User talk:Fram/Archive 6

Reason for deleting Sharon Fellowship

I created Sharon Fellowship to tell the history of the Sharon Fellowship Churches in the World. and I recently discovered that it was you that deleted it. I do not understand why you claim it was promoting a product when there is histories of other Churches on this wiki. Please let me know you justification of deleting it? Thanks, Samauto.

The article was Sharon Fellowship Churches of North America and another article that pointed to it. This was very far from an encyclopedic, neutral history of this church, based on idnependent reliable sources: it was a propaganda piece, containing sentences like "Depending on God, they prayed and decided to start Sharon Fellowship Churches in various cities in North America for the glory of God." Such articles are unacceptable on Wikipedia. Other church articles should be neutral if they are to be kept, but I'm quite certain that you can find exampes which are equally bad for other churches. Alas, then we have missed those thus far when checking Wikipedia articles. Fram 19:47, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Reason for deleting Bifeprunox article?

Hi, I created the article about Bifeprunox because it will be the first of a new class of antipsychotics, totally different than the ones in current use, typical and nontypical. I think its important for people to know about, and a reference for it would be appropriate. I don't understand why you deleted it, could you clear it up? Thanks, Thioxane. June 20, 2007 - 10am

The article read like an advertisement for the new drug, not a neutral article based on independent sources. Articles should be verifiable (from reliable independent sources) and written from a neutral point of view. Furthermore, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball: we try to avoid articles about things that will happen, products that will become available, and so on. Fram 14:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if it seemed that way, but it was unintentional. I was reading a scientific paper about the antipsychotics that combine D2 and 5-HT receptor activities and Bifeprunox came up, so I made a quick search on wikipedia to see its structure, unfortunatly, nothing came up so I decided to create an article for those users looking for this drug as well. Wikipedia has many articles on many antipsychotics and this should be no different, I can provide a number of papers if you would like, but I see no reason why this drug should be treated any different than others. LMK and with your clearance I will remake the article, thanks, Thioxane June 20, 2007 - 4pm

No problem, you can recreate it. Try to make it more neutral, and above all provide good sources, and it shouldn't be any problem. If you need more help with anything, feel free to drop a note. By the way, you can sign your posts here with adding four '~' at the end of your post. This automatically translates into your username and the date and time of yur post. Fram 20:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

A requested move

Hey Fram. Could you pop by Talk:Magnus (comics)#Requested_move and say what you think about the idea of moving Roberto Raviola there, instead of the present nameholder..? Murgh^disc. 07:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the opinon. Could you give me an one with this too, Talk:La_Rubrique-à-Brac? I think it was caused by a misunderstandng. Murgh^disc. 01:23, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Episode articles

I'm doing the same thing for Smallville. It's horribly chaotic at the moment though.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I've started for 24, and it seems doable. No idea how much flak I'll get, but the edpisode articles are mostly plot summaries anyway... Writing two-line plot summaries isn't always easy though :-) Fram 18:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:NONFREE

Hello. Do you mind changing the disputed tag (which marks that whole section or page as bad) with the inline template {{Disputable}} ? Thanks, nadav (talk) 08:17, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

No problem, done. Fram 08:20, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Baraha

I have added notable references and removed the tag. -- Naveen ^(talk) 16:51, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, good job. Perhaps the article can be expanded using these references, and they can be used as in-line references, but the subject now certainly can make a good claim to notability. Fram 20:08, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Glossaries

Hi. I noticed (via List of glossaries) you've transwikied a few glossaries to Wiktionary. I was primarily wondering if you knew whether these would be suitable cases to setup a Wikipedia:Soft redirect for?

There has been quite a bit of prior debate about whether glossaries belong within Wikipedia or not (see Category talk:Glossaries, Talk:List of glossaries, and Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not), with many editors believing glossaries play an integral part in a topic's coverage, and hence re/moving them without leaving a way to easily access them afterwards is slightly problematic. It's a loaded topic, and I'm sorry to dump so much info on you at once! Thanks for any insights/help you can give. --Quiddity 17:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, most of them were transwikied a while ago without my involvement, and I just took those to a logical conclusion, i.e. removing them from Wikipedia. This is covered by WP:CSD, section A5: transwikied articles "any article that consists of only a dictionary definition, where the transwikification has been properly performed and the author information recorded." I have seen the discussions you mentioned, but most seemed to center on glossaries where the individual entries pointed to larger articles (making them basically navigation lists, which is a good idea). But see e.g. English language idioms derived from baseball, which I tagged for transwikying: not one of the lemma's is a link to an article. It is just a list of dicdefs without additional info, and so can be transwikied and deleted under the speedy deletion criteria and WP:NOT. Some other examples: in List of baseball jargon (U) , 2 of the 13 entries had their own articles; in List of baseball jargon (A), 3 of the 21 had articles. Another indication is that many of these glossaries are orphans, they have very few or no articles linking to them. Glossary of Japanese tea ceremony terms had no incoming links at all, and Glossary of atmospheric reentry had only one, which I replaced with a link to the wiktionary article (see Atmospheric reentry).

As for soft redirects, it says that "only commonly wikified words should be soft redirects". As these were not words but lists of words, I don't think a soft redirect from e.g. Glossary of Japanese tea ceremony terms is wanted. However, for some of the baseball jargon and the legal terms, it may be a good solution, if the individual terms exist on Wiktionary.

I did check at random some glossaries from the List of glossaries when doing this, and there were also a few that were clearly not candidates for deletion, like Terminology in graphonomics or List of terms for country subdivisions or Talking Glossary of Genetic Terms. So you may be assured that I'm not on a blind crusade against all glossaries, only those that are better placed at wiktionary. Fram 19:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Much thanks for the informative reply :) I was partially just making sure you were aware of some of the background, and partially hoping for an outside-but-informed (admin) perspective (which you gave perfectly), and partially seeking to clarify for myself what the legitimate options currently were (having not revisited the issue for awhile).

My major stumbling block is that Wiktionary doesnt search the Transwiki or Appendices namespaces automatically, which makes it much harder to find things (e.g. if one searches for Glossary of Japanese tea ceremony terms, and clicks the blue link to the non-existent article, clicking the Wiktionary link from there gives no results). I've got a full plate currently though, so I guess I'll let the old subconscious mull on that one for a few more weeks/months... :) Thanks again. --Quiddity 20:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the understanding. I didn't know that the search on Wiktionary worked that way, after checking I notice that you have to check the "transwiki" mainsopace box at the bottom of the search results page to get to the correct page (which isn't something most users will do of course). I'll look into this some more before continuing to delete those dictionary lists that have been transwikied. The info doesn't need to exist at two places, but it has to be accessible... Fram 07:14, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm a relative newbie here and have focused some of my editing efforts on improving baseball player articles. Some feedback I've received from other editors is that the articles tend to contain a good deal of baseball jargon and it's helpful for non-baseball fanatics if the jargon is wikilinked. I've been using the List of baseball jargon pages for this purpose. Now that these pages have moved to Wictionary, the links in the player articles are broken. Furthermore, the baseball jargon articles themselves are now full of broken links as well. Is there some automated process that can be run to fix these links or do we have to go through each article and fix them one at a time? This is the first I've encountered something like this here and will be grateful for any guidance. --Sanfranman59 16:56, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

There is, as far as I know, no automated process for this. One possibility is to go through the now deleted baseball jargon articles, and click on the "what links here" option (first option on the left in the "toolbox", in case you didn't know). Then at least you get a list of all pages that link to those pages. E.g. to the letter T, only one article links, Gene Larkin, which also had a link to the "S" page.[1]. That "S" page had only one other incoming link as well, the Adam Melhuse article.[2]. Both articles linked to the same term (single), so the rest of the "S" page (96 terms in total) wasn't used (or at least linked to) in any Wikipedia page... Possible solutions? Avoid the jargon, explain it in the article, link to the Wiktionary article, or (if it is used in many articles and enough can be said about it) create a separate article (more than a dicdef, a true encyclopedic article) for it, like has been done with e.g. Pinch hitter or Knuckleball. 19:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm ... OK ... In addition to linking to the "baseball jargon" pages directly for some terms that don't have their own pages, I found them to be useful reference pages that pointed me to other terms that do have their own pages. They were an easy "one-stop shop" for finding articles commonly linked in baseball-related articles. I don't even know how to find these articles now nor do I know how to link to them from Wikipedia (although I'm guessing it's not rocket science). When I go to Wiktionary and search for "baseball jargon" or "list of baseball jargon", it doesn't return any of the pages. I feel like I've lost a valuable resource that made the work I do here easier. Was it creating a problem having these pages where they were? Is there anywhere I can go to plead my case for having them restored (or is this the place)? Thanks again for your time. --Sanfranman59 23:39, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

The easy way to find all these pages here is to look through Category:Baseball terminology. Pages that aren't included in here can be easily added. In Wiktionary, the pages are at [3] and similar pages. As for restoring the pages, you can always plead your case at WP:DRV. Fram 04:45, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

FYI

Special:Blockip/Snakeeee - you blocked a vandal only account for 31h, I think it was a typo but I wanted to make sure you knew in case you had keyboard probs :) -- Tawker 19:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Yep, it is one of the standard durations in the blocking page, and it is useful to block slightly over a day. It gives the editor a second chance, without just letting him come back the next day. So no typo but a deliberate first block. I don't like to block indefinitely for a first time offender except in very serious cases (threats, sockpuppets, ...), but I have no problem with other admins who indef block vandal only accounts on sight. Fram 19:32, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Category:Maqita

Maqita is the term for Indonesian comics and is part of my recent work sorting out the comics from various countries. As I've worked on an awful lot of categories it is diffuclt to recall exact details but I never create an empty category on the off chance someone will drop something in. I do recall creating it and it not being empty (as I'd never heard of the term before) but what the actual initial entry was I created this from escapes me. I'll hve to do some detective work to find out what has gone on and see if things were removed for a reason (it may be redundant and need delting) or not ;) Thanks for the heads up - you can make these things, you just can't guarantee what goes in or out of them ;) (Emperor 16:09, 15 June 2007 (UTC))

Found it. I have raised concerns about the term and was going to leave the category alone until that is sorted out. It may be we need to move everything to "Indonesian comics" but I'd want to do that on both the category and entry at the same time. So it is a bit of a wait and see. (Emperor 16:17, 15 June 2007 (UTC))

Baseball jargon

Hi, just wondering about your transwiki of List of baseball jargon. Transwikied to where? Was there a discussion about this? Seems like the edit summary could be a bit more enlightening. Deiz talk 04:39, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Found the transwikied page after reading above, but it seems broken, with no master index. I can't help but feel that the caveat in CSD#A5, "where the transwikification has been properly performed" has not been satisfied in this case. Deiz talk 04:42, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Any thoughts about this? Deiz talk 14:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

A deletion review about this page is currently being discussed, feel free to join the discussion! Fram 14:17, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I just noticed that I mislabeled that baseball slang oldafd as 'keep' when it was 'no consensus'. Thanks for fixing (and not chastising! I had a lot of tabs open). noreplyneeded. --Quiddity 18:32, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

No problem, you seemed reasonable before, so I assumed it was a honest mistake. I make enough of those, so I try not to chastise others :-) Fram 18:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Block

Hi. I see you blocked User:Iımegreeŋ for abuse of editing privileges. It's also pretty clear that they're impersonating me, so it would seem reasonable they stay blocked. Cheers. --Limegreen 11:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Yup, that's why I went for an immediate indef. It's the kind of behaviour (and username) that no amount of apologies, if they would ever come, could excuse. It's technically not a ban, but I doubt any admin would unblock such a case anyway :-) Fram 11:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Deletion review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of List of baseball jargon. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. bd2412 T 22:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Movieindex

I think blocking is in order: [[4]]. nadav (talk) 09:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, clear violations of WP:POINT, WP:NOT and Wp:BLP. I hope a 24 hour block will be enough... Fram 09:59, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Sideroad 20

Hi Fram,

I just wanted to notify you that I have always wanted to "delete" Sideroad 20. Sideraod 20 was an article that was created by an accident when I was a newbie. What I really wanted to create was "20th Sideraod", which is Simcoe County Road 39. I am glad you help me out... So then I searched on the map, and I found there is really a Sideroad 20, so that I just put information there, not knowing how to delete it... Through months and months, I forgot about this article... It was one of my first articles..

Thanks again,

Smcafirst 22:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

:-) Yes, I noticed that you made them both. It is quite confusing indeed. In the future, when you have articles of your own that you want to delete, you can put db-author (between {{ }}) at the top if no one else has edited the article. But it's not a problem anyway, it's the kind of article that isn't important enough for Wikipedia, but that can't hurt anyone. Fram 04:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Talkpage

Thanks for reverting my talkpage. Evilclown93_(talk) 11:03, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

No problem. It is a persistent silly IP vandal which I block on sight, but I noticed him a bit too late this time :-) Fram 11:04, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Moonlight (runtime)

I hope I've sufficiently appeased the deletion gods to spare the article Moonlight (runtime) with links to both Wired and CNET. Maybe you shouldn't call every article's notability into question unless you have an understanding of its subject matter, or it hasn't garnered sufficient notability over, say, a couple months. Thomasmallen 12:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I haven't nominated it for deletion, I pointed out that the article gave no indication whatsoever as to why this was notable. The two blog posts you linked are at least an indication that it is so. And we don't create articles on subjects which may become notable in acouple of months, we create articles on subjects which have already shown to be notable. One of the two blog posts you linked to wasn't even posted yet when I put on the notability tag... Fram 13:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Got it. I'll remove the notability guideline now. You can expect this article to get quite healthy once Silverlight comes out this fall, but probably much sooner when the true test releases of Moonlight come out this summer. Thomasmallen 13:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Allright!

Thanks

Thank you for reverting a misplaced edit on my user page. Best regards, Icemuon 10:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

And thanks from me...

...for the vandalism revert on my user page. Freshacconci 10:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Itcl

Whilst investigating your nomination which calls for the deletion of the Itcl article, I discovered that an article called Incr Tcl already existed. Since then, I've merged the two and subsequently removed the deletion notice (I used the original article from Incr Tcl as the main article. Hopefully this is acceptable to you, seeing as how the existence of the second page (which hasn't been nominated for deletion) combined with the fact that I am confident that Itcl is certainly a notable programming language. The bottom line here is that this is definitely an article which is worth keeping. If you would like to spend more time debating this, I request that you do so by directing future inquiries regarding this matter to the talk page of the article (Talk:Itcl).

Thanks.

--Wikidrone 16:22, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

List of geographical pairs

Hi, thanks for adding the proposed deletion notice on my talk page. I could not find the deletion debate/voting page. Can you give me the link. Jay 12:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

It's a proposed deletion, so there is no discussion. If no one disagrees, it happens. If you (o rsomeone else) disagrees, you can either comment on the talk page of the article, and/or remove the proposed deletion tag (preferably with improvements to the article). If the ProD is contested, I (or someone else) may still put the article up for deletion, but then it will go to WP:AFD, where a complete deletion discussion will happen. Fram 12:26, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Shut Up, Get Naked! Podcast Article

Hello, I am the creator of the article. You deleted it for not showing importance. I have added the reason for the importance of the podcast under the intro to the article. If you would please review it and tell me if that is good. If not, please message me or leave a notice on the page so I can take care of that. Thanks, mpippen 09:15, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

The page doe not assert notability per our WP:NOTE guidelines. Has the podcast been the subject of any professional magazine or newpaper articles? Has it received any major web awards (a Webby or some such)? As long as you can't show any of these (with reliable sources), the page has no place on Wikipedia. Fram 09:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, well if we go by the standards of things such as winning an award then we have more articles about podcasts that should go. Including http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Writer%27s_Almanac to name one. If you look at that article you will see that I actually had more information to make SUGN notable. Also, Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia to document things upon. If my article doesn't provide documentation to the SUGN podcast and its history. Then maybe some more articles need to go as well.

Give WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS a read. Freshacconci 02:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, fine. I drop that arugement. Although if you do go to the page for Notability WP:WEB, the 3rd point under criteria includes distribution in a medium that is well known and independent. SUGN is distributed though both the YoungPodcasts (I believe I have the name correctly) Network and the Teen Podcasters Network, which received a mention on TWIT. If these points were made in the article would that satisfy your guidelines? mpippen 08:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Not for me, but then perhaps it would be better to have a larger discussion about it (at Articles for Discussion or so). There are no quality rules to be hosted at the Teen Podcasters Network, it just has to be made by teens and have at least 5 episodes.[5] I can't find a lot about YoungPodCaasts, but it seems to be very similar[6]. It is a bit like the difference between having published a book with a reputable publisher like HarperCollins or Random House or Penguin, and having a book with Lulu.com or iPublish.com (two "self-publishers: you pay, they produce). In both cases, the end result is a book, but the first is notable, the second isn't. Fram 07:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

The criteria says a medium that is well known and independent. Teen Podcasters Network and YoungPodcasts have no relations other then distribution to SUGN, check the site for further evidence. The Teen Podcasters Network is a very well known network. Check the wikipedia article[7]. YoungPodcasts is not as too well known in my opinion, but the criteria only require one medium. SUGN meets that criteria and the page says that only one of the three criteria points needs to be met. mpippen 08:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

The question is if this falls under "well-known" (borderline), and if it doesn't fall under the exception of rule 3: "except for trivial distribution such as hosting content on user-submitted sites (GeoCities, Newgrounds, personal blogs, etc.)". This is rather trivial indeed, as it is user-submitted: every podcast that follows the very very simple rules is on the network. But perhaps it is best if you recreat the page, with all arguments (sources) for it you can find, and that we then take it to AfD (deletion discussion). I still think it will be deleted there, but then at least it will be a community decision, not just my own opinion. Fram 08:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Here's the thing. GeoCities, Newgrounds, personal blogs, etc. are all user-submitted in the fact that you just sign-up or in some cases just upload the content to them without even having to sign-up. Teen Podcasters Network requires application to the network and then if you are approved (AKA The content/quality is approved and you follow the rules set out) you are allowed to post as part of the network on the home page. The content on the Teen Podcasters Network is member syndicated content. It's combined together from all members. mpippen 08:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Unfair Deletion

You recently deleted my bands page, "Render," I feel for the sole reason that it had something to do with my personal postings on "Bryan Russo" and "The Todd Walker Experience." It's true, these were nonsensical articles I created out of sheer boredom and for the purpose of humor and entertainment. However, I had nothing to do with the creation of the Render (band) article; I simply updated the link under the name "Bryan Russo" to redirect to the humorous bio page I had just created for that particular member. If you want to delete my articles because they're "nonsensical," that's fine. You can block me if you want to as well, if that's your agenda. But to delete the Render (band) page because you claim it's "An article about a band that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject," that's just nonsensical in itself to me. The importance or significance of its subject? It's letting the world know who Render is and gives a brief history of the band. How did it not assert any importance or significance? Because it was brief? Or because you didn't like the articles I created? I see no good reason for you to have deleted this article. I feel you deleted it simply because It was something that I linked to in one of my "nonsensical" articles. I request a good reason for deletion of the Render (band) page. Thanks. --Professorjive26 14:38, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Check out oour criteria for speedy deletion page, under articles, item 7. I came across the page through your nonsense, but I did not delete it because it was nonsense, but because it is a non notable band, just like I delete many other pages for non notable bands, persons, companies, ... 07:02, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I never said the article was nonsensical, just noted that the other two I did create were. What does a band have to do to be "remarkable" to you? I still think you had a biased opinion about the band simply because I referenced it, and the humorous articles I created swayed you do speedily delete the Render band article, simply out of spite. I think the 75,000+ fans Render has on Myspace.com alone would beg to differ about their notoriety. I again ask, what does a band have to do be "notable" or "remarkable" to you? Do you want them to change the world? As soon as your able to define what makes a band notable (which by the way, I'm sure has no true definition, only personal opinion), you can't justify deletion of Render (band) besides spite.

--Professorjive26 12:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

It looks like you didn't check out the link I gave, which explained in brief why I deleted it. Anyway, here you go, our Music notability guideline WP:MUSIC. Fram 12:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually I did check the link that you posted, which is what prompted my response, asking your criteria for being "remarkable" (You should have posted the "music guideline" page in the first place). The link you just posted answered that question. To which I now respond: While the band may not meet all of the criteria listed on that page, we meet at least 3, and have various other achievements not listed on the "music guideline" page, but are could definitely be considered note worthy achievements. When the page is restored, it will be updated to meet these criteria. --Professorjive26 18:01, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I take it you like deleting band pages. I guess thats just how it _seems_. Please, can you bring it back? I was on my way to make it notable with the guidelines for music pages. I need to re-create the article. V:M is notable! Just let me edit it after you bring it back! Kinkijui KNK! 14:02, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

71.220.133.86

Is an IP address that you've blocked indefinitely. Per WP:BLOCK IP's should not be blocked indefinitely unless they are open proxies. JoshuaZ 22:25, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I know, and I have made that error in the past, but in this case, you changed the block from 24 hours (not indefinite) to 20 hours[8] :-) I think you looked in the wrong place somehow. Fram 07:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Almost 4 hours had gone by after I made your comment here to when I reblocked. So out of a 24 hour block, about 20 was remaining. JoshuaZ 23:43, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I know, and it's no problem. I just wanted to point out that you didn't change an indefinite block into a 24 hour block, but one 24 hour block into another... Fram 14:46, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Huh? Now, I'm highly confused. I could have sworn that showed an indef block when I changed it. JoshuaZ 17:39, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

List of interpreters

Why are there lists of individual interpreters? I don't think these are sufficiently well known to be listed (some of them are for other reasons, but none are notable because they are interpreters). Without a good counterargument, I'll remove them in a few days time. Fram 12:15, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Reply from article originator: List of interpreters is a compilation of entries that have never ever been compiled anywhere else (especially on one page). It is a vital part of this article. It had also been featured (while in its "infancy" on DYK column of the main page. So consider that I am still continuously building the pages for individual interpreters. But since there is a great number of them, this task really takes time. (I am also interested in creating/expanding and improving other articles; not just this one). So please do not delete without consulting me. I might already have prepared a biographical data of the interpreter/s you might want to delete from the list but just not have found time to upload them yet. Thank you. If you or anyone else could assist me in this task, I would really appreciate it. Inclusion of the list within the article is important for maintaining the quality of this article. And these people are UN interpreters - their on "top" of their profession, as they themselves say. They represent the UN and the world. They are "diplomatic bridges" (voices of diplomacy too), representatives of international diplomacy, although they are performing from the backstage of conferences. (Note: I am considering making the fonts smaller than as they are now, to make room for future expansion of the article itself.) Dragonbite 14:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC) (reply retrieved from article's talk page.) Dragonbite 14:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for copying yourreply here. I'll reply on the talk page of the article to keep the discussion in one place. Fram 14:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Velociti:Music request.

Can you please re-create Velociti:Music so that I can make it notable! Please don't delete it again. Contact me on my talk page. Kinkijui KNK! 14:15, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I have recreated it in User:Kinkijui KNK/Sandbox. here you can complete it (with sources, additional info, ...) before copying it to an article again. That way, we can judge the complete article, not one line of it. It may still be speedy deleted if it isn't notable enough, but then at least you will have had the chance to give it yuor best shot. Fram 07:08, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Notability

Thank you for responding quickly! The reason Velociti:Music is notable is that it meets the criteria of the "Others" section of WP:Music #4. Also, I will write the names of their songs/albums and possibly the names of the group members.

:>-[[]]-<:

Hello! Respond to me! Velociti:Music's future depends on it!

Thanks

For devandalising my user page. ☻ Fred|☝ discussion|✍ contributions 10:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks 2

Hi Fram. Thanks for reverting vandalism of my userpage. Gimboid13 10:56, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Four Letter Lie

Fram, it appears that Four Letter Lie was deleted because they are unsigned. They are signed to Victory Records. Kedster ^T/_C 14:45, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

No, it was deleted because the article did not assert any notability, as per WP:MUSIC. If you want to recreate the article (deleted seven times so far), please include good independent sources indicating why this band is notable enough for Wikipedia. Having released one record and toured a bit isn't enough. Fram 18:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Lambert Cronk

Hi, I admit I'm rather new to this, but a couple of months back I created a section which I put in the "related band" section of the page for The Strawbs (Dave Lambert and Chas Cronk are two members of the band who have recently released their own cd, but remain members of Strawbs).

I then thought it would be a good idea for them to have their own page, as people who buy their cd in its own right would not be looking at Strawbs page, so created a new page entitled "Lambert Cronk".

However, I happened to look yesterday as a couple of things need to be updated relating to the band, and found both the piece put in the "related bands" section of Strawbs page to have disappeared, and also Lambert Cronk's own page.

I created the text relating to Lambert Cronk myself, and would be grateful if you will let me know whether it can be reinstated - is it only allowable to have the same piece of text in one place on Wikipedia? If so I would keep the "stand alone" page, and I will write a new piece to add to the related bands section of Strawbs page.

Thank you for assisting me in this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lasorrell (talk • contribs)

I deleted the page LAMBERT CRONK, which was created by user Burning4u, because (as the deletion log says) it was a "blatant copyright violation of http://www.strawbsweb.co.uk/related/dlcc/dlccre.asp". We are not allowed to have pages that are partial or complete copies (or near-copies) of other publications, no matter if these are printed or on the web, except when those are in the public domain (i.e. old or from the government).Fram 20:50, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Antwerpen

I'm new to this, so I hope it is ok for me to post here, if not, then please forgive me. For the origin of the name Antwerp, I found this to be quite resourceful: http://www.miniatuurstad.be/brabo/legende_van_brabo.htm Now I am not sure that this is original material, but it is worth a look at. Thank you.

Thanks for searching this. However, for such etymological studies, certainly for a big city, we need more than the unsigned page of an Antwerp tourist attraction which clims to have found the solution. As the text says, there are some 25 different proposals, and every athor probably believes his proposal to be the best. As for posting here, this is good, although postding on the Talk:Antwerp page is normally even better: that way, you don't only get my opinion, but the one of other editors interested in it as well. Fram 19:51, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Transwiki deletion

On Jun 12 2007 you deleted Legal terms following a transwiki move. The page was a lengthy glossary of alphabetized terms which I believe has been moved to wiktionary, however it looks there that approximately half the definitions have been eliminated for some reason, leaving behind a sea of red links. I think the information was very useful for the encyclopedia, and hope that the information is still available. If so, there is very little left behind now to show me how to now find the red linked definitions; and the move has resulted in red links within the articles which now need fixing. Could you either point me to where the full glossary can be found now, or please point me to the discussions that led to the move so I can explore it further with those involved. Thanks Professor marginalia 21:15, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, Legal terms was only a redirect, but Glossary of legal terms was the page you meant, and I deleted that one as well. It can be found at [9] and not at wiktionary though. I hope this helps. I'll recreate Legal terms as a redirect to the glossary, since that has been recreated. Fram 19:58, 7 August 2007 (UTC)