappropriately closed. It was later restored, but you know what kind of damage that does to a discussion. Beyond those issues there are those who cannot separate Delta from NFCC and any attempts to deal with him are dealt with as though they were an attack on NFCC. The threshold for "consensus" is so high, that even a few of those users can cause just about any proposal to fail. If it's labelled a "major change" some people will insist on an 80% majority, which means even if 10 people show up to oppose, you need a dogpile of 40 or more users supporting it to get it to pass. That's just not possible in a Delta discussion except in a few rare circumstances.--Crossmr (talk) 08:14, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

New IP for Comet Egypt

Hey, my new ip is 204.112.104.30 could you please block it to avoid editing temptations? thanks. 204.112.104.30 (talk) 21:08, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for the notice! I left your IP talk page open for you but I can take that away too if necessary. Note to onlookers: this is a pre-arranged agreement between CE and myself. Franamax (talk) 00:49, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Warning regarding your use of user talk pages

Thread moved from my Talk page. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 09:42, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Hello Cuddlyable3, here we are again. I noticed an edit of yours that caused me concern a few days ago and just saw another one, so here I am with a further warning. In the first instance, you followed up a question posted by Jayron32 to your own talk page with this edit (currently at this location), wherein you follow your habit of moving any and all threads which discuss your own behaviour onto the talk page of the originator. As has been explained to you at length, this is fine provided that you are making a substantive response to the originating editor. In this instance, your reply was "No comment", which is not substantive in any way. Proper use of talk pages and proper methods of refactoring discussion were explained to you at length, by myself and several others - check your talk page history around the time of your most recent (or 2nd-last) block.

Now I see you posting to the same editor talk page here, in a manner which seems in no way aimed to resolve a dispute relating to the actual body of free-as-possible, neutral-as-possible, and complete-as-possible work we are all here to create. It looks much more to me like an interpersonal dispute, and it looks like the same thing I warned you about 10 months ago or so, creating a hostile environment for specific other editors. You are projecting your own personal crusade about using apostrophes correctly (which I do agree is a laudable goal) and creating a narrative of your own victimisation as the "honest messenger". Multiple individual editors, and the overwhelming consensus at WT:RD (and WP:ANI once I seem to recall) have been telling you to drop that particular stick. You need to rethink your approach on this issue, as I don't find it productive and am willing to enact a block if it continues.

No comment. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 09:42, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

This was just brought to my attentions...

Hi, it's been awhile. I just want to thank you for removing the trash from my talk page. I didn't notice it since it was posted at the same time as something else so it was easy to miss. An editor emailed me about this which is how I learned that you stepped in to remove the post. I hope you blocked the account though it was probably a throw away account so that would probably not matter. Thanks for deleting that garbage. I hope all is well with you, --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:45, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Ehh, you sleep, we patrol - just part of the standard service plan. :) I didn't actually block that account as it made no further edis, aame old game. My outlook is that whoever they are, if that's the way want to waste their life, that's the choice they make. My choice is to spend as close to zero seconds as possible of my own life dealing with it, so I just did the revert.

I do judge that edit as well within my mandate to enact a rev-deletion though, so perhaps you could outline your preference in those cases. I generally don't revdel on regular (long-term, active, non-admin) e4ditor talk pages when they're not able to see the deleted content themselves, I suppose that's a perverse form of respect that you should be able to read all the garbage that comes your way. And that whole calling up another page to make the deletion, smacks of effort, which yeah, for one of the parties why should I ever bother?

However, if your preference is to not see such material at all, even in your TP history, I would be happy to vanish it away on first sight. It would remain in admin-only space (I've yet to see truly oversightable posts aimed at you) but where you wouldn't be able to read it. Either way is easy, so just say. And I'll go back nd block that account too if you want - it will take a whole 30 seconds extra, puff-puff, :) Franamax (talk) 05:46, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for asking for my input about this, but don't waste anymore of your time than is needed. The idiot that puts stuff like that on here is a waste and I don't want anyone to waste anything on them that is not needed. I saw what was written and it's pure trashy, but nothing associated with me, just the editor who put it there. So no, you don't need to do anything else with that. If something is put on my page and I think it should be revdel I'll let you know, how's that? If it's outting or something against policy than of course do it, but other than that lets just laugh at the juvenile not having anything better to do. I wish I knew who it was though. I think I might have been wrong before thinking it was this other person, not sure, but, maybe, but... Anyways, thanks for asking and for taking care of this for me. --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:11, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Complaint

Please, notify user Curb Chain and Good Ol’factory to hault harassing my main "keep" vote on the Category: Categories for deletion site on the Category:Dangerous Professions page. I have warned them and they have kept the argument in contact, I propose to let is cease.--Corusant (talk) 03:21, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, it doesn't look like they need any warnings. Wikipedia works by open (and calm) discussion, they just happen to disagree with you, which does happen here. They're outlining reasons based on policy, not pursuing you as a person. It's too bad that the work you've done looks like it will be undone soon, but consensus seems to be against you there. Remember that you don't have to keep posting there if you don't want to, but you can't really insist on having the last word in any discussion. I know it's annoying to lose your hard work, but that's the way it goes sometimes here. :) Franamax (talk) 05:15, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Forgive me, but I wasn't trying to vote twice, however I did delete my relative's vote, thank you :)--Corusant (talk) 20:13, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I've been pluggin' away...

After 3 years, 7 months, and 5 days... I feel I can give something to others who might come aboard as confused as was I. WP:Schmidt's Primer (shortcut WP:MQSP) Whatcha think before I go live? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:14, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Already been looking it over for a few days. ;) I'm impressed and I think it will be a valuable addition. Some quibbles with tense, "it is hoped" vs. "we hope" - or maybe it's "voice", passive vs. active? Maybe a bit more up-front about reading the heck out of article and user talk pages to learn what's going on, asking others for help (incl. mentoring/coaching, assuming that program is still active) and copying the "guts" - like the structure of an infobox or cite template. I see you cover using cites farther down, have to recheck if you're pointing to any gadgets/tools for building those, I think that's a large barrier for newbies (as it was for you for a little while :). Copyrights / ownership - while we don't WP:OWN articles, we most certainly do own and hold copyright in our own creative contributions here, we grant them under a permissive license which demands attribution - probably best not to get into those details! And have you ever looked at WHelp:Wikipedia: The Missing Manual? I always thought that was a great resource. I'll look more in the next few days - or wait 'til it goes to project space and change it to whatever I want it to say. ;) ;) It's very good work, comgratulations. Franamax (talk) 08:38, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Inre WP::OWN... needed to stress that whatever anyone contributes can and will be edited (sometimes mercilessly) by others. Inre cites: I present it both ways. In remembering my own early days, and as you know, I was doing it long-hand before learning the widget for doing it more easily. So I thought to offer same to newbs: lern long hand and then beer undestand shothand. Let them understand the rules of the road and why they exist before feeling comfortable behind the wheel. Help: Wikipedia: The Missing Manual added to the additional reading section. Appreciate your keen eyes. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:11, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

As you may have figured by the redlinks above, WP:PRIMER has gone live. Discussion on its talk page led to the creation of WP:NAU as well. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:35, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

FYI

Hello, Franamax! I just wanted to let you know that this turned out to be not a test edit (though there's certainly no way you could have known that and were AGFing). His next edit, where he calls the user a "Nazi scumbag disabled persecutioner" in his trademark shorthand, along with the geolocation of Taipei, Taiwan, show it to be a sock of Sven70 (talk · contribs), and I tagged it as a confirmed one. I don't think a block is needed since he's only made two edits and is being watched. Cheers :> Doc talk 21:11, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, my mistake there. The UT edit was the first one I saw on my watchlist and I took it as random text. Checked the preceding one and it was random(-ish) too, checked for more contribs for an hour, then let it go. I always try to rv an IP's first edit or two as a "test", in keeping with my philosophy that everyone on Earth gets at least one check to see if Wikipedia really is the enyclopedia that anyone can edit and half will try something silly - so only another 3 billion more tests and the vandalism will stop. ;) If I'd seen that embedded message though, I would have blocked right away. Thanks for the note, definitely one for my patrolling checklist. Regards! Franamax (talk) 23:22, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

You made no mistake at all. I'm just familiar with Sven, and saw his edit to BBug's talkpage and then went backwards; and then wanted to inform you of whom exactly you encountered. Sven's one of the more memorable trolls I've encountered here, and his random claims of accusing WP of "abusing" the disabled and AN/I being a "snakepit" out of nowhere are just disruptive. Hope all is well with you! Cheers... Doc talk 23:35, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

The lynching continues...

Since you've already posted, I'd like to hear your opinion on WP:ANI#Proposed_ban_of_User:Buffs_from_User_talk:Hammersoft. It is my less than humble opinion that people are very much on the WP:IDONTLIKEIT bandwagon, but nothing in policy backs up any reason for a block. Just because you don't like it (for whatever reason), doesn't mean it can't be done. Buffs (talk) 17:57, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Is this a violation?

Please check out the opening paragraph on user Calton's talk page. It reads thus

It's clean-up duty, mopping up after the dishonest, incompetent, and fanatical. Can't imagine why you'd have a problem with that. The above obviously includes the various trolls, spammers, quacks, greedheads, and crackpots -- and their enablers -- who hang out at ED and WR. I also seem to have attracted the unwanted attention of a crackpot spamming "psychologist", an indefinitely banned (for good reason) spammer, and an indefinitely banned anger-management poster child socking from the Czech Republic (and his reincarnated sock). If you're one of the those various trolls, spammers, quacks, greedheads, crackpots, and/or their enablers, welcome! Now get lost. Calton

I find it in very poor taste and against Wikipedias rule on civility. 186.2.136.202 (talk) 18:38, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't see anything that needs acting on, it's an expression of frustration by a dedicated editor. It doesn't name anyone specifically and it's on their user page (as opposed to their talk page), so people aren't forced to read it. My own approach to the sorts of people referenced is generally just ignore them, I figure if I'm putting something on my user page about it, then they've won. But everyone's different and we give people a lot of leeway in managing their user pages. Franamax (talk) 18:57, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Restoring Solar powered fountain & Solar traffic light

Can you please restore Solar powered fountain and Solar traffic light so I can get to work on them? (Maybe as it was done to Solar–Hydrogen energy cycle per this discussion?) Thanks. Suraj T 12:37, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

They are in your user space where I first put them, at User:Surajt88/Solar powered fountain and User:Surajt88/Solar traffic light. I would recommend you put a bit more content in them before moving to mainspace. Franamax (talk) 13:50, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I'll have a look. And I have a request for you also. If you are revirewing your work and find previous copyvios, could you remove them then let me know? If you are the only substantial contributor, I can delete just the history version with copyvios present and keep all the rest. We're supposed to remove copyvios from the article history too, not just reword them. It might also help you too, you could truly rewrite the removed material from scratch. That's what I did with the 2 articles I recently userfied. Franamax (talk) 13:08, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I had actually asked for the copy with its history as it was when it was deleted. I understand that derivative works of copyvios are not allowed, but it'll help me greatly as I need not go on researching those topics all over again. I havent as yet looked in the articles I've reviewed so far for copyvios. I just reworded and paraphrased them so there'd be no chance of copyvios. The last couple or so articles I reviewed had one or two sentences directly copied. I'll let you know if I find them. Suraj T 04:20, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I removed only the copyvio material and left all the references, so you just have to re-read the sources to see everything that was there. I also left your section headings to keep the way you wanted to organize the articles. The Wikipedia writing I'm most proud of is when I read everything possible, then closed all the books and the windows and the journals and juit wrote what I knew. Then I put the sources in to ptove that I knew it (or fixed what I got wrong).

I'm not going to restore copyvio material onto this wiki. I could email you the deleted revisions but I don't understand why they would be helpful, since you can already read it in the sources I left.

As far as just rephrasing articles, no. Please identify and remove direct copyright violations so that I can delete the history versions. Otherwise I may have to also revdelete all your other work since the original copyright violation too. Please just review your past work, remove what you think was direct copying, then notify me so I can review the article and revdelete what needs to be removed permanently. Franamax (talk) 05:24, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

What I asked was to restore the article in the mainspace with Template:Copyviocore in place of the content, followed by listing at Wikipedia:Copyright problems and creation of a temporary page to work on like this. I would have got perhaps a week to work on it. I found it easier to work. Anyway I wont require that anymore. I have cleared Solar powered fountain. I'll review all my articles once again and update about the copied text here soon. Suraj T 06:34, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Nope, we're past listing "suspected" copyright problems that way. I'm not going to put the big black template on the article, list it, then wait for another admin to do the review. I already know what the problem is, and I can just list a WP:CCI case here if you prefer - but I'd rather just clean this all up quietly if it's OK with you. You need to remove your copying and let me look at it so I can permanently remove the copyvios. You can ask for review of my opinion at WP:CP, WT:CCI, WP:ANI or with one of tf the editors you've talked to recently about this. I welcome their review but until then, please let's try it my way and keep track of it on your subpage. Franamax (talk) 06:59, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Well I suppose I dint make myself clear. What I meant by asking you to post those articles in Wikipedia:Copyright problems was that it would give me access to the article history for about a week for me to work on it. Its what MRG did the first time around. (Discussion here. Sorry I missed the subsection in this link above.) Suraj T 07:10, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

(e/c with post below, which I will review tomorrow) I did give you time to review your past work, that was the time after I and others asked you to do so. You chose instead to continue with your usual editing. It is not fair to other editors here to sit back and wait for someone to go through everything you've done, please review it yourself first. If I have to be the first one to go over your work then I will just delete back to before the first copyvio I find. You will lose more infoboxes and article structure that way. Whether it goes to a temp page or not, every history version with substantial copyvio needs to be deleted. I, and others here, have given you the week and much longer already and it's still not fixed. Franamax (talk) 07:47, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Guess this would suffice?? Suraj T 07:37, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Reviewing my past edits is what I'm doing now. Rest assured that I completely understand that it was my mistake to have introduced copyvios and not acting immediately when you told me to review my edits. I'm of the opinion that it was not fair on your side to have commented that I was sitting back waiting for others to do the cleanup. I was thinking I'd do it when time permits until you came along and since then I've been doing as you suggest. You might also want to note that I contributed 5 DYK articles during the period. Though it might not have been your intention to have meant so, but, I'm not going to lose infoboxes and stuff. Its wikipedia that'll be losing valuable information and that's the reason why I'm reviewing my edits eventhough I'm not enjoying it very much. I'll be updating previous copyvios here. Please review them when you have time. Suraj T 09:15, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. Suraj T 08:44, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Oops

Thread moved from my Talk page. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 14:58, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry. That's what I get for coming home from a long day geocaching, soaking wet, cold and filthy, and trying to review things. <insert red-face icon here> Franamax (talk) 14:29, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

"Since I have no way to evaluate the veracity of your statement, I can only evaluate actions and likely outcomes." Language mistakes are sad, corrected language mistakes are better but it's best is not to make language mistakes in the first place. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 14:58, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Everybody makes mistakes. Franamax made one [1], but he recognized it, corrected it [2], and apologized for it [3]. Not sure what point you're trying to make by dredging up an old grievance from ten months ago. —Steve Summit (talk) 20:58, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

My 3rd point. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 20:39, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

If I'm counting right, you refer to your point about AGF (vs ABF or whatever other wiki-jargon). Here's another bit of jargon: "AGF is not a suicide pact". When acting in the administrator role, it is sometimes necessary to suspend all assumptions of good or bad faith and make an objective evaluation of actions and potential outcomes. If the outcomes would be deleterious to the project, then the actions should be curtailed. It's not fun, but it is necessary. Cuddlyable3, you have persisted in a disruptive pattern of behaviour for quite some time now. My warning to you at the time of the thread you cite above persists, as do the (at least two) warnings I've given you since then about badgering other editors over grammar/spelling issues and on-wiki statements which you do not seem able to let go of. Nothing has changed, those warnings are still active.

If you disagree with my actions and/or statements then or since, I am always open to review by uninvolved editors and I'd be happy to help you figure out which forum would be best to raise your grievance(s) for review. We can also continue the discussion here if you wish, but I'll ask you to be a little more clear about what exactly is troubling you. I'd be happy to engage you in dialogue. Franamax (talk) 01:20, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

My comment here -- which I hesitate to even make, because I fear it won't accomplish much beyond wasting the time of mine it'll take to type it up -- is to agree that, Cuddlyable3, there does appear to be an awful lot that you do not seem to be able to let go of. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that despite all the talk and warnings and blocks over the years, you seem to remain pretty sure that your actions are justified and in the right, that you don't need to change the way you act here, that your critics and their criticisms have little or no merit. And, since your critics (including me) are apt to be equally stubborn in their insistence that several of your opinions and behavior patterns are disruptive and really ought to change, it seems we're at a pretty uncomfortable stalemate, that we're never going to be able to really compromise or get along. (If this seems like an assumption of bad faith on my part, I apologize; I'm just calling it like I see it.) —Steve Summit (talk) 02:33, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh c'mon, give yourself some credit Ummit, you wasted my time too when I read this. ;) And who knows how many other TP watchers may have used up part of their life? This is a massively-edited site, don't discount your own ability to massively waste much more time than your own. Sorry, I find it hard to resist such a great straight line. I would wikilink "straight line" to the comedy definition, but all we weem to have here and at wikt: is geometry! </lamecomedy> Franamax (talk) 03:01, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

@Franamax, you stumbled and then fixed. I don't know why you would be watching that particular article of Wikipedia's 3.7 million when AFAICS you never contributed to it or its discussion page, or why your carelessness arose. Why did it arise?

@Steve Summit, you will find me obdurate about the orthodox English meanings of the contraction it's and the genitive personal pronoun its, all criticism notwithstanding, until an eventual WP:RS says otherwise. That could legitimately enter Wikipedia via a content discussion leading to consensus at the relevant disambiguation and article ^{1 2}talk pages . That has not happened. I don't rule out a de facto language evolution that might point towards a change in these words but it is not the remit of any Wikipedian to lead that way. Discussions with editors with viewpoints about these words (<redacted>) have raised some interesting claims. Crude insults a la "nazi", and admins who block, threat blocks, forcibly delete posts and page(s), and post puerile mockery are frankly irrelevant noise on the subject. They and not my honest interest in English are the root of the stubbornness that you observe. That's how I see it. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 13:01, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I rest my case. —Steve Summit (talk) 23:48, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

(undent) Cuddlyable3 I have modified your post above, and I am drained of almost all good faith. I took your reposting of my original apology here as just your usual prickly habit of trying to get attention per your "talk page policy", modified only by the necessity to attach some impenetrable "response" to avoid a block. It now appears to me that your intention all along was to revisit your grammar crusade, restate your case (once again!) and name yet again some editors who are the target of your harassment campaign. That is not acceptable on my talk page, and is not acceptable on any page on this project. If you even link to a diff of my removal, or an oldid of the previous version, when you just happen to mention censorship somewhere else and someone asks what you mean, I will consider blocking you.

To your direct question, I noticed the edit whilst reviewing your recent contributions, as you have recently resumed editing after a block. I should have spotted that as your laudable contribution to improvement of our main article-space content, exactly the sort of attention to detail in the mainspace many editors have been asking you to focus on for quite some time now. I failed in that measure. Franamax (talk) 02:57, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Escalating alphabeticals

In the context of Wikipedia:Escalating alphabeticals, perhaps you may have some insight which will help to improve our articles about Law of the instrument and Déformation professionnelle. In the realm of problems our conventional wiki-system creates, please consider the confirmation bias implicit in Maslow's hammer, which is popularly phrased as "if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail".

I wonder if this suggests a way to expand the scope of the essay -- adding perhaps another section with a sentence or two? --Tenmei (talk) 17:41, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Manners

Apologies for rudely cutting in here. I guess I missed the fact that you had already addressed the same point. ---Sluzzelin talk 12:19, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Heh. Are you responsible for my thinning hair and expanding waistline too? This interference has to stop! :) No problem & regards... Franamax (talk) 12:35, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Re 174.255.66.196

Thanks. I doubt there is anything to say, but I'll await the CU William M. Connolley (talk) 05:17, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Nortel#Took_40_minutes_to_revert_vandalism.3F

Sorry, I did not mean to offend. Ottawahitech (talk) 19:54, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I was actually kinda pleased that your example was vandalism that I'd already fixed, and just took the opportunity for a snappish response. :) I agree that lack of detailed article patrollers is a concern, and I always say that the best response to schoolkid vandalism is not red templates on their talk page, it's to be sure that when they tell their buddy in study break to look what they put on Wikipedia, their buddy looks and it's already gone. And probably better in that case that a RC patroller didn't catch it, or worse, just the 2nd vandalism - I found the same IP playing a little game elsewhere, not sure if the Hugglers do those sort of checks. Anyway, no serious offence taken and good to know there's one or two other regular editors keeping an eye out too. :) Regards! Franamax (talk) 23:06, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Invitation to Vancouver meetup

Hello,

Wikipedian British Columbians are planning a meetup at the Vancouver Public Library, Central Branch, on Sunday, October 16th, as part of the Wikipedia Loves Libraries events. If you wish to attend, please see Wikipedia:Meetup/Vancouver and add your signature to the list.

Thank you! InverseHypercube 03:17, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Larry Summers

Although you're right that the "intrinsic aptitude" hypothesis was just that—a hypothesis—Summers did conclude his talk by saying that he personally believed that it was the most likely explanation: "So my best guess, to provoke you, of what's behind all of this is that the largest phenomenon, by far, is... that in the special case of science and engineering, there are issues of intrinsic aptitude... and that those considerations are reinforced by what are in fact lesser factors involving socialization and continuing discrimination." If Summers had never uttered those last few sentences, and stuck to offering hypotheses, he would probably still have a job at Harvard. Kaldari (talk) 23:14, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, well if he was out to provoke, mission accomplished I guess. :) I suppose my response would be to question nim closely on what exactly his guess was based on. Summers was/is a very bright person and I rather doubt he would hold to a position based on sheer dogma. And he wasn't suggesting the pretty little things stay home and work on embroidery, or that the university policy would change to reflect his supposition. And it seems to me that if (a big if) there truly are differences in intrinsic aptitude, then it would be even more important that those women who are "top end of the curve" get the support they need to realize their potential. I didn't follow the nitty-gritty details, but my impression was that he was pilloried for even suggesting that men and women might have intrinsic differences that should be recognized. Coming from a family where my sisters were always told they could do anything they wanted (architect, doctor, doctor), I've never bought into the idea that difference implies inferiority. It just seems simpler that if my sister needs to move something heavy, rather than her working out a system of levers and pulleys, she calls me and I come over and lift it. Franamax (talk) 01:44, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

For your information

Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Layout#Against_putting_nav_boxes_in_their_own_section. I can say no more. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 11:25, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Bobby Hull - Chicago Black Hawks 1960 - LAC -E002505660.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Bobby Hull - Chicago Black Hawks 1960 - LAC -E002505660.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a {{helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 18:39, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	Thanks for coming to the Vancouver Wikipedia Loves Libraries meetup! InverseHypercube 23:21, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Shared IP archiving

Hi Franamax,

You weighed in a bit on this proposal to archive shared IP talk pages at VPR – I've since updated the specs a bit, and I'm working with Petrb to design a bot that would help us (some first-pass bot operating instructions here). If we get consensus on the proposal, we'd take the bot through WP:BRFA.

If you have a minute, mind weighing in again on the VPR discussion? :) Thanks! Maryana (WMF) (talk) 22:01, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Canada article - ranking of academic papers in space research

Courtesy note that I posted some thoughts (actually I got into it altogether too much) about the sentence that troubles me on the Canada Discussion page. In brief, after careful consideration I judge the source as flimsy per criteria, and thus the sentence to be unduly weighted. Further, it doesn't add meaningful substance to the section which is otherwise very well presented. I am deferring to you and / or the general community, rather than merely redacting your edit that replaced the material and citation. Nice to run into the WP:FRIES granddaddy. Respectfully, and with kindest regards. FeatherPluma (talk) 06:53, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Block of Δ

Hello Franamax, why did you block Δ? The block is not a violation of the ArbCom ruling. He is not enforcing the NFCC policy by having a tool that allows users to enforce the NFCC. The tool has existed long before the ArbCom ruling. Thanks, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 04:16, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes he is still trying to enforce NFCC. Usually a topic ban means you stop dealing with that subject matter for a while, that's the whole point. The toolserver access has left Beta still semi-participating in that area, but on-en:wiki, they are topic-banned. That means not discussing the topic in any sense of enforcing it. Franamax (talk) 04:21, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

He is prohibited from enforcing the NFCC. No where in his restrictions does it say that he is prohibited from maintaining a tool that assists other users in enforcing NFCC. He did not violate his restrictions by notifying a user who uses the tool of changes he made to the tool. It is common practice to do that. The tool existed before the ArbCom sanctions. If ArbCom wanted him to stop maintaining the tool, wouldn't they have said so? Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 04:27, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom quite rightly recognizes that they have no jurisdiction over use of the toolserver. They do have jurisdiction over use of this particular WMF wiki, the enjoined Bwta from making edits relating to NFCC enforcement on this wiki, and Beta made an edit relating to MFCC enforcement. Beta is topic-banned from NFCC enforcement. What else was that edit related to? Franamax (talk) 04:37, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Franamax, I generally think you've got your head on straight, but this time I think your reading of the ArbCom remedy is just plain mistaken. Delta isn't topic-banned from NFCC enforcement. He's banned from making "edits enforcing the non-free content criteria". By rephrasing the restriction the way that you keep doing, you're (presumably unintentionally, but erroneously) significantly broadening the language and interpretation of Delta's restriction. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:43, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

The block is sound, Δ was clearly doing just what he is not supposed to do, working on NFCC enforcement. The difficulty is that the wording of the arbcom restriction isn't quite right, and Δ operates in the "give me an inch, I'll take a mile" mode regarding his restrictions. The comments on ANI are focusing on the literal wording and ignoring the spirit of the restriction; I don't believe anyone has contested that the purpose of the edit was to assist with NFCC enforcement. I have added this incident to the arbitration evidence page and I'll eventually write a proposal on the workshop page to see if arbcom is interested in tightening the wording of the restriction. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:34, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Block of Δ by Franamax|Block of Δ by Franamax]]. Thank you. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 04:46, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Excessive, robot-like NFCC enforcement

Hi Franamax, I noticed that a page I follow had some images stripped by user Alpha_Quadrant. Looking at the user's change history [4], I also saw discussion about a bot written by user "Δ". I don't know if Alpha_Quadrant uses that bot program, but I see user Alpha_Quadrant actively defending user Δ. Looking over a handful of changes by Alpha_Quadrant, which happened in fast succession, and I saw several absurd image removals. I reverted some, but there seems to be a larger problem at hand of removing images because of faulty metadata about rights, without any common sense being involved. I don't know much about this, or how involved you are, but let me know if I can help with this discussion. I encourage you to continue to try an prevent wholesale removal of content by robots. There's no way that humans can follow up on dozens of automated image removals. And content should not be removed just because the Wikipedia contributor is not expert in Fair Use metadata. In most of these cases, the origin and legitimacy of the image can be quickly deduced. Wxidea (talk) 00:22, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Well first of all, to my knowledge there are no "bots" running in the area of NFCC enforcement as far as actually editing this wiki. There are lots of software tools that let editors collate and assemble data, and then it is up to each one of them to decide what to do. Some may just work from a list of iisues to investigate, some may try to run through an automatic list of predefined edits. You haven't specified with diffs what you think I should be looking at, so I'm not sure how I can help you here. There's no doubt that we have a problem here with people inappropriately adding images owned by others, and we have a big problem too with people uncritically adding text copyright violations, which is a bit more my field. What specifically do you have a problem with? Franamax (talk) 01:02, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. It looked like a bot because the edits were systematic, so I thought it might be related to the issue you had raised. Sorry if this has nothing to do with you. User Alpha_Quadrant removed valid images that lacked specific fair use rationale tagged to the image. Any common sense or reading of the captions shows the images are valid. He said on his talk page that the "burden is on the user who added the image to add fair use rationale." That's true, but there's a risk of throwing out the baby with the bathwater if we rely purely on metadata. FYI, here's some examples:

• [5] - removal of Singapore currency notes - few things are more public domain than currency
• [6] - removal of images, including one with a caption that noted 'Photographs are all circa 1907 or earlier, and thus in the public domain according to the author'

I understand this issue might not interest you. I only mention it to complete the explanation, as it seemed related to the NFCC bot issue you were talking about previously.Wxidea (talk) 06:02, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Just because something is currency does not make it public domain. Quite a few currencies are in fact heavily copyrighted. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 22:25, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Beta, please do not use the (now removed) {{facepalm}} template as you did above, here on my talk page. I've several times now read the discussion here and it seems clear that the accepted use is to either indicate one's own ambarassment, or to indicate frustration after a prolonged unfruitful discussion, and even then with discretion. You are coming here and using the template in the more bitey and disapproved way, and you are not entering the discussion in a civil way, nor have you provided any useful diffs to support your case. And umm, why are you getting involved in discussions about what is and isn't NFCC? Franamax (talk) 22:52, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

See my explanation here. The removals I made to the images were well within NFCC policy. As to the above examples Wxidea cited, the cira 1909 images would need to have verification that the images are in public domain in the United States. The photographs appear to have been originally published in Germany. In any case, right now they have license tags stating they are assumed to be copyrighted, and used under fair use. Therefore the images must have a valid fair use rationale per NFCC criteria 10c. As to the currency images, there is no evidence provided that said currency is in public domain. It may indeed be copyrighted. On a side note, Betacommand is prohibited from making any edits enforcing the NFCC policy. He is not prohibited from discussing the NFCC policy. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 02:57, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I have trouble comprehending the behavior of people who jump at the opportunity to remove content and unravel the work of others, when they know the content is ok, just because it's missing some non-free use rationale. I will not further discussion on this on this page. Wxidea (talk) 06:14, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Wixidea, you are free to discuss wiki-things here anytime you want, so long as people stay civil and concentrate on the encyclopedia content, we're furthering our goal of creating this work. In your first example diff, on the national banknotes, there are two issues: one is the public-domain status of the images, which has been and still is discussed widely here. The works have to be copyright-free in the USA since that is where the servers are. Here is Cornell's handy and greatly confusing guide to figuring it out. And there is a related issue, which is that even if the banknote images are copyrighted, can each of those images be shown in one single article if they all have proper non-free rationales - and that is another item of heated discussion, mostly on whether or not the WMF resolution wording about "must be minimal" means there should be a limit on the number of non-free images used in any one article. I don't believe that has ever been definitively settled. On your second diff, I took a look at that article and what jumped out at me was the "Sources of information" section, the first entry states "This was a pioneering work" in Wikipedia's own editorial voice. Fine, maybe it was, but says who? So I really got stuck there before evaluating the image use you are contesting, and I will always focus first on the words before the images. Additionally, do keep in mind that the editors here who choose to work on making sure our image use is compatible with our "free" mission are faced with a daily onslaught of inappropriate use by new(ish) editors who just don't understand our policies. I think it's better to try to appreciate their efforts, which at times will probably seem robotic, 'cause yeah, when you concentrate on a task here, you do end up doing the same thing over and over again. If you have anything further to say, don't feel that you are prevented in any way from expressing it here. Franamax (talk) 07:14, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. It's interesting to me that you have rationale for rejecting the above examples. Here's one more: [7] Why are some logos kept, and other deleted?Wxidea (talk) 08:03, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that's an interesting diff. The "easy" answer off the top of my head is that the Foundation resolution I linked above does specify "machine-readable format" for the exemption doctrine policy. That means dumber than a human and is why we insist on separet FURs for aach instance of use. If the removed images don't have those FURs then the removal is legitimate and policy-compliant. "It's obvious" is not an acceptable argument to retain those images, but cheatnote: you can just copy and modify the exact rationales used on the images which are left in. Which comes to the second question, by my reading of "minimal use", no non-free images should be used there at all, as they are not essential to aid the reader's understanding of the topic of the article. So I would agree with you that either all the image usages should be removed, or a common rationale should be provided for each. I'd be interested to hear AQ's view on this. Franamax (talk) 09:27, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Email

You should have gotten an email from me yesterday, although I was having some problems with the interface and am not entirely certain it got sent. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:04, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes I did get it. Haven't had time to look at it yet, I was on my 17 km hike today. :) Franamax (talk) 04:06, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Just a short note on incorrect pics

Hi,

Just to leave you a short note that the images you put on about 2 years ago of Thni Kong Tnua, the Jade Emperor's Pavillion, are actually of the Goddess of Mercy Temple, Kong Hock Keong Temple. I didn't remove them outright as that page is rather empty anyway.

Stkhoo (talk) 09:36, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, interesting. I was working with Acred99 (talk · contribs) at the time, they were the uploader and I helped them with proper licensing and article formatting. Can you explain why you think they are wrong? They come (properly released) from Acred's website here, maybe you could comment on that too. I don't see similarities between the website images and our existing image of Kong Hock Keong here, for instance the chandelier in one, the ceiling canopy in others. We shouldn't leave misplaced images lying around the wrong article, so more details would be helpful. Thanks! Franamax (talk) 22:43, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Hmm .. must have been a slight mix-up or something by Acred or something, compare this image from the TKT article, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Thni-Kong-Tnua-Jade-Emperors-Pavilion-Taoist-temple-Mar-2001-00.JPG with this image from the KHK article, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Kong_Hock_Keong_Penang_Dec_2006_002.jpg

You will find that they are of the same place. Confusion may have arisen as there is a banner stating donations to TKT in the TKT pic, but I can assure you that both temples are under one administrative trust and as such there were banners on all the temples belonging to the same trust. In fact two different banners stating the same thing is on the both pictures, with TKT rendered as Tnih Kong Tnua in the TKT article, and Tien Kong Than in the KHK picture. I will note that these are just different transliterations of the same chinese characters in Penang Hokkien and Mandarin.

As for the second image in the TKT article, while I have no image evidence to back it up, I can 100% assure you that is the internal compound of the Goddess of Mercy (KHK) temple. Feel free to ask me further for clarification should it be necessary. Stkhoo (talk) 01:53, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

In lieu of a talkback template

G'day there. Re Károly Ferenczy and Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2011 November 12, do you happen to know where I might get my hands on the Art Online source for free? --Mkativerata (talk) 18:26, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

(Jumping in) AFAIK there isn't a free version, but I've emailed a copy to you. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:45, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Nikkimaria. --Mkativerata (talk) 18:48, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Nikkimaria, my work here is done. :) Another productive morning, time for lunch now... :) Franamax (talk) 19:58, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Just riding it out til your pension kicks in, eh? The Interior (Talk) 20:08, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I saw blue sky today for at least 1/2 hour this morning, so I'm planning another day-long geocaching mission. Should be lots of newly fallen trees out there to clamber over (as opposed to the day 2 months ago when we were in the bush when the "pressure wave" came through and cottonwood branches were falling within metres). :) Franamax (talk) 20:16, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Re: Guy Laverne Fake

Wikipedia:Help_desk#For Franamax on mispelling in title of article on Guy Leverne Fake. Dru of Id (talk) 16:12, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Been trying to catch you; the FJC link that was in the article has the Leverne spelling. Dru of Id (talk) 16:14, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm looking at it now. Franamax (talk) 16:17, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Should be all done now, let me know if you see any remaining problems. Franamax (talk) 16:47, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

:D Dru of Id (talk) 17:22, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for jumpng in

Thank you for the help with "Stephen G. Granger". I do have a question as your an admin can I get you to delete this record from edit history. I have saved the text in a separate edit so All the rest will not be lost.Moxy (talk) 05:34, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Looked clean so I gave it a shot and passed it up the chain to oversight. You will either see no (-two) edits that used to be there, or deleted edits in the history, or restored edits if someone decided I done wrong. ;) Franamax (talk) 06:09, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

		Wikipedia Administrator's Award
		Thank you for keeping our editors personal info private and secure. Just wanted you to know that all your administrative contributions here on Wikipedia are very much appreciated.Moxy (talk) 06:12, 4 December 2011 (UTC) {{{2}}}

Chat with Special Collections

Hey Franamax, how's it hanging. I was able to have a little in-person chat with Ms. Russell at the VPL. To avoid being repetitive, I'll link you to User Talk:InverseHypercube where I've explained myself further. Best, The Interior (Talk) 23:46, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Internet utility to project the horizon

I saw your question just now as it is about to be archived, so I'll answer here as well as on WP:RD/C, to make sure you receive the answer. I found this site:

http://www.heywhatsthat.com/wjr.html

It appears to do exactly what you want. I tried it out from my location. It didn't label all the peaks, but it drew a nice, sideways-scrollable map of the horizon, with a map underneath, allowing you to click on a point in the horizon, and find the corresponding point on the map underneath. Hope this helps, --NorwegianBlue ^talk 15:35, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

RD/M revision deletion

Did you really intend to hide as many diffs as you just did? (WP:RD/M, 6+1 revisions at 01:06 and 01:13.) —Steve Summit (talk) 01:38, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, as they are all covered by the same policy. I checked and I'm certain that all the editor contributions that need to be there are still there, and since they are all timestamped with a sig, I'm confident the proper attribution is there. Your bot's edit is not attributed properly, but I'm not too worried about that as I don't think that qualifies under the "principal authors" part of GFDL, and I think it's questionable under CC-BY-SA. The substantive content is all still there as far as I can tell. If you notice any discrepancies, please let me know. Franamax (talk) 01:48, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

The part I missed (until I found the note from User:Fluffernutter at User talk:HyperStudent) is that you all were trying to suppress some personally-identifiable information, which unfortunately involved a certain amount of collateral damage. The attributions are all fine; it's just unnerving not to be able to see the diffs. (I mean, you can't even see the diff that Comet Tuttle announced he removed!) I'll explain briefly Thanks for explaining at WT:RD for any others who are as baffled by all this as I initially was. —Steve Summit (talk) 01:59, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, it's precisely because of the potential collateral damage that one has to go through the process as quickly as possible, explaining as little as possible, until it gets resolved. All I can do is apologize afterwards that some things just need to be done first. I agree that it's pretty confusing, there's a nagging detail I still can't figure out, but that's another topic. Franamax (talk) 02:09, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Removal

Yes please - I noticed the confusion on RD/Talk, and was confused myself. Comet Tuttle (talk) 04:31, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Could you point me to the page that documents the fact that that specific piece of information is oversightable? I read the criteria at WP:SIGHT and WP:Revision deletion and did not see that particular type of information listed as a criterion for redaction. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:51, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

E-mail sent! Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:09, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

The mercury-obsessed IP editor

Regarding this, I appreciate that you stepped in, but I have little doubt that 96.54.160.222 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is the same person as 199.60.104.18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), whose comments he was erasing and, later, rewriting.

To provide a bit of context, he's been blocked twice in the last couple of weeks for tendentious editing at thiomersal, thiomersal controversy, and their associated talk pages. Among other problems, he has an unfortunate habit of advocating for the inclusion of random quotations he's found on the internet (often from blogs), citing in support references that he either hasn't read or hasn't understood. His tendentious editing, WP:COMPETENCE issues, and IDHT attitude have also led to those articles – and later one of the talk pages – being semiprotected for extended periods of time. The straw that broke the camel's back probably came yesterday at talk:thiomersal controversy, when he used both of those IPs plus a third address, 216.18.10.17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) to declare agreement with himself. He's showed up on my talk page today primarily because his usual outlet for conspiracy theories (Talk:Thiomersal controversy) has been semiprotected, and he just can't let go.

He has also taken to rewriting his signed comments – or, in more extreme cases, deleting entire talk page threads – when faced with challenges to his claims or explanations why his positions or suggestions are unreasonable. It's annoying enough when he does it on article talk pages, but I can't abide by him doing it on my own user talk page. I don't mind when editors make minor corrections to their spelling and grammar a little while after they post, but it's a deceptive rewriting of history when they come back a week after the fact and try to pretend they didn't say something (or worse, try to change it into a childish taunt.) Feel free to revert any of those IPs if they show up on my talk page again; he's aware that he's unwelcome there. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:39, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks fot the explanation, I had noticed a few variants of the same word flitting about here and there (I say thimerosal as a Canadian). I chose to address it as a pure technical problem, the editor can either disclose the connection between accounts or leave other posts alone, nice and simple. If I need to look more closely, I can do that too. I've communicated with the editor, it's pretty much up to them now. Franamax (talk) 07:58, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Tenofalltrades complains and complains and complains. Note, he fails to deal with specifics like why the thiomersal article mentions half life of inorganic mercury in the brain at 120 days, but in the controversy article he refuses to entertain this improvement. Like I said, he will not address specifics and constantly complains. There is no edit warring as the articles are not being edited. His position is that he KNOWS thiomersal is so safe that any truth that might create doubt he says is never sourced, and that the contribution is never a contribution so he says. Summing up, his little group's attitude is this quote, "It would be a gross violation of WP:WEIGHT to give ... vaccine opponents equal time as we give the entire mainstream worldwide medical community."[from controversy discussion] Note, the openning statement of the article is very different from this and this is why I call what tenofalltrades does vandalism. Quote opening of article, "The thiomersal controversy describes claims that vaccines containing the mercury-based preservative thiomersal contribute to the development of autism and other brain development disorders.

This source is used to show this is not made up, quote"Brain concentrations of inorganic mercury were approximately twice as high in the thimerosal group compared to the methylmercury group. Inorganic mercury remains in the brain much longer than organic mercury, with an estimated half-life of more than a year." Quote, "the proportion of inorganic mercury in the brain was much higher in the thimerosal group (21–86% of total mercury) compared to the methylmercury group (6–10%)" http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1280369/

Thiomersal article source for half life is password restricted. http://informahealthcare.com/doi/full/10.1080/10408440600845619 The wiki thiomersal article article quote, "Inorganic mercury metabolized from ethylmercury has a much longer half-life, at least 120 days" Why can't this also go in the thiomersal controversy article too???? This certainly also should be in the controversy article, but TENOFALLTRADES thinks he knows best, not so. RATHER THE CONTROVERSY ARTICLE STATES THIS quote, "Currently used methods of estimating brain deposition of mercury likely overestimates the amounts deposited due to ethylmercury, and ethylmercury also decomposes quicker in the brain than methylmercury, suggesting a lower risk of brain damage." Can't mention half life this undermines this quote, so tenofalltrades undermines any editor that wishes to correct this. Ethical duty to mention half life in the controversy article. Please Tenofalltrades, please answer why the fact about half life of inorganic mercury in the brain should be in the general article but not in the controversy article about thiomersal.--199.60.104.18 (talk) 21:00, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Case in point. Tenofalltrades declares, his words "What I have done – and will continue to do – is criticize ...you" --199.60.104.18 (talk) 21:42, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

This is indeed the case in point. The anonymous editor has serious difficulty with identifying, understanding, and presenting sources. In a remarkably ironic twist, he has engaged in similarly problematic selective quotation and misrepresentation when he quotes me—the full quotation actually reads "What I have done – and will continue to do – is criticize your ongoing failure to do adequate research before you post to article talk pages." Sorry to see you get dragged into this, Franamax. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:05, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Tenofalltrades should the half life of inorganic mercury in the thiomersal article be entered into the controversy article?? The improvement to the article should be the subject of your posts not the editor. The controversy quote that thiomersal leaves the brain faster is a misquote from this primary research monkey brains dissected, and that thiomersal leaves the blood stream faster. Your concern should be correcting the thiomersal controversy article statement it leaves the brain faster, when the established medical position is it stays longer. The problematic quote, "Currently used methods of estimating brain deposition of mercury likely overestimates the amounts deposited due to ethylmercury, and ethylmercury also decomposes quicker in the brain than methylmercury, suggesting a lower risk of brain damage." The research finds that the thiomersal carbon cloak around mercury once eaten by the cell, leaves the can, inorganic mercury, which sadly the brain has problems evicting. Tenofalltrades, I do not think you understand what the preservative thiomersal does and why it is so affective wiping out all life in a vaccine. It's bait. The carbon is food. And therefore, the issue with the FDA testing non bait methlymercury to talk about bait is retarded. The lame man metaphor pin points the process. I WOULD LOVE FOR THIS TO BE WRONG, SO PLEASE SAY WHY! --199.60.104.18 (talk) 17:34, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Reviewing the reference in the controversy article that thiomersal decomposes quicker in the brain and is safer [http://www.springerlink.com/content/3398g44388158630/fulltext.pdf The paper DOES NOT SAY decomposes quicker in the brain, yet the wiki article says it does. "p.64-65 Because Ethylmercury Decomposes Much Faster Than MeHg, the Risk of Brain Damage is Less for Ethylmercury Than for MeHg. Further the paper's science is weak as its logic is that MeHg is so deadly that anything that is not this, therefore by definition safer is the base of their claim.

The paper disclosed that, "there is no evidence in the literature to substantiate that inorganic mercury retained in the CNS plays any role in the neurotoxicity of organomercurials, including ethylmercury, nor is there evidence corroborating a putative role for inorganic mercury derived from demethylation of MeHg in the development of neurological effects during the chronic latent phase of exposure." Quote, "no data is available on the longer-term effects ([6 months) of inorganic mercury on brain structure or function, and it has yet to be established whether changes in the number of microglial and astrocytic cells in the developing brain are inherent to exposures to the lower levels of inorganic mercury associated with vaccinations." I have serious doubts about the paper's logic that inorganic mercury in the brain is NEUTRAL. Quote, "There are additional data that raise serious doubt that inorganic mercury is the proximate species of MeHginducedbrain damage." The SCARIEST QUOTE is "The estimated half-time of inorganic mercury in the brain in the same adult monkeys varied greatly across brain regions, corresponding to 227–540 days. SO IT IS CONTESTED THAT THE CONTROVERSY QUOTE STATES WHAT THE SOURCE SAYS, AS IT DOES NOT SAY decomposes quicker in the brain than methylmercury. --199.60.104.18 (talk) 19:02, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Richard Arthur Norton: Revisiting topic ban; Should it be removed or made indefinite?

Hi Franamax. You participated in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive228#Richard Arthur Norton copyright violations, in which a one-month topic ban on creating new articles and making page moves was imposed on Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk · contribs). The closing admin has asked for community input about whether to remove the topic ban or make it indefinite at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Richard Arthur Norton: Revisiting topic ban; Should it be removed or made indefinite?. Cunard (talk) 09:02, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

homeless person using shelter, library and drop-in center computers

Please do not block TALK as several people use these computers and it creates REAL problems. The reason for the many PID's is the limited access to the net. Living outside ain't so bad. It don't snow here, but it sure rains alot. Happy holidays. --96.54.160.222 (talk) 15:54, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

An alternative solution to the navbox layout problem

Would you please take a look at and comment on this: User:Butwhatdoiknow/Sandbox. Feel free to edit it as long as you are there. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 19:11, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Franamax. You have new messages at User talk:Butwhatdoiknow/Sandbox.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Autoblock fixed

Todd got it. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:46, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Muhammad images arbitration case

An arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images/Evidence. Please add your evidence by December 14, 2011, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 15:10, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

I swear sometimes I would forget my body if my mind wasn't attached. Tivanir2 (talk) 23:45, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I doubt I'll ever get accused of sockpuppetry. I have enough problems managing just the one account... ;) Franamax (talk) 23:52, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

about deletion log

Hi, I'm relatively new to this & wanted to know what deletion logs mean when you take something out with this reason: " removed edit summary for 1 revision (BLP violation)" - don't know what it means is all and want to learn. What does it mean? Thanks Franamax. Manytexts (talk) 08:59, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit summaries and revert

Franamax, an inaccurate edit summary isn't enough to justify reverting an edit. If the edit was genuinely wrong, let me know and I can address it. The dabsolver tool I used, in addition to making it easy to fix links to disambig pages, also makes various technical edits, and that is what was missing from the edit summary. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 07:04, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

My initial qualm was about resolving a dab to a redlink, which I would question but willing to discuss (maybe a sentence on the dab page or redlink there would be better). Beyond that, I believe I'm OK to revert as "unexplained changes" and let you justify what you're trying to do, here or on article talk. I checked the dabsolver link you gave in your edit summary and nothing I saw there described any (in WP:AWB terms) "genfixes" as part of the task, nor that those changes have community approval. Since you didn't explicitly describe the purpose of those changes, and they formed the more substantive portion of the alterations, my conclusion is that you used a deceptive (rather than inaccurate) edit summary. Please be much more clear on what exactly you feel your technical edits are improving, or link to a task which has prior community approval. What exactly is your task doing, is it described somewhere? I'd rather not scour back through your past edits trying to figure it all out. Franamax (talk) 07:33, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll make the disambiguation edits, and point the dabsolver guys to this page. With the exception of disambiguation hatnotes "For other uses, see", articles shouldn't link to disambiguation pages but to a page about the specific topic the page is discussing. If the topic doesn't have a page, a redlink is better than a link to a disambiguation page. Link to a disambig means that the user sees a blue link and thinks there's an actual article when there's not. Redlinking makes clear that there isn't an article and the user is welcome to create one. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 15:21, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your time

Moved to originating talk page per my stated preference, replied there. Franamax (talk) 22:59, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

New Section

Dear Franamax User, Please read the message that I posted on the Internet Provider talk page that is in my signature for more details. I have looked into recent events in which a friend of mine created an account on this website in order to troll it. I can tell you everything I know if I was able to contact you and talk privately via e-mail, but I do not know the password to the Comet Egypt account. I need some information on what is going on if you can help me. Thanks for your consideration, yours truly, 204.112.104.30 (talk) 05:24, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

thank you

Thanks for your kind words on my talk page. I'm glad that I can help out and it gives me a chance to explore a great library system. GabrielF (talk) 20:56, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Another thanks for cooling down Soglad and averting an ANI. As you may have noticed, I do have other frustrations out there. (sigh). Montanabw^(talk) 19:21, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Shattuck

Thanks for fixing that.LuciferWildCat (talk) 23:17, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah. I hope I don't have to intervene again. Reading over the discussions, there's more than one editor I'm losing patience with. Please think about whether your own actions are really furthering our overall goals, as opposed to just your own ideas of who should be contributing here. Franamax (talk) 23:23, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Who'd a thunk? Not me

Obviously, serendipity at work. Either that or we're eachother's socks. I looked at it and thought it read like an ad--I guess the one time that I didn't run it through Google I should have. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 21:05, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, we need to coordinate better on the sekrit mail list. ;) Kinda funny there was all this foofaraw about a new editor working so hard on an article when all they used was a mouse. I was thinking about Googling last night, but then all that cool drahmaz broke out... Franamax (talk) 21:10, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

BTW, I'm not against templating the regulars, I'm against templating in general. I use {{W-graphical}} and occasionally the block templates, and first time through an unfamiliar process I follow the instructions to be sure I provide all relevant links, but beyond that I always try to write (and link) in my own words. I think it's a more human and respectful way to do things, even if it takes me longer. Plus I think it scares the hell out of vandals on study break when they get "Hi. Time to stop now" on their user page, as in turn around to see if the teacher is watching them. :) Franamax (talk) 21:42, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, we're clearly not socks--I'm a great fan of templates, but I've often been accused of putting quantity before quality, haha. I'm just not as nice anymore, I guess, and the older I get, the less patience I have... Drmies (talk) 22:47, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Heh, there's a thread on VPR about duplicate section headings where someone complains about thanking for WikiLove messages ending up in the wrong section. I was tempted to say "you don't need a software change, just stop being so damn nice". I never have a problem with excess kittens on my page. :) Franamax (talk) 23:25, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

The only proper use for a kitten is to fuel the servers.

A kitten with a song. And now you know how to spell it too.

Drmies (talk) 23:43, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Dammit, I knew I was running the risk! :)

This is your final warning, if you vandalize my page again, you will be blocked from editing. Love the P-Funk though. :) Franamax (talk) 00:13, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I hereby award you the lazy feline award for...well...it's just a cute picture to further your aggravation... Buffs (talk) 06:56, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

You have a fine attitude

No sarcasm. Thanks for helping with the IP vandalism thing. fredgandt 03:18, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Waffle cake!

	For good spirits
	These are waffle cakes waiting to happen. Drmies (talk) 05:08, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

appreciation

I thank you for your extremely good summary at User talk:Steph-osborn. You are right that my own was a little more brusque than my usual--looking at all the associated articles, I though best to make a clean sweep rather than leave some hanging, and that inevitably might well seem unfriendly. There seems to be a sphere of relative degrees of dubious notability surrounding the publisher Twilight Times Books which will repay watching. They are not a vanity publisher, rather one of the fringe ones making use of the ease and inexpensiveness of ebook production. DGG ( talk ) 04:05, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I fully agree with what you were saying, I just cringe when I see someone complaining about getting bombarded with all these automatic(-seeming) messages, getting an explanation - then getting more of those automatic(-seeming) messages. Honestly, where was she supposed to respond, and what the hell is an "edit conflict" anyway? I'll hasten to add that the outcome is usually the same, I'm just anti-template as a general approach to new editors. Interesting background on the publisher, thanks! Franamax (talk) 04:40, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

agreed. But I'm at fault this time for adding the templates in that confusing way via twinkle. It's a dilemma--not set up to add the templates automatically, and risk not notifying people, or addd them automatically and produce the confusing result I produced. What I should have done, I suppose, is gone back and rearranged them quickly. In the longer term, we need to get those templates rewritten. The rewriting project has started with the warning templates, but perhaps we should do the speedy ones as a priority--but changing templates now means coordinating a lot of things all at the same time. There's also the problem of how to deal with people when one judges they aren't listening or acting in good faith. I would never have come down that hard if it had been a single article, but discovering a group like that , frankly, got me a little angry. My reputation for calmness is being defeated by the increasing promotionalism. And, alas, getting all the promotionalism is inevitable given out increased visibility. Our amateurish way of doing things has been our great strength, but is also a weakness. We can't help often doing things wrong. Just like I try to help when I see others being unreasonable, I count on others to help me out similarly. You're one of the people I trust most for that. DGG ( talk ) 08:47, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

One thing I would like to see is a feature in Twinkle (and tools in general) that could combine notices under the same section heading. So if 3 images are being nominated for deletion, the editor doesn't get 3 entire new sections in a row, just one section with either 3 templates or one combo template. If someone has already posted a speedy deletion notice, say for G12 copyvio, and I am also reviewing and delete another page for the same reason, my instinct would be to just add in plaintext under the template notice "I've also deleted <this> as a verbatim copy of <that>. <sig>". There likely are drawbacks to that approach too, but I don't like the point-and-shoot aspect of tools like Twinkle, in a way they make it too easy to address issues one at a time, rather than considering the combined impact on the target editor. I don't like the aspect of "stamp the page, I'm done here", though I do see its utility in dealing with lots of volume. Franamax (talk) 23:59, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Gandt

Thanks. As the user was "physically shaking with anger" it seemed best for me walk away. I guess everyone has bad wikidays. Toddst1 (talk) 19:40, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Betacommand

As one of the admins who blocked Betacommand/Delta in the 12 month period leading up to the present ArbCom case, it would be helpful if you could look over the questions here and see how much information you can recall. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 00:35, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Responding to your comment made at an ANI thread

I was reading through the last couple of comments in the ANI thread I started last night. You said "Yes Lecen was wronged, Carcharoth could have blocked immediately." You are right, but I wanted to explain here why I didn't do that. When I noticed Lecen's comment, it had already been several hours since he posted it, but I couldn't let that comment go unchallenged, so despite having been about to leave the computer for a few hours I took the time to post to his talk page (he responded almost immediately), and then I posted to ANI, and then to Sandy's talk page, saying I'd check back in an hour or so (which I did later). I could have done nothing, or just posted to Sandy's talk page (and let her deal with it, though given what Lecen said, that didn't seem entirely fair), or done various other things, but I thought more eyeballs were needed on the situation and probably more than a block was needed (i.e. some discussion about whether more than just a block was needed). And contrary to what some think about ANI, I don't think ANI always makes things worse. In my view, Manning (and Salvio) did a good job of calming things down and doing what was needed. So to sum up, I saw something where action was needed, had time to alert others to the situation but not fully deal with it myself (more than one person needed to deal with something like that anyway), trusted that it would get handled appropriately, and it did as far as I'm concerned. The matter may not end here, but at least more eyeballs are on this now. Carcharoth (talk) 17:16, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Really frustrated

The header says it all. I had been typing something here, but given recent postings and the way some things get misconstrued around here, I'm copying it offline instead. Hopefully you'll be able to work out what got me so annoyed. And the mood I'm in, I'm liable to shout at anyone, even you, so don't be too surprised if I get grumpy over anything you (or anyone else) says here. Carcharoth (talk) 19:42, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh my, the things I miss when I spend a happy day geocaching. I wasn't actually criticizing you for bringing the matter to ANI, your explanation was valid. And actually yes, that thread was handled relatively well by the two people you mention, although it certainly took a nasty turn later. My point to TCO was actually that the initiating comments were blockable no matter what, and the alternatives were getting blocked immediately, or getting blocked from an AN/I report. There are other ways to resolve disputes, as Manning had pointed out. Now I'm going to work on a New York Times Saturday crossword, my favourite. :) Good luck, I hope your usual equilibrium returns shortly! :) Franamax (talk) 01:38, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Eh, so-so. My equilibrium is returning, but I do feel that I've been gagged slightly, unable to respond to certain things that have been said because I might upset various people and because it could be misconstrued as baiting. But that's life, I suppose. Thanks for the reply and hope you had pleasant weather for the geocaching. Carcharoth (talk) 01:52, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello

I just wanted to say OK, and thanks! But that does mean I cannot answer the questions you've asked me there, so I'll do it here. The answer to the first question is no, the answer to the second question is that I wouldn't mind. User JackofOz helped explain things in the end. Now I am going to play a game of "hide the carrot" with mr. Bugs, that is more fun. Von Restorff (talk) 07:24, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

It's getting late here, so I'll just address the first one. If you were serioulsy issuing that templated warning, then I will deal with it administratively and dismiss your warning and no, ToaT will not "mey be blocked" from editing. You clearly disregarded Ten's instructions to cease the discussion on Ten's own talk page, perhaps because you are hard of "hearing". The hatting was legitimate, however WP:IDHT has a connotation of tendentious editing, which could be considered as a comment on the contributor rather than the content. It was solely for that reason that I modified Ten's own close, as a courtesy to defuse the situation - and Ten made an acceptable change. For you to come along afterward and warn about potential blocks, when clearly I am already capable of warning and blocking all by myself, strikes me as more tendentious editing better suited to a battleground than a collaborative work. You need to work on that. I may look at wider issues tomorrow, but hopefully not. You never know what you'll turn up when you start really scrutinizing edits, and I'm fundamentally a lazy person. If you have any serious concerns outside of that talk page, I'll bet you can put some diffs here. Franamax (talk) 08:24, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Sleep well. It was not a templated warning, Ten did not give instructions to cease the discussion on his talkpage, I was unaware you are an admin, and I do not have "serious concerns", even though I am a bit disappointed in him. The endresult is that both mr. Bugs and myself decided to ignore him. Feel free to scrutinize if you want to, there was a tempest in a teapot that I repeatedly tried to defuse by asking people to drop their sticks, JackofOz explained that using "of course" in the English language is considered very rude in certain contexts, I was unaware of that because the direct translation is not rude in my native language. Pretty boring story. Now that I know you are an admin I do have a request. Would you be so kind to take a look at this section on my talkpage and tell me if you can block this ip or if I need to request a checkuser or ignore it? Thanks in advance, Von Restorff (talk) 08:55, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

You should probably take that to WP:SPI, but be very circumspect with off-wiki and potentially personally-identifying evidence. I believe there is a listed address for the checkuser mailing list to send supplementary info. Franamax (talk) 10:11, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! I will do that when I return from shopping. Von Restorff (talk) 10:12, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I took a bit of information off your page history. Bugs had some good advice. I wasn't sure exactly what was the "thing" to look at, as in exactly what editor you wanted blocked. You should probably email me with details (if you want) as well as submitting an SPI report. Franamax (talk) 10:28, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your help with blocking that annoying duck, luckily he quacked so loud that we can safely assume it wasn't a rabbit. Von Restorff (talk) 20:50, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I believe the position of rabbit is already filled on this site. God forbid we should have two. ;) Franamax (talk) 21:37, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

2 female or 2 male rabbits on Wikipedia wouldn't be a problem. But a female and a male rabbit who read the Wikipedia article about the birds and the bees would breed, eh, well, like rabbits, and their natural enemy is absent! Von Restorff (talk) 23:21, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I have a long story about a previous property I owned, and a signal event involves a mommy rabbit and her tiny bunnies, me and a lawnmower, and me shutting doen and running away pleading "I'm sorry, I didn't know, I didn't know". No rabbits were harmed, but they never came back to their little home. I subsequently naturalized thr back yard and planted some native species (which I'd already partly been doing). There was a tiny bit of (tiny) community opposition to this, but when I started talking about the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and previous appeal court decisions and the species names of dozens of natural wildflowers on the property, the bylaw guy got a serious workload of other things to attend to first. Anyway, it became perfectly normal to come out the door in the morning and see a rabbit nibbling on the front lawn, and watch the families growing up (and getting smaller) out the back. One spring, I noticed a little baby weasel that got lost on my back patio somehow and was darting around while I had my coffee. Later that summer, on a hot and still night I heard an unearthly and chilling scream that brought me bolt upright out of bed. I finally figured it out, that baby weasel was grown up now and getting a fresh serving of rabbit. And it finally sank through: I have an apex predator now, much as I hate the thought of my bunnyrabbits dying, my ecosystem is complete. All those years of planning and doing and hoping and wondering why they don't come - now I have dozens of birds singing all day long, heck a dozen different species of bird, hawks hit my lawn to get snakes while I sit and watch, there's not an invasive weed in sight, there's a constant chorus of frogs and crickets all night, fireflies down by the intermittent stream, I have to gently brush preying mantis nymphs off my shoes when I go inside - and I have a king of the yard. I did it, I've finally done it, I've created my paradise. That was a good moment. :) (And that's the short version! :) Franamax (talk) 00:34, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Will you marry me? Von Restorff (talk) 00:37, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikimedia movement funds dissemination

Hi. Because you recently contacted the Wikimedia Foundation about funding resources, I wanted to invite you to help us create a list of the kinds of resources Wikimedians might need. This is to help generate ideas towards the development of guiding principles for funds allocation in the Movement. More explanation is given here. Your participation there, and that of any others you may know who have sought or considered seeking resource funding, would be much appreciated.

(This is, of course, in relation to this conversation. :)) --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 12:56, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Courtesy notice

FYI - may be of interest  7  03:11, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

RE: User Talk 173

Thanks for bringing the diffrence in IPs to my attention on editing my comments in a talk section. I forget when editing on a mobile pad that it uses a different address each time. I'll look forward to creating an account for myself. Thanks, soon to be formerly 173. 173.122.113.169 (talk) 20:57, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Adminship

Allow me to preface this by stating I have no opinion on your fitness for adminship pro or con.

Your RFA was closed as successful by Rlevese at 11:00, 10 November 2009. It was a close close. Rlevese apparently had his wife, JoJo, ask a question in your RFA. In my opinion, this tainted his close - users should not assert consensus in discussions where they, or someone very close to them, is involved.

Would you be willing to have another bureaucrat review the close? Thank you. Hipocrite (talk) 13:19, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I should also note as a postscript, because I forgot to in the text, that I do not believe you were aware of this or were at all at fault here. Hipocrite (talk) 13:20, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Hipocrite, that's not fair, and you know it's not fair. You're trying to put Franamax in a position where he would be embarrassed, or shamed, or otherwise socially pressured if he doesn't go along with a needless bit of procedure for procedure's sake and fall on his sword. I'm willing to stand up right now and state that it would be a bad idea for Franamax (or anyone) to ask for or endorse such a review in any situation where there wasn't any reasonable apprehension of actual error on Rlevse's part. Admins should not invite pointless drama.

Given it was a 'close' close, what would you expect the other crats to do? They'll say "Yep, that was close, could have gone either way" and shrug. A small but vocal minority will spend anywhere from a day to a week on various noticeboards trying to drum up a mob to harrass Franamax, until they find a new evil admin to annoy.

Feel free to find the instances where something was actually broken, but don't go looking for stuff that's just going to need a rubber stamp. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:16, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Let me again lead with my statement that I really don't know Franamax from a hole in the wall. When a judge is found to be taking kickbacks from prisons, the judge goes to jail for the rest of their lives, and every single one of their convictions is reviewed. I could just ask that Franamax, and every other Rlevese promotion be desysoped (again, I don't know Franamax from a hole in the wall), but I didn't. I only looked at the close closes, and the bureaucrat closes (they are always, by definition, close), where the puppet account voted or commented. I can't think of any more circumspect way around the fact that Franamax may or may not legitimately be an admin - can you? Hipocrite (talk) 15:56, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

No I would not. Sorry, I'm not interested in performing in this particular circus. Franamax (talk) 19:09, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

IMHO totally not necessary, but crats are well aware of the issues surrounding Rlevese and if they deem it necessary they should be the ones to initiate the process.  7  00:58, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Good for you, Franamax. When we start comparing bureaucrats to judges taking kickbacks, Wikipedia "is not a moot court" takes on whole new meaning. :/ Where do we go from here? Do we reblock everybody he ever unblocked? Undelete every article he ever deleted? Or delete the ones he didn't? Process for the sake of process does nobody any good. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:32, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Is that position entirely consistent with the practice of looking at all of an editor's articles once a pattern of copyright violation has been established? Malleus Fatuorum 01:38, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

It is completely unrelated. The practice of looking at all of an editor's articles once a pattern of copyright violation has been established is addressing a known problem. The sheer numbers of copyright issues that have been cleaned up through WP:CCI demonstrate that it isn't process for the sake of process. If people misuse their tools, that's the point to question whether they should have the tools. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:40, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps, but frankly I don't see the difference. Unless people look, they won't find. Malleus Fatuorum 01:43, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You don't see the difference between "we know you've systematically violated this policy on copyright in creating articles, so we're checking articles to see if you violated it in any we haven't found" and "we know you've violated this policy on sockpuppetry, so we'd better have somebody else determine if these other people should still be administrators and bureaucrats"? Strange. It seems so obvious to me. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:46, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

What I find strange is that you find it strange, as it seems so obvious to me that you are cherry-picking the decisions to question. Malleus Fatuorum 01:54, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Hopefully my explanation below will help make that clearer. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:57, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

(multi-e/c, I will be heard! :) Malleus, you don't go ask the articles to review themselves. You get into the trenches, read and compare, and clean up where necessary. It would be completely inappropriate for me to initiate any review. Franamax (talk) 01:48, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't expect you to initiate any review. And for just for the sake of clarity, I haven't looked at your RfA and so I don't know if it was close or not, or how the voting may have been affected by any socks; I'm simply making a general point, not singling you out, as so far as I'm aware you've been a competent administrator. Malleus Fatuorum 01:50, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Which is exactly why this situation is fundamentally different from CCI. :) In the CCI situation, we know that the articles are likely to violate copyright policy. We have reason to evaluate them for problems. They are intrinsically connected with their creator. In this case, we have no reason to assume flaws in Franamax or Nihonjoe or Avraham. They are not intrinsically connected with Rlevse or any socking he may have done. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:56, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

But we're not talking about flaws in any of those editors you mention; what we're talking about is potential flaws in the way they were promoted. To extend your argument into the area of reductio ad absurdum, what would your position be on an administrator who had clearly benefited from the votes of a number of sockpuppets, whether his own or someone else's, but had nevertheless demonstrated himself subsequently to be a decent administrator? The end justifies the means? is that really a message you want to be putting out? Malleus Fatuorum 02:03, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Shouldn't we wait 'til that absurdum actually happens? Covert misconduct in gaining adminship is already proven as a non-starter for the community. I'm sure you don't need links to verify that assertion. What flaw do you find here? And since this thread started as a request for me to initiate a review of my own promotion and you and I both agree that would be inappropriate, what was it again that's under discussion? Franamax (talk) 02:18, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Isn't that a bit like saying we shouldn't have laws against murder until someone is actually murdered? Or that we shouldn't have post-mortems in the case of suspicious deaths? Malleus Fatuorum 03:31, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Murder? Really? You'll have to enlighten me there, how is any of this in any way at all related to laws against murder? Were there Nazis involved? ;) Franamax (talk) 03:47, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I think that according to Godwin's Law you lose, but the issue is quite simply to do with natural justice. Malleus Fatuorum 04:36, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

This doesn't just extend my argument; it changes it altogether. Especially when you add "his own". :) (Because if it's his own, then clearly it is intrinsically connected with him, and it brings into doubt his ethics.) In any event, I'm afraid I don't really have time to form and take a stance on your fictional administrator who has clearly benefited from the votes of a number of sockpuppets. If he comes up, we can discuss handling him then. In this case, which differs significantly from those you posit, reassessing these decisions made years ago on the basis that somebody who took part in them may have used a sock would be as pointless as rerunning every AFD in which a sock puppet had !voted or canvassing had occurred. It's a huge waste of time. If there are actual problems, the way to address them is through a new discussion evaluating them on their merits. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 02:24, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Restore {{editprotect}} petition?

In deference to the original submission, perhaps the {{editprotect}} petition should be restored? Regards. JakeInJoisey (talk) 19:43, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

In light of what turned up after another editor complied with the request, I'm thinking it would be controversial under any circumstances so I won't restore the "answered=no" myself. I'm going AFK for now, so feel free to ask another admin or at a noticeboard if you feel this is urgent. In my RL time off, I'll be thinking about a Clarification request, partly along the lines of your own suggested wording. Franamax (talk) 19:59, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Reconsidering this, I think I better understand your premise. JakeInJoisey (talk) 21:02, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Recognizability poll

Franamax, since you participated in a previous poll on the wording of the "recognizability" provision in WT:TITLE, your perspective would be valued in this new poll that asks a somewhat different question: WT:TITLE#Poll to plan for future discussion on Recognizability. – Dicklyon (talk) 05:12, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

MSU Interview

Dear Franamax,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, were it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.

So a few things about the interviews:

• Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
• Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
• All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
• All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
• The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.

Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at [email protected] (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at [email protected]. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 19:22, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello

I was looking at this Talk:Canadian heraldry#Loyalist crowns and noticed that ROUX is being attacked right away. Perhaps its time for him to change identities - his reputation is simply to hard to ignore by most editors now a days it looks like. His past history is clouding peoples judgement of him of the bat. A fresh start may be a good idea at this point. I would post this to him, but as you can see hes only interested in hearing from admins at this point. Perhaps you can mention this to him in some fashion. Moxy (talk) 10:11, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I believe that Roux does know his heraldry, so it's a disappointing read. Did you look any further into the various other edits which preceded that exchange? How did those evident bad feelings come about? Franamax (talk) 10:24, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure how that heraldry incident happened - But to be honest I am not sure why hes like that - here is my first encounter with him a few years ago - did not go well and I avoid most post if I see hes involed. I realy think he needs a "fresh start" his reputation and mannerisms are off the wall and getting worst as is reputations grows. Moxy (talk) 10:39, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Talk pages, retirement, and boxes of dogs

From what I understand, removing others' comments from others' user talkpages is generally left to the users themselves, barring something completely inappropriate, but from this, would it be appropriate to assume you speak for Δ, then? Despite the fairly random nature in which the questions were presented, I would still appreciate a response.

• Why is Δ's user talkpage redirected to his userpage, when people might still want to talk to him?
  • Is he retired? Only plausible explanation I could see, but nothing in his recent history seems to overtly support this besides the fact that he hasn't edited in five days, and that's not actually that long.
• How exactly was this vandalism?

Thanks. — Isarra (talk) 18:42, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Beracommand (currently Δ) made those changes to their user and user talk pages when a proposal for a site-ban gained a majority of votes in this Arbitration case (which has not yet concluded). As I understand it, he also stopped operating his bot. I'm not sure if he's retired, but I'm pretty sure he's really pissed off right now, so I felt it better to respect his preference for blanked user pages. I believe he is unlikely to respond to queries just now, and you could take the redirection as a sign that you should ask questions elsewhere (which you are now doing here). The reverting edit you question was not vandalism, but in fact a misunderstanding as to Beta's intentions. I believe that Beta just happened to pick that option using a tool such as Twinkle.

You are correct that it is unusual to manage other people's talk pages, but this is an unusual situation, as a very long-running arbitration case is stalled just before closure, with possibly severe sanctions for Beta. My intention is to just give him space, while he and the rest of us wait for a conclusion. Do remember that he is able to review his talk page history, and if he finds your questions interesting, he can restore and answer them, so nothing is getting lost here. Franamax (talk) 19:08, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Right, thanks. But if that is the case, perhaps someone should post a sign? There wasn't much indication that such questions should be asked elsewhere; he's clearly more active than I am, and redirecting the talkpage to a page of nothing with vague summaries and vague reversions is just... vague. A sign saying this editor went fishing and got attacked by giant sea lemurs and as a result probably won't be around to respond to things anytime soon, however, would get the message across quite nicely even without getting into the whole... pile of other stuff that I don't really understand. And I doubt I could be the only one; wikipedia is pretty vague... er, large, that is. And vague. — Isarra (talk) 23:14, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Heh, yes, the Wikipedia editing enironment can be quite, let's say, challenging, and at times somewhat vague too. I blame this on the founders of the site allowing human beings to edit here. Ideally you are right, we should have convenient signs to explain everything, and not argue endlessly about what colour the sign should be and how large the box with the dogs actually is. This is a rather unsusual situation though, the "other stuff" is that Beta has been hauled in front of the "highest court" and may be banned from the site - but we don't know, because we're waiting for the court to make up its mind. So if the editor is not banned, we give them wide latitude to manage their own userpages, and until we know one way or another, manage as best we can. Note that I don't think you did anything "wrong" by posting there, and I very certainly don't "speak" for Beta in any way. I'm just trying to strike a middle course that respects their presumed intent, and head off things that might upset them further, or worse, get them into more trouble. Hope this helps, though I have a feeling it doesn't. :) Franamax (talk) 04:18, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Mmkay, so as I understand it, folks familiar with the dealy just tend to avoid on principle - but folks not familiar won't necessarily, but he didn't want to put up something descriptive, so anyone else trying to put up something descriptive would be potentially problematic, and folks commenting (especially in rather bizarre manners) could be problematic, and protecting it to keep people from doing that is also probably problematic, and basically the entire thing is a giant pile of ack?

Right. So this sort of thing is unusual, then? — Isarra (talk) 11:41, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

santorum merge

Hi -- per this, could I suggest that you remove the merge template from Campaign for "santorum" neologism? thanks, Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:54, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

I know you watch pages where you leave messages, but just in case you miss it, I wanted you to know that we finally have an answer to your question! I don't have much clue what it means, but it's an answer, nonetheless. :) --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 14:19, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Alberta provincial ridings

Franamax, I apologize for moving it in the first place. My fault. So there is a requested move discussion between hyphen vs em dashes. I know that em dashes are federal ridings. Should I still participate in the discussion? I hope I will participate in the discussion. I move it back to a em dash temporarily. I apologize for moving it in the first place. And write me back if I can participate in the discussion. Thanks. Steam5 (talk) 07:00, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes of course you can participate in the discussion as long as it is open. You didn't do anything wrong, it looks like you started with an article with no talk page notice, so you were being bold. Do check article history and talk pages before moving a whole series of articles though, you can see here that the article had been moved just 10 days ago, so that's often a hint to look for a discussion or ask around. No harm done, and most things can be fixed pretty easily anyway. Regards! Franamax (talk) 07:18, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

At WP:Civility

Hi there User:Franamax. May I take this up with you , briefly? Is there a difference between these two phrase “Your edit” and “The edit you made”? Yes, what is that difference: The first phrase is all nouny, and implies possession or "ownership” and fails WP:NPOV, since an edit once made belongs to the community, under free liscencing. The second phrase puts the emphasis on the edit itself, and the process of “making”an edit; in short it has a verb in it. Verbs are the friends of clarity in the English language, and nouns are the allies of habitual un-think, management-speak and the crushing of the potential for individual action.

Verbs are real, possessive pronouns reinforce the falsity that anyone can “own” anything. Being responsible for the actions one takes is an admirable trait ; accusing a human being of “owning” something is an outright insult. Be that as it may, failing NPOV is a serious defect. And damaging the English language is not the sort of thing to be proud of, while writing an encyclopedia.

Be that as it may, I will surely continue to put up with the habitual and casual insults hurled my way, and the damage done to the English language, since any amount of attempted “education” imposed by “myself” would amount to egotism and gross self-aggrandisement on my part, as well as being an enterprise condemned to failure. But, I will still feel my private pain each time some well-meaning but unthinking user accuses me of "owning” something., and does one more needless cut of damage to that magnificent creation, the English language. Discuss? NewbyG ( talk) 20:02, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

How the English language can confuse the best minds of a generation. (1) source of confusion. Peace! NewbyG ( talk) 06:52, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

(outdented here) Oh well, no discussion, therefore no consensus. Perhaps a perusal of Naming and necessity#A theory of naming may give some indication of how the matter of names and personal pronouns is considered by those who have to consider such matters from a professional, or educated stance. NewbyG ( talk) 19:04, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the fix

Thanks for your detective work and fix at the WT:RD. I'm curious as to why only on my iPad (not on my iMac) and how you "guessed" it so I can be on the lookout for any future problems. BTW, also confused re above ;-) hydnjo (talk) 22:55, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't just guessing randomly, I use the formal "wild-ass guess" methodology. You'd pinned down the edit, I just looked at what seemed anomalous about it. I've seen those long URLs mess up pages before, I think it might set up some sort of conflict with "width=80%"-type stylesheet directives and the various overlying containers get confused. The other reliable fix is to lift one corner about 1/4" then drop it, that's worked for at least 30 years for me. :)

Coincidentally, one of the first places I solved an obscure page-layout problem involving super-long links was on a page belonging to the source of that rather confusing bit above. Still mulling how to answer that one... Franamax (talk) 04:35, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Didja mean Me? Confusion shared is confusion out and loud and proud. (Whatever that means.) <smiley> NewbyG ( talk) 05:40, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Invitation to Vancouver meetup

Hello,

You are invited to an edit-a-thon at the Prophouse Café on Sunday March 25, as part of Women's History Month events all over the world. If you wish to attend, please see Wikipedia:Meetup/Vancouver WikiWomen's Edit-a-Thon and add your signature to the list.

Thank you! InverseHypercube (talk) 09:48, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Response

Regarding this, yes I think that would be pretty uncivil. WP:Just drop it expresses my thoughts on that kind of thing pretty well.

In this particular instance, for myself at least, after the first few comments I began to see that this was something that had been a problem before but that was never actually dealt with. I wanted to finally bring it to the forefront and succeeded in doing so by not letting it go so readily. Many might disagree with prolonged arguments like these but my (I'd even say "our") intentions are to fix the issue so it doesn't keep arising in the future -- not to get the last word in. Equazcion ^(talk) 23:58, 23 Mar 2012 (UTC)

Note

Given the last edit of that LC IP before he was blocked, what are the odds that the redlink in [8] is the same guy? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:08, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution survey

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello Franamax. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click HERE to participate. Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 23:26, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

The Troll Hunter

Hi Franamax. Just to let you know a 3-1 consensus has been reached regarding the Troll Hunter title. Unanimity can't be reached because there is one user who ignores all the proof provided. Thanks for your time. Film Fan (talk) 14:37, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

It is not for you to declare consensus. Let the discussion run and let an uninvolved editor make the determination. Why are you so determined to "win", to the extent that you are deceptively overwriting images? Franamax (talk) 15:02, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Because I'm sick of wasting time on something that is so clear-cut. It's not about "winning". I'm sometimes wrong and I admit when I am. But in this case I have proven my case. I determined to have the page corrected - not to "win". And I have not been deceptive at any time, thank you very much. Goodbye Film Fan (talk) 15:07, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Please

Hey - I'm just keeping an eye on things on Courcelles' talk page and I was hoping you'd be kind enough to redact yourself here. Besides being uncivil depending on whose definition you asked for on a particular day, it really doesn't help to diffuse an already dramatic process. If we can keep the frustrations and anger to a manageable level, we might all get through this without a ton of left over resentment.--v/r - TP 18:16, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

• Yeah - it's probably not optimal that Malleus ended up reverting it, but it's not really becoming of an admin, however heartfelt it is. Black Kite (talk) 19:47, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Sure, consider myself redacted voluntarily. I stand by and am willing to explain the comment, but it is rather pointless. The removal certainly adds a beutiful tinge of irony, so I'll leave it at that. :) Franamax (talk) 20:12, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

It adds a beautiful sense of symmetry, so you can leave it at that. Malleus Fatuorum 20:39, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Greetings Malleus, I'm glad to see you reconsidered your retirement. :) Franamax (talk) 20:58, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Amongst other things, you seem to misunderstand what "retirement" means. In my case it means that I will no longer be contributing to articles here in any way, shape, or form. But it doesn't mean that I'm prepared to let administrators abuse other editors just because they think they can; hence I removed your personal attack, the one you ought to have removed yourself. Malleus Fatuorum 23:26, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

He might have if he had seen my comment before you redacted his edit. If you look at his edits, that was his only edit today at the time. Just took time. Some folks say things they later regret, I'm sure you understand.--v/r - TP 00:03, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

No, I don't. And you are now getting perilously close to a personal attack yourself; unlike too many others here I never say anything I don't mean and won't stand by. How long do you consider it reasonable to allow personal attacks to remain for? Does it depend on whether they're made by an administrator or a regular editor? Malleus Fatuorum 00:25, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you can come to that conclusion, but you're free to think so.--v/r - TP 01:31, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

All you have to do is think. How long was it before my comment was unilaterally removed? Malleus Fatuorum 01:34, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Do you want to take this to mine or your talk page so we're not cross chatting here?--v/r - TP 01:36, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Take it wherever you like, it changes nothing here. Malleus Fatuorum 01:37, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't think I misunderstand much at all. certainly not your "retirement". Now that you've opted to cast in with the chattering classes though, you should bone up on your manual of tactics. You can remove a comment, or chastise someone else for not removing it, but not both at once. You should mix in a little vandal-fighting with the uber-commentary to maintain a thin veneer of respectability as a site editor. You should be able to specify exactly, or even approximately, who is being personally attacked when you claim personal attacks, which you've now done twice. And you should make sure your comments on other people's talk pages have some relevance to something more than your insistence on always having the last word. Hope those tips help, there's a lot of new stuff to learn once you decide to not be one of the article writers. Franamax (talk) 03:33, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I'll say that I felt personally attacked by "ragtag coterie who rush after Malleus, plucking at his coat-sleeves for approval" since I was among the first to post my disapproval of the block. Your marginalization of my opinion and casting me (and others who opposed this block) as a mindless automaton is a far more inflammatory remark that what Malleus was blocked for. And I assure you that Malleus enjoys an immense amount of respect as a "site editor". --Laser brain (talk) 03:48, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I think a lot of people, in this and several other recent drama-fests, should be taking a long hard look at their own actions and asking exactly what ideals they truly are defending lately, including whether "encyclopedia" would feature among them. I haven't been keeping a ledger though, so I have no idea where you stand - and as I say, I think it's up to each editor to review their own conscience. I've you've just been feeding the same useless politics of division and insistence there can only be one winner, maybe I did mean you after all. Not sure where you're getting mindless automaton though... Franamax (talk) 05:58, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

And you should be right at the top of that list of people who need to be having a long hard think about what they're doing here. Malleus Fatuorum 12:09, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I have for many years made sure that I evaluated my own activity here before trying to judge that of others. I'm pretty comfortable where I'm at right now, I'm much the same as yourself, except that I do more article work than you do. Franamax (talk) 18:38, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

By my standards you do almost no article work at all.[9] Malleus Fatuorum 18:58, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

By anyone's standards I do very little article work. However you don't work on articles at all, hence I'm more of an "article guy" than yourself. Franamax (talk) 20:17, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Huh? Whilst obviously a sysop is inevitably going to rack up more edits in Talk and Wikipedia namespaces than other editors, thus reducing the percentage of edits to article space (my graph is fairly similar to yours), to claim Malleus "doesn't work on articles at all" is completely ludicrous. Black Kite (talk) 20:52, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

After consideration, I believe he is referring to the fact the Malleus has stated he has finished with article work on WP.--Gilderien Talk|Contribs 20:57, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Hmph. Somewhat facile IMO, but then given the rest of the conversation on this page and others I don't suppose I should be surprised. Black Kite (talk) 21:00, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

You have no idea where I stand, huh? I guess that's the problem with issuing blanket assessments from an ignorant position. You're willing to call out everyone who defends Malleus without bothering to check the facts and events. At the same time, you're suggesting that I opposed the block just because it's Malleus and not because I used some process of logic. That's an automaton. It doesn't matter that you didn't call me out by name—you made an insulting comment that covered everyone who came to his defense. Quite the contrary to "politics of division", I speak out against unfair treatment of editors and the proliferation of a useless class of career Wiki-politicians who spend all their time opining on matters as if they had one bit of extra credibility owing to being an administrator. --Laser brain (talk) 15:47, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

You know, you haven't even once asked me to clarify or explain any statements I've made, instead you've invented your entire grievous injury from whole cloth, you basically just made that all up for the sake of picking a fight. I can't really convince myself that I'm responsible for your inventions, nor the psychic harm you choose to inflict on yourself. As far as your claim there to not be promoting divisiveness, that you (and Malleus) can be the one to invoke administrator status as having anything to do with this, and that you can mention "a useless class of career Wiki-politician" without even a brief nod to the supreme irony (or is it farce?) inherent in your words - well, it speaks volumes to me. Franamax (talk) 18:35, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Possible navbox heading alternative.

It is now clear even to me that too many people have a visceral "it's new and I don't like it" reaction to the Related information heading idea to ever have it gain traction. But the problems you were trying to solve remain. So I was thinking about a less radical alternative: Put an anchor above the navboxes and add "Click here for more articles and topics related to ...." flag in the See also section. You would still have the problem of internal links in the External link section, but at least readers would be clued in to the fact that there are navboxes to be found at the end of the page. What do you think? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 11:40, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I think I'll make the idea set forth above Plan C. Would you please take a look at Plan B and comment on its talk page?

Abuse Filter on the Article Feedback Tool

Hey there :). You're being contacted because you're an edit filter manager, At the moment, we're developing Version 5 of the Article Feedback Tool, which you may or may not have heard about. If you haven't; for the first time, this will involve a free-text box where readers can submit comments :). Obviously, there's going to be junk, and we want to minimise that junk. To do so, we're working the Abuse Filter into the tool.

For this to work, we need people to write and maintain filters. I'd be very grateful if you could take a look at the discussion here and the attached docs, and comment and contribute! Thanks :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 18:15, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

You've got email

Hi there. I sent you an email requesting your wpW5 tool. Thanks Veritycheck (talk) 11:40, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Moving Trollhunter to Trolljegeren?

I read your posts about Trollhunter in WT:RM. In the light of Talk:trollhunter#Requested move, I have created a new discussion, and, if you're interested, you are welcome to join. It would be beneficial for us to improve the consensus. --George Ho (talk) 17:43, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Almost forgot: Talk:Trollhunter#Move back to Trolljegeren?. --George Ho (talk) 19:00, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

deletionists on the rampage

Every so often I log in to see what messages there are, typically lately there's deletion notice after deletion notice...I saw your fix/close on the Muskwa Ranges map.....do the deletion-happy ever THINK about what they're doing, or do they just wallow in their newfound power to wipe stuff out once they've got it? That somebody could CREATE a map, release it into the public domain, and then have someone claim it's not "unfree", just doesn't make any sense. But as I learned the hard way, common sense is in short supply around Wikipedia ..... thank god there's some sane people around or the whole thing would have been auto-deleted by now - Skookum1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.239.74.71 (talk) 16:48, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

GA nomination - really?

The article looks GA worthy to me. It's well cited, written, NPOV, etc and I believe it meets GA criteria. Aside from some vandalism every now and then apparently by this DT character I see no problem with it. I had simply forgotten about the article until this recent edit popped on my radar. It's not a means of "battling". -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 09:13, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I've cleared up some dead links, wrong dates, and added new refs. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 11:51, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Large-scale constructs

You are invited to contribute to the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Plagiarism#Large-scale constructs. Aymatth2 (talk) 23:16, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Could you please explain more fully...

I thanked you for your reply in the thread Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#When should administrators decline to email the source text to deleted material?

I also asked you to clarify your position.

When I did my best to take your comments at their face value you seemed to be saying administrators had the authority to enforce their interpretation of wikipedia policy on copyright holder's use of their intellectual property outside of the wikipedia -- which I suggest is outside of wikipedia administrator's jurisdiction.

Your comments seem to be based on two interpretations of copyright and publishing which I thought merited asking for comments in threads of their own: Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Copyright and cite templates, spelling and punctuation corrections; Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#transmittal by email and the meaning of publishing. I'd be grateful if you clarified your position there, as well.

Were you suggesting that only the rendered text of references from deleted articles should be made available -- not the source text with the {{cite}} templates and other markup information -- because you believe the content of those references is protected by copyright? I suggested that as per Fieth v. Rural the internal markup of references, while valuable, contains no originality or creativity, so it not eligible for copyright protection under US law.

Is it your position that transmission by email constitutes "publishing"? Different copyright rules apply to published and unpublished material. My recollection of discussion at the WMF commons is that sending material via an individual private email does not constitute publishing.

Thanks in advance for making the effort to explain your position more fully. Geo Swan (talk) 14:38, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Franamax. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

real-world consequences

I posted a question at the AN thread, but since you mentioned real-world consequences, perhaps you can answer. (To be fair, you didn't say it was policy; I haven't yet figure out whether someone else claimed this or the whether Guyovski jumped to a conclusion.)

The talk page discussion implicitly accepts that there is a Wikipedia Policy prohibiting actions that have "real-life consequences". I'm unaware of such a policy. Can someone enlighten me?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 17:11, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Off topic

I told Guy, and that stands for you too:

I will not discuss off topic subjects in threads where they don't belong.

If you want to substitute Guy Macon, and follow me around instead of him, and bring off topic subject matter to every discussion I participate in, that is just as lame.

Guy Macon's doing so is only embarrassing himself.

If you want to do that too, to yourself, be my guest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nenpog (talk • contribs) 11:34, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

This troll was clearly compiled with inferior tools. My guess is that you used Visual Troll++, or possibly TurboTroll 2000.

These first generation tools are quite limited, and there is a severe garbage-collection-related performance hit when you try optimizing the output of VT++ for flaming or insults.

I suggest that you try the latest version of GTC; the Gnu Troller Collection. It is *the* standard when it comes to creating Trolls. It is also Open Source, reentrant, and is fully compliant with the Triple Troll, Troll-On-Troll and TrollChow protocols.

I hope this helps. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:53, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Your comment at ANI

Your comment about blocking and desysopping was in line with Rschen's comment. I have a question I preferred not to ask at ANI. At WP:WHEEL, it says: "Wheel warring usually results in an immediate Request for Arbitration. Sanctions for wheel warring have varied from reprimands and cautions, to temporary blocks, to desysopping, even for first time incidents." I'm assuming the sanctions come from Arbcom, but what does "temporary blocks" mean in this context, particularly in light of your comment that a block doesn't prevent use of the tools? Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:02, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, no idea. Which editor made that wording? They might know. I looked through all the arbcases in the nearest footnote and no blocks were used as remedies for admin actions. That's not to say that no-one ever got blocked for being an asshat in the same dramahz that lost their bit. Certainly if an admin was going way overboard with admin actions you might block them just to get their attention, but since it's possible to unblock yourself (at enormous wiki-cost), it's in no way a true preventive measure. Franamax (talk) 01:55, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

It'd probably be easier to discuss why the current phrasing should remain than to track the history. I started to track it, and it appears that at one point WP:WHEEL was a separate page, as opposed to part of WP:ADM, as it is now. As you can see, in 2008, User:FT2 added language from that separate page here. You don't need to see the diffs that ensue, but FT2 decided to comment it out in the very next edit. Then, a few months later, User:Causa sui removed the comment code, and since that time it has remained. So, we'd have to turn to the history of WP:WHEEL, when it was separate, and I don't even know how to do that. I may ask at the Help Desk, as much to satisfy my curiosity as anything else. Do you think it would be constructive to start a topic at the WP:ADM Talk page on the language, or should I just let it go?--Bbb23 (talk) 08:38, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the research. I just took that phrase out, so if someone puts it back, presumably they will have a reason (which of course is fine). The ANI thread ended up with a recognition that it would be a "symbolic" action to block an admin for (putative) misuse of the sysop userright - which yeah, there have been such symbolic blocks done in the past to enshrine things in the permanent record, admin or not, all of then essentially futile IMO. Feel free to start a discussion, it does interest me that the wording is (/was) there, since I'm really quite sure that the only way to stop wheel warring is to zero out the sysop bit of the subject editor, which can only be done with higher permissions than sysop. Franamax (talk) 09:01, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Your edit was reverted by MF. I'll wait a bit to see what you do (or you can tell me here), and then perhaps I'll start a discussion on the Talk page. If your change ultimately sticks, I won't start a discussion because, although I don't really know how this works, everything you say makes sense to me.--Bbb23 (talk) 09:14, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, MF has some sort of a thing for me, not sure if he's trying to wind me up or what. I do nurture the thought that he finds me interesting to deal with, we had some discussions in the distant past that I thought were sort-of productive, but MF would likely disagree and whatever, that subject bores me anyway. What I am doing now is to check back into the linked history - when you get redirected (as at WP:WHEEL) you can click on the "redirected from" link just below the title, which gets you to the raw (redirect=no) page. So let's see there how that wording came about. Franamax (talk) 09:23, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I tried going to the redirect and came up with a dead end. I'll let you do it. MF has a big mouth and gets away with using it because some apparently think he's a content god (notice he picked on you for not having enough article edits). I just find him intermittently obnoxious. Sometimes he actually says something non-self-indulgent and cogent. Anyway, let me know what you find.--Bbb23 (talk) 09:33, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

You clearly need to watch your own ignorant mouth Bbb23. There are some arseholes here who think it's perfectly acceptable to abuse anyone they take exception to, while screaming to the heavens when they themselves feel abused. They're wrong. And compared to you even my cat is a "content god". Malleus Fatuorum 09:49, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

You're very amusing, MF, I figured you'd read my comment and respond in your usual mature fashion (hey, look at the initials). I'm deeply hurt. Does your cat have an account?--Bbb23 (talk) 10:09, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

No, I have "some sort of thing" for honesty and integrity. You don't get to change the rules just because you don't think that administrators ought not to be blocked for misuse of their tools. Malleus Fatuorum 09:59, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to hat this little mess, following is my laboriously constructed original good-faith reply. I suggest that any further disagreements here be transferred to some appropriate noticeboard. Franamax (talk) 11:06, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not changing any rules Malleus, you know as well as anyone that P'n'G pages are descriptive rather than prescriptive. The plain fact is that admins do not get blocked for misusing admin tools - because blocking DOES NOT stop an admin from misusing admin tools. That's not a status thing, it's the way the MediaWiki software works. There are a whole bunch of fine-grained permission bits that get validated when you edit (an incredibly complicated process down in the engine room) and these are bundled into various different roles, one of which is sysop. But enacting a block doesn't affect any extra permissions granted by +sysop, blocking sets/resets a different set of bits. And if it is unclear at all, I'm not trying to say that administrators should not face consequences if they abuse their privilege of those permissions. I'm just telling you how it works. If you can find an example somewhere that supports the wording (admins have been blocked in the past purely to prevent wheel warring), please put in a cite. Franamax (talk) 11:06, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

• Hopefully, this little drama is over (I apologize for my role in it), but I'd like to move back to the substance of our discussion. I'm going to try to set forth what I think happens - I may not be technically precise. When an account is blocked, the software changes the account (turning on and off bits as you say) so the editor can't edit anything but his own Talk page (and I assume user page). Even that can be blocked, which probably affects some additional bits. When someone is promoted to admin, some bits are turned on in that account to allow use of various tools. I assume, in theory, an admin could be restricted to some tools but not others, but don't know, and I don't know if that ever happens. I'm assuming the blocking bits and the tools bits are separate. If so, it would seem to me an admin could be blocked so he can't edit but theoretically could use the tools, even though that appears odd on its face. So, for example, he couldn't edit a CSD but could delete the page. IF that's true, then he could be blocked from editing but not have his tools affected. If he were blocked and then used his tools, the block could change from a block to a removal of his tools. Still continuing this assumption, an admin could be blocked by another admin and then if he abuses the block (by using his tools to unblock himself or doing something else), then he could be desysopped, although I assume the desysop could only be performed by Arbcom after a request from the blocking admin. I'm going to stop here, rather than go into other possible scenarios, to give you a chance to comment and tell me how all my assumptions are wrong. --Bbb23 (talk) 17:33, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, you've pretty much nailed it there, at least to my understanding. For instance I'm looking at ProtectionForm.php (from ver. 1.18.1) and seeing "$this->mPermErrors = $this->mTitle->getUserPermissionsErrors('protect',$wgUser);", so it seems clear that "protect" is a permission granule. Similarly, if I go into the userrights screen, there is a bitmask inherited somewhere from my sysop permission that controls what bits of yours I can flip on or off, so I could make you IP-block-exempt but I can't change whether or not you are an administrator. I'm not sure where exactly in the software the roles get broken down into the permission "grains", it's likely in the site config file somewhere - I can look it up if you're really curious (or you can download your whole own wiki and exactly duplicate and test what we have running here). Anyway, yeah, what you just said is how it works. Blocking or not blocking an admin for misusing the admin toolset has zero impact on their ability to actually use that toolset - which, when you think about it, has to be that way or else we could end up blocking the last person able to unblock anyone and oops, broke that website, let's try again with another one. ;) The whole point of having that permission is that you are trusted not to misuse or abuse it, and the consequence is to lose the permission. The same thing applies to rollback, if you misuse it I will reset your rollback bit. I might also block you for edit-warring, but they are two different things. BTW I did track down where that text got put in, I think it was back in 2006, by FT2, but will have to dig it up again. It shouldn't be there, but it's one of those "sigh" moments where people take it as admins trying to ennoble themselves, rather than just describing the reality. And now I see there's some war about experienced editors or something on that page, what a dustup. :( Patience I guess, and sort it out calmly sooner or later... :) Franamax (talk) 00:40, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Two things. First, if I've got it right, then it's not that an admin can't be blocked, it's more that it would be damned odd to do so because we would be saying that the admin can't edit but can still use his tools. And, on reflection, we couldn't tell him as part of the block not to use his tools because that would be de facto sysopping, something that is not in our power to do but would have to be handled by Arbcom. Does that make sense?

Second, I'm aware of the war. I reverted the policy back to before editors started changing it without consensus. I believe poor Dougweller meant to do that but messed it up (he was tired) and didn't go far enough back. I got some pushback by one of the editors who was advocating the changes, but my restore has stuck. Why do editors use such inflammatory rhetoric (did you know that my restore was "outright suppression"? - heh, I wasn't even involved in the discussion, acting more like a clerk than anything else). Regards.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:55, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

• Hey, Franamax, please see the discussion about blocking admins on my talk page. In rereading the above and filtering out the drama part, it looks like we were talking about blocking an admin for abusing their tools rather than blocking an admin for acting as an editor, in this case alleged edit-warring. Still strikes me as weird, though, because what would happen if the sanction was an indefinite block of the admin? Anyway, if you'd care to chime in, please do. Best.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:54, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Water fluoridation". Thank you. --Gold Standard 22:57, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived.

---

You deleted two comments on this thread through an edit conflict. Please take care not to do that in the future. One way you can do this is by simply copying your text, viewing the article again, and simply pasting your text into a new edit session. VanIsaac_WS^contribs 03:56, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Since I have never in my entire wiki-career ever tried to resolve an edit conflict by anything other than copying my text and starting all over, I am forced to conclude there was a system error there. I never try to proceed through an edit conflict, I just emit multiple curse-words and start from where I know I'm OK. Sorry that didn't work out, this is the first time I've experienced it this way - other times I've looked at text added while I was editing and wondered why on earth I didn't get an e/c. But since it's, like, my earliest and most iron-clad rule, sorry too, not my fault man, it wuz the servers... :) Franamax (talk) 04:12, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

If you didn't get the edit conflict screen, then it most certainly was an error. I apologize if you considered my post in any way accusatory; it was intended only as informative in case you didn't know how to handle it - you'd be amazed at how many people who should know better still manage to screw up an edit conflict. I reinstated the removed comments, so no harm, no foul. VanIsaac_WS^contribs 04:26, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I would suggest you reword your first sentence more on the lines of "Hey there, did you get an [WP:Edit conflict] screen when you saved [this] edit?", but me, not a problem - as I said, it's one thing I decided early on to do the hard way, so I know I'm bulletproof. Something changed, 2 or probably 3 years ago now, maybe when version 1.16 or 1.18 came out, but it took me a long time to notice it. When I first started editing, you would always get an edit conflict editing the same section as someone else, but at some point the software seemed to become able to integrate in two different editors - which I know, as I also always launch my edits in a different window than the existing page. So maybe it's time to soften up the language a bit, as the software seems to be both more accomodating and more error-prone. Franamax (talk) 05:06, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the understanding. If you have anything else for me, please place it on my talk page, as I'll no longer be watching yours. VanIsaac_WS^contribs 08:53, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

"Start talking"

That's a good one. The only thing I have to say about being wiki-stalked and having my edits reverted en-masse (most of which had nothing to do with each other) is this: "Thanks, but no thanks". My point of view on being wiki-stalked really does not reach any deeper than that, and is also unlikely to change and/or evolve given new information. I'm just that shallow a person. I also left a reply on my talk page about other things. More like a rant. Enjoy at your discretion. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 06:05, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I have no patience...

...which is why I didn't block. Who wants to waste all that time at ANI being told I was involved and shouldn't have made the block. I was going to report for edit warring but then realised that they hadn't been warned and hadn't edited after the warning either. Thanks for blocking them. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 06:37, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Nah, I took the warning from Sakimonk as sufficient notice and we don't have to wait for bright-line 3RR. They can bring it up on the talk page tomorrow, or just say sorry right now and get unblocked. But I think they're going to need some time anyway to find decent sources to support their view. Ironically, you adding a source probably does make you involved ;) whereas I have no clue which "side" is truly correct, so my revert was just to the status-quo-ante-bellum (more or less). Franamax (talk) 06:49, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Well of course I'm sure I'm right but it is possible I could be wrong. It was just so easy to find that source that confirms it. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 07:33, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Should have figured this out earlier. See User talk:Skier Dude#User:Theone9988. On the home front my hot water tank sprung a leak and we have had no hot water since Thursday morning. With a bit of luck we might have it fixed later. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 13:01, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Um, yeah, that seems like a "close behavioural match". ;) Indef'd. Yikes on the hot water front, make sure it gets fixed right, you don't want to miss the shipping window for a new one and have to wait 'til next summer. Franamax (talk) 17:20, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Still waiting for the plumbers. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 17:22, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for keeping an eye on the edits :) The main point of concern was that the user was citing the Memoirs Of Mr. Hempher, The British Spy To The Middle East (which is a known work of fiction) as a credible source. Secondly the user kept on insisting on reverting edits regardless of my endless prompts to discuss the issue at hand. I even posted a new section on the talk page specifically addressing this. Sakimonk (talk) 17:26, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

User space

Sorry for moving this to your talk page. I don't wish to bother that other one that is archived often. There are varying opinions on where it should be. One person said: "The majority of proposals either start on a noticeboard/talk page, or start as a new Wikipedia space page. They are then developed there until the supporters think its as ready as they can make it without community input, and then submit it to an RFC, or if the initial proposal is well developed, start an RFC immediately. Its actually rare for proposals to be subject to community discussion in userspace before moving to Wikipedia space, and if userspace is used, its at most to draft before moving out for discussion." This was partially violated. I had started it in wp space and was taken away from it. I went asleep later assuming no one would even find it. I woke up to the deletion tag and then worked on it. I find I have spent far more time defending it in forums all over than actually developing it. The same two users ask the same questions over and over, and I respond with answers each time. We three have made our points but they refuse to allow a break for input from others without beating the same horse forever. They rarely let my last answer stand before they reapeat a previous question within minutes. If you have the time to read through the deletion and pump/policy entries you will see what I mean.--Canoe1967 (talk) 04:35, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Question re training

Hi there, You recently made the statement "I would cautiously support that, whilst keeping in mind that decent training is generally $1000+ per day" on Jimbo's talk page. I am wondering where you got that figure. Thanks! Gandydancer (talk) 02:21, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Just plain common sense, I've been a businessman for a long time, from both the buyer and seller side, mostly in technical subjects. The people arguing "you don't know" are fun and all, but they're just blowing smoke. It's definitely my own opinion, but decent training needs experienced humans and they don't come cheap. At the corporate level, $1K/day is pretty standard. Heck, if I've charged that rate myself, it really has to be standard. :) Do you have a competing lower figure? Franamax (talk) 03:21, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

No I have no idea how much training may run--though your figure did surprise me. More and more I have come to believe that we all need some sort of training to keep this little project going smoothly forward. ;=) Gandydancer (talk) 11:14, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Combs

Hello. You were involved in the Diddy debate a while back. I'm not asking that you get involved now, but the article was reviewed for GA and I didn't think it was ready, as there were unresolved issues (and disputes) on the talk page. I am considering a GA review. If you have time, could you provide your somewhat outside view on whether that's worth it? (It could simply be that GA standards are much lower than I thought.) Gimmetoo (talk) 06:48, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

lay off my use of a valid template

Your personal hostility is noted. But the {{RD-best}} template exists for a reason, and its existence was recently upheld. If you have any policy to point to as to where the template should go (previous uses were in line so far as I am aware) feel free to point it out. Otherwise lay off the personal stuff. Other editors are free to use the template or remove it if they don't like its use on their own posts. I will watch here in case you have a link to existing policy. μηδείς (talk) 05:44, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

FYI, when discussing a template it is preferred that you use the {{tl}} notation so as not to invoke the actual template onto a discussion page. I've checked back and no, it doesn't exist for any particular reason at all. As far as personal hostility, I hope I've addressed that on your own talk page, no, nothing in particular.

I will continue to address your own editing behaviour on your talk page, as I have an obligation to warn you if I'm considering acting as an admin, and I have to follow up any offers or threats or whatever in a positive way so as to be sure you've read them. It's up to you whether you feel other reviewers will find it easier or harder to piece together the full history if you also post here. The policy issues should be taken up at respective talk pages where the proper audiences can see them. Further concerns about me myself (as in my editing, not my earthly existence ;), yes please do mention them here. Regards! Franamax (talk) 07:34, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to your civil response to my inquiry. It is not necessary (and to me preferable) that you answer here as well as on my talk page. I addressed you here, so will expect answers here. I have no intention of stopping the use of the RD template. My question for you is, is there some policy as to how the template should be placed? I have no problem complying with pre-existing standards. I will await your answer here. μηδείς (talk) 17:40, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

In keeping with my statement just above, I have already noted the policy basis in my final warning for your behaviour, at your talk page; and discussed the usage at WT:RD. I see no benefit in repeating that here. Franamax (talk) 20:18, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

as per discussion

Franamax please do as we discussed - Youreallycan 20:15, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Franamax. You have new messages at WP:PERM/R.
Message added 04:44, 22 August 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I added a link to APL. Which states User:Anderson created this account. Anderson (Public) (talk) 04:44, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Franamax. You have new messages at Kudpung's talk page.
Message added 11:20, 23 August 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

FYI Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:20, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:YFA

Indeed, I probably should have removed that. As it was, before I began the copyedit, that was the only advice on where to find sources!--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:29, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that it wasn't your original idea, just an attempt at rewording. I remember helping out with the very first writing up of that page and I'm pretty sure it wasn't there then. There should be some (brief) advice on what is a reliable web source, but that was not it. :) Franamax (talk) 00:51, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

What's really bothering me is the whole idea of "your first article" as the title, and that phrase continuing throughout the text. I want to change it everywhere, but it would be odd to do so given the title. I think it advances a sense of ownership, even if one might argue it's just a manner of speaking. Anyway, the perfect title Wikipedia:starting an article and this page are forks of each other.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:01, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

As I recall, the aim was to specifically address people arriving here with the aim of writing an article right away, with a nice brief presentation they might actually read. That's different than the full set of advice and links for how someone with more experience (gnoming and edits to existing articles say) would go about creating an article. As is the wiki-way of things, of course it only bloats up with ever more, and more complicated, advice, rendering it less likely to be read by anyone. One example of mine is the bit on naming conflicts, which instead of getting into the arcana should surely be "ask someone for help". IMO it needs a trim, and maybe more emphasis on the modern ways of starting articles, sandboxing, AFC, incubator, etc. Back to the original aim, a short and sweet guide for newcomers who want to &action=edit&redlink=1 as their very first edit. Franamax (talk) 01:39, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

take a breath

and look at the article! I am translating the German Luftwaffe article and merging it with the parts about the current Luftwaffe on the English wiki to create the new and expanded article German Air Force. Afterwards I will merge all material for 1935-1946 Luftwaffe at Luftwaffe! So, please: take a breath and let me work - this is a massive rewrite and will take a few days! (Therefore I removed nothing from the article at Luftwaffe - this I will only do when the article at German Air Force is complete!). noclador (talk) 21:54, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

There was a discussion on Talk:Luftwaffe to split the Luftwaffe article and nobody wanted to do the big work. I was bold and started to work and now you come out of the blue and threaten me with a block? If you would look at the material you would see that large parts are rewritten and large parts are translated from the German wiki. I did not know that, there must be an edit summary noting "split content from article name". I admit this was an error on my sight, and I would ask you to please help me. ("I can block you if you continue to do so." is most unhelpful!). So please - tell me what needs to be done to correctly split, expand and improve the article. Thanks, noclador (talk) 22:11, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I asked for help! and all you do is delete!! If you are unwilling to do anything but full-scale deletion of material then please remove yourself from this task and nominate an administrator, who is willing to help. Thank you! noclador (talk) 22:14, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I like the new tone! :-) lets work on this! So if I understand it correctly

1. I copy all material now on the German Air Force page to my WinWord (to save the work already done!)
2. then we return to the redirect
3. then we copy all material from the Luftwaffe article to German Air Force WITH all the appropriate steps in place
4. then I copy the material translated and added from the German wiki back into the German Air Force article WITH all the appropriate steps in place
5. then I can continue to edit

right? or did I miss a point? noclador (talk) 22:30, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Cross-posted already at your talk, but yes, you have nailed the steps, that way everyone gets credit for their work and everyone in future can find out where all the words came from. Perfect! :) Franamax (talk) 22:47, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Apology accepted and sorry I labeled your edit as vandalism! thanks for helping me do this the right way! So: and now two last questions: a) in the section with the forerunners of the current German Air Force I took a lot of material out as it is irrelevant to the current German Air Force and a duplicate of the material on the pages of the two forerunners: Luftstreitkräfte and History of the Luftwaffe (1933-1945) - so we copy the material, and in a second step I reduce it again with an edit comment like this: "material is duplicate with material found in the specific article". Would that be ok? and b) {{Interwiki copy}} goes where? on the talk page like the split templates or does {{Interwiki copy}} go in the article itself? Also I was looking, but did not find an attribution template for the interwiki copy. Will this be a problem? noclador (talk) 23:00, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

On a) yes that sounds right, since I can trace where every word came from and went to; and b) yes, I think the docs for interwiki copy say to use it on the talk page. I thought there was an attribution template to also use in the article but I haven't found it yet, so maybe I was imagining that, I will let you know if I do find it. Sorry for delay in responding, my antivirus decided that this was the perfect time to do something so important that I couldn't even type for 20 minutes. :) Franamax (talk) 23:30, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, you're back at the right moment :-) I did the split as outlined at WP:SPLIT. Hopefully I did not make any errors! For now I have left all material also at the Luftwaffe article. But should I take the parts that go to German Air Force out from Luftwaffe now? or leave them in until the new article is complete and I begin to merge Luftwaffe and History of the Luftwaffe (1933–1945)? (What is not yet done at German Air Force are the 1990 to 2012, The Future, Structure and Training sections). noclador (talk) 23:34, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Well first I suppose, have you asked over at WP:MILHIST? That is an active project with lots of people who have been through this stuff before. My thoughts are that you should probably leave Luftwaffe as is for a few days just to let things settle out, but put a new section on that talk page indicating that you are actively splitting and plan to remove large portions of the existing article. So long as other editors may question or object to what you are doing, stay conservative where possible. The only risk is that someone might start changing content in Luftwaffe when they should be doing it at German Air Force, but that doesn't seem too likely. I'd suggest that MILHIST would be your friend here for the actual content issues - which is weird since I'm sitting here looking at all these WWII and aviation books on my shelves, but I'm not a content expert on this stuff. :) Franamax (talk) 23:50, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually there was a discussion at Talk:Luftwaffe and at Talk:History_of_the_Luftwaffe_(1933–1945)#Requested_move about splitting the article with most of the major MILHIST editors involved (I am highly active in that project), but with not much discussion and a quick consensus to split (Army and Navy have already been split - only Luftwaffe remained glued together until now). However when it came to actually do the work, nobody wanted to take on the massive task of merging the Nazi Luftwaffe articles and working through over 5000 linked articles... so I just went for it! I also left a notice on 14 August that I would split the article in 3 days, which draw 0 comments... Talk:Luftwaffe#Will_split_it_in_3_days. So I assume that there is not much opposition to the split. noclador (talk) 00:48, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, I'd read the stuff at Luftwaffe but hadn't seen the History... discussion (wow, an admin protected the article because of your editing?). So that reinforces what I've been saying about moving slowly, so that everyone involved has a chance to read up and comment. Don't worry about the incoming links until you have solidified the actual article split and gotten agreement that you are doing it right. My specific suggestion though is that you should post over at WT:MILHIST talk requesting scrutiny of your work plan for this article. They will be able to check up on the content part of your split and interwiki merge (and they know the procedures too) whereas all I can do is monitor attribution. The more people you get involved the better, even if some of them object to some stuff - or actually because some of them will object, like I did over the attribution issue. :) Franamax (talk) 01:04, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

As you suggested I left a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Luftwaffe - German Air Force asking for opinions about the split and merger. Usually I just do what needs to be done... as discussions take longer than the actual work. Thanks for pointing out the right procedure on how to split an article! I am curious to see if now more opinions will emerge then at the last discussion attempt. Cheers, noclador (talk) 02:33, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Nice work, thanks! You're right that it's simpler to just do the work (per WP:BOLD) but in this case where it's so complicated with all the articles involved, yeah it's probably better to balance out your desire to get your idea finished against what other people might think. And for sure, if no-one responds at MILHIST there's not much I can object to - so long as you are attributing properly! :) Now as far as article merges and moves, there are some technicalities there too about how to notify and request properly. I'm not sure how well you're complying there and will try to review - but for now, please just take it slow. At least please be sure to advertise around your intentions to every possible spot, there are lots of other people here who know how to handle this stuff. :) Franamax (talk) 02:52, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Update: not much discussion at Talk:Luftwaffe#Merger proposal and nobody spoke out against the split. So I will keep on working at German Air Force for now, and later merge History of the Luftwaffe (1933–1945) into Luftwaffe (although having looked at it - 100% of the material at Luftwaffe is also in the history article... so a move might be the simpler way... but how would that work with attribution???). Wikilinks I will step by step check to see which ones should point to Luftwaffe and which one should point to German Air Force. noclador (talk) 00:31, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Apology

Look, I don't know exactly where it went bad, but we clearly got off to a bad bit of tension there. I want to apologize directly to you for my part in that. I said some things I shouldn't have to you, and I want you to know I bear you no ill will. I am upset at myself for causing you discomfort, and I am sincerely sorry, and I hope we can still continue to work together in the future. We've always worked well together in the past, and I don't want to let a little thing like this create unneeded tension. --Jayron32 06:27, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Jayron, I actually have been planning a direct approach to you about your self-sacrificing mode of interaction, which I don't see as optimally productive - mostly because I highly value your opinions and outlook and I find it disconcerting when you suddenly curl up into a little ball. But it's late here, I'll try to address this presently. Regards! Franamax (talk) 06:43, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Hey Franamax. I don't want to be insulting when I say this, so please don't take this the wrong way, but I'm quite sure you've misread me in some major way. What just happened here is called an apology. This is what happens when one person recognizes that he's wronged another, and wishes to make it right. I'm not "curling up in a little ball" and I don't have a "self-sacrificing mode of interaction". What I have is a short fuse some times, and yes, sometimes I insult people, like when I called you petulent. I also recognized that was wrong, and I apologized for it. An apology is not a sign of weakness, it isn't self-sacrificing, and trust me, at my age I don't need a mentor or someone to help me through anything. I assure you I am quite secure in my own skin, and I don't really need any amateur psychoanalysis. I value you as a colleague, and as a colleague, I feel it is important that I apologize when I wronged you, which I did. But I'm quite capable of taking care of myself, and I have far to many grey hairs to need a lecture on "curling up in a little ball". So, let me instead offer you a bit of advice. When someone apologizes, say "Thank you" or say "Fuck you", because either of those at least show you're treating the person as an equal. But please don't belittle or patronize me. I do value you, and for that reason I don't want this tension to be here. But if you've felt I need some sort of help or that I have some security issue, let me set your mind at peace. I don't. I'm a big boy. --Jayron32 00:08, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Just in case it's useful, I have previously commented on apologies that ring hollow. If this is misdirected/out of place, I apologize. -- Scray (talk) 02:03, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Wow. Either you kept that bookmarked or you spent the time to dig that up. Either way, that's hilarious. --Jayron32 05:18, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi Franamax. I just want you to know that I'm really really really sorry and hope that you accept this humblest of apologies. I don't know what got into me. Maybe the crappy weather is getting to me. I don't know. I understand if you don't feel ready to forgive me yet. All the best and again, I'm really sorry. SlightSmile 02:29, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Franamax, are you by any chance an Aussie ? I recently had an interaction with an Aussie, from which it seems that they consider any complaint about having been wronged, request for an apology, or granting of an apology, to be "unmanly". This is quite different from the situation here in the US, where offering an apology when you have wronged somebody is the expected behavior. I proposed that this tradition may come from dueling times, where a mandatory step prior to the duel was to publicly demand an apology. Australia apparently was founded after the dueling tradition had ended, and the large number of criminals transported there may have seen apologies as weakness, instead. StuRat (talk) 05:52, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Australia. Yeah yeah I know that place. They got a kangaroo there or something don't they? SlightSmile 16:31, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

Steven Zhang's Fellowship Slideshow

In this issue:

• Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
• Research: The most recent DR data
• Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
• Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
• DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
• Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
• Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->

--The Olive Branch 19:03, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

wikibreak

Hi Franamax - thank you for your edits to assist me last month - I have benefited from the wikibreak enforcer and would ask you to please extend the break for one more month - thanks Franamax - see you in October - Rob Youreallycan 22:49, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Y Done! Franamax (talk) 23:22, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

sockpuppet, i reverted your vandalism

last time i checked, usa is still a free country. you have no rights to delete my questions. if you have free time, i suggest you to do some volunteer work in real life. you are going nowhere wasting time online. oh, yea, i reverted your vandalism. next time, you will be reported for vandalizing the page.--Bgggongfei (talk) 03:50, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

you don't have that right on a private website. I've just asked this user, who's an administrator, to block your account.--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:52, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Bgggongfei and BLP

After your warning, he proceeded to re-add the BLP violation, with a non-AGF edit summary on top of that. I'd say it's time for a block.--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:51, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Yep. Franamax (talk) 04:02, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Woodstock Library

Thanks for your contributions to the Woodstock Library article. I will try to address your comments and then re-nominate the article for GA status. I was sorry to see the first review did not go well, though I am still not sure exactly what went wrong. Such is life... --Another Believer _(Talk) 15:26, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Blocking of User:Bgggongfei

Thank you for blocking this user. He's a WP:LTA on Chinese Wikipedia, and likes accusing users of being "communist spies". He even attacks other users on facebook.--Jsjsjs1111 (talk) 06:02, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I've been watching this guy from the sidelines. He's many lengths of WP:ROPE overdue for a block. Well done. --Jayron32 06:06, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

For the record

When I was six, I found a tea set in the gutter of the street, and took it home and played with it. I never knew who it belonged to. I threw it out next garbage day. It haunted me for years as my first theft. You might keep this on record next time you want to demonstrate my evility, along with edits you've already complained about from six months ago. Until then, please stay off my talk page. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 23:39, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Ah the terrors that childhood can conjure! ;) I can't see theft in taking an abandoned tea set, but I guess throwing it out instead of passing it on (leaving it out somewhere like you found it) does mean you sort-of stole from some other kid who could have had it instead, so I can imagine working up a pile of guilt about that. :)

I will certainly avoid using your talk page unless it's necessary for administrative or project-related purposes if that is what you wish. Regards! Franamax (talk) 23:59, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

UK

Hello Franamax. I see you have deleted my edit at the UK article which is more than fine if I've screwed up in any way. Could you explain how a mobile device can mess up the format? Thanks. Jonty Monty (talk) 14:15, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

That's just an impression I've gathered from comments I've read on-wiki, touch screens are too sensitive or something - kind of like sitting in the bus and dialing emergency services with your butt I think. :) It certainly wasn't vandalism so I was just guessing at how you might have made that mistake... Franamax (talk) 14:29, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I just double checked and I did indeed screw up I'm afraid. You're right, it is very difficult using a mobile but will do my utmost not to screw up again. :(( Jonty Monty (talk) 14:34, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I have decided to cease editing by mobile. It's a bloomin nightmare! Arghh! Jonty Monty (talk) 14:48, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Your photo of the Uno

Hi there! I'm about to write the wikipedia page for the Uno on the French wikipedia, but the image provided is not licensed to appear on any other wikipedia than the English one. I'm wondering if you'd be able to extend the licensing to include additional wikipedias? Ben Gulak is a Canadian inventor, and our second official language is French! Makes sense that the French wiki would exist. Let me know if this is possible and I'll start typing. :D

File:Uno_motorcycle.jpg

Thanks! Bizzurp (talk) 14:33, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Bizzurp, that's not my image (I didn't take it with my own camera), I just copied it from a website and used a non-free rationale for en:wiki. To use it on other projects you would have to upload to the individual project and supply a fair-use rationale that complies with the local project policy. I don't know whether fr:wiki would permit it, but reading here on Meta I don't think they will so you'd better read the actual fr:wiki image policy.

Good luck with the translation anyway. I think that article may need updating by the way, I recall reading/seeing somewhere that he had to change the design because it wasn't stable enough with the wheels side-by-side at low speed or something. Regards! Franamax (talk) 17:31, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks...

... for fixing my user page. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 11:44, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Jsigned/Film Fan

Hello. You were one of the admins involved in the recent discussion concerning Jsigned/Film Fan's disruptive behavior on the article Taare Zameen Par that led to him being blocked. He is not edit warring at the moment, but he has requested a move for the article to be renamed to it's English title. Judging from all the opposition to it the previous times he attempted it and a lack of any support by other editors, it should be clear to him that the consensus is to have the foreign title. Although he has gone through proper channels by requesting a move, it has been discussed and opposed numerous times already. He is using the exact same arguments as before that nobody agreed with, and has not added anything new. At this point bringing it up yet again is just becoming an annoyance. Thus, I was wondering whether or not this counts as disruptive behavior? Thanks. Ωphois 18:35, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, I was watching a different set of his antics today, I see he moved on just in time. So long as he doesn't start editing the article, making deceptive image uploads, getting uncivil, etc. I don't really see a problem. RM is the correct way to do it and gets the community involved - and will give a definitive answer one way or the other so the issue can be put to rest. We'll see how it goes. Remember to stay cool and calm yourself... Franamax (talk) 20:26, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for your input. As of now his main argument is calling me a liar while stating it would be too time consuming for him to actually find evidence of his claims. Ωphois 22:25, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

No, he is calling what you said untrue, and that's different than calling you a liar (for which I would likely block him). You could be misinformed, not have access to some key information, misinterpreting - there are many reasons I might say something untrue without purposely trying to lie. But don't worry about such blanket claims anyway, have faith in the community being able to see through rhetoric. Just present your evidence (diffs and external links), refute his (as you did with his list of links), and trust in the "wisdom of crowds", it usually works pretty well. :) Regards! Franamax (talk) 22:38, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Eep, on review I stand corrected, he did say flat-out you were lying and I've acted accordingly. My other advice stands though. Franamax (talk) 07:09, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. Two other editors have joined in on the discussion, so everything should be fine now. Quick question though... shortly after you blocked Film Fan, an anon vandalized the Taare Zameen Par page here. The page hasn't gotten anon edits in a long time, so I suspect it was Film Fan. Do you know if there is any way to tell? Thanks. Ωphois 18:30, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Bobby_Hull_-_Chicago_Black_Hawks_1960_-_LAC_-E002505660.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Bobby_Hull_-_Chicago_Black_Hawks_1960_-_LAC_-E002505660.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that this media item is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails the first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media item could be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media item is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the file description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the file discussion page, write the reason why this media item is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Melesse (talk) 07:38, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Grace Kelly at Expo67 - LAC e000996509.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Grace Kelly at Expo67 - LAC e000996509.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. SchuminWeb (Talk) 14:06, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Grace Kelly Expo67 pressonf - LAC E000996504.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Grace Kelly Expo67 pressonf - LAC E000996504.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. SchuminWeb (Talk) 14:06, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:Israeli Pavilion at night Expo 67 - LAC e000990944.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Israeli Pavilion at night Expo 67 - LAC e000990944.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. SchuminWeb (Talk) 14:07, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Information

I noticed your username commenting at an Arbcom discussion regarding civility. An effort is underway that would likely benifit if your views were included. I hope you will append regards at: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Civility enforcement/Questionnaire Thank you for considering this request. My76Strat (talk) 10:24, 29 November 2012 (UTC)