User talk:Fram/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

→

Archive 20

NationMaster a copy of Wikipedia?

I was wondering why in this article, you have removed a sourced reference from NationMaster.com and replaced it with the 'citation needed' tag? In the edit summary you say that "NationMaster Encyclopedia is a copy of Wikipedia". I don't understand why it is an invilad reference. -- Archangel Lucifer (talk) 07:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

This was the link I removed: [1]. At the bottom of that page (small print): "The Wikipedia article included on this page is licensed under the GFDL." All pages in the Nationmaster Encyclopedia (not the rest of Nationmaster) are older copies of Wikipedia articles. Articles we write ourselves can not be used as references for other Wikipedia articles. Fram (talk) 09:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, I was stupid for not noticing that before. However, this leaves me with a dilemma - I can't find any other sources that state that Fragile Allegiance is the spiritual successor to K240. Reading the article in question and its associated references to K240 will reveal that they are very similar games ; they were both made by Gremlin Interactive, both have the Sci-tek blueprint system, in both games the player has to set up a mining franchise operation, Many buildings, ships and missiles have the same name and functions in both games, the player begins both games with 1 ship, 1 building and 1 million credits, the Rigellians appear in both games and they both use an icon based GUI.

I can't actually prove this point with sources but I don't believe the two games are wholly unrelated. I'm not sure how to get around this obstacle. -- Archangel Lucifer (talk) 08:16, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it won't be a problem to let it stand with the fact tag for a while. Someone may come along who has a source for it, and anyone who reads it now will notice that the claim is unsourced. It is not a "dangerous" statement, it can do no harm to anyone or anything, and so it is no real problem to let it stand. In the end, if no sources are coming, it will have to go (since then, it would have to be considered original research, but that may wait a while. Fram (talk) 08:21, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The link cited on the article Spread a Little Happiness does not appear anywhere on Wikipedia. I don't know, or frankly care, what your problem with Nationmaster is. But why not actually try finding alternative links rather than just crapping all over Wikipedia.K8 fan (talk) 17:05, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

[2]. Nationmaster is an old copy of Wikipedia, and does not mirror our current content. And I'm not "crapping", thank you, I'm removing bad links. Fram (talk) 04:41, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Tramway articles

Dear Sir Fram, I never came after mr. Robotje; he only comes here to (re)acting (against rules) by stalking etc. towards mr. Van Schie, mr. Den Broeder, and me. You (alas) helped their goals by deleting my (nearly 11) months undisputed work. I really hope you'll realize and recognize that unfortunate impact on our motivation too proud to reverting while I remain Yours faithfully: D.A. Borgdorff 86.83.155.44 (talk) 20:35, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

All I see are two groups of people, one making all kinds of edits about their own work and supporting each other across different language versions of Wikipedia, and another group trying to undo these edits across those Wikipedia language versions. Both groups are wrong.

As for my edits: being uncontested for a number of months or years is no guarantee of anything. I have recently nominated an article for deletion that had existed for five years, and it still got deleted. The article "Tram" was in a terrible condition, many of the poor sections and lines in it uncontested for long periods. Part of the cleanup was the removal of utterly irrelevant minor things, including the example which you gave to add your book to yet another article. It has not been shown that your book is considered authoritative or even truly noteworthy for trams in general (it is probably noteworthy when discussing HTM in depth), and it added no value to an audience looking for global, general information on trams or the history of trams. But the discussion you and Robotje were having did nothing to improve the encyclopedia and was a waste of everyone's time. Fram (talk) 07:02, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Though not agreeing with you, I respect your vision about these matters. But Robotje c.s. don't, even now going on with mobbing, threatening me etc. on that page. You have to "imagine" my position as an expert ... to be mudslingerd by somebody who doesn't even know that the RIEN (or in Dutch: KIvI) for over 150 years always was written with a small "v" ... and undid my "improvement" to the very apparently wrong KIVI-version again, while it seems "the" only matter of importance to him: persisting into deliberately absurd texts. As stated, my books are one of very few (worldwide) to take into account, which you can understand if you look upon the "quality" into most of the worldwide "tramsites", Wikipedia etc. included.! - If you people don't want improvements, but disruption and deleting is promoted, I don't want to be involved anymore in this kind of contestation. Of course I'm underlining your last sentence if you're being to take care of the not by me started off-topic remarks there on these Trampages. Always with esteem: truly Y'rs D.A. Borgdorff 86.83.155.44 (talk) 11:48, 2 September 2008 (UTC) PS: As thoroughly explained, my book about the first RCT-chopperpulsed articulated LRVtrams (i.e. said GTL8 series) are of no importance owing to The Hague, in that city (like e.g. the "Golden Earrings") it happens to be, but gobal because of very early (=BN/ACEC/HTM) pioneering in Power Electronics that: brought revival since that replacement of (old-fashioned) switching drums and resistors, also into "car-body" archtecture. We've frequently wellcomed University- & Tramway-colleguaes from US - UK - Germany (Swiss too) - Brazil - Japan and China, from 1974 on, and you (who wasn't there ?? that I can remember) insist "not been shown .. considered authoritative or even truly noteworthy for trams" ?? - I'm sorry, but this seems to be rather airyly on this topic to me: D.A. Borgdorff Tramway Staff Eng(em) 86.83.155.44 (talk) 12:29, 2 September 2008 (UTC) (EC) See also my Bibliography, and apologies again.

"As stated, my books are one of very few (worldwide) to take into account" ... What is this supposed to mean? In general, you don't edit other people's comments, certainly not when things get heated. It isn't really important if KIVI or KivI is used, certainly not since the organistaion itself now has changed from the latter to the former. But "we people" do want improvements, but that doesn't mean that your idea of an improvement (which invariably seems to involve introducing a book which you have either compiled or translated) is the same as our idea of an improvement. Using your expertise would mean e.g. correcting errors in articles, adding references to the best books and sources for the subject at hand and with which you have no involvement. For general topics, this will usually mean generally available, broad sources: for narrow, specific topics, more highly specialized sources may be more appropriate. In general, English language sources are preferred above other language sources, certainly when the topic has no connection to a specific language (for Dutch trams, a Dutch reference would be acceptable: for an article on trams in general, there are plenty English language sources, so a Dutch language source will in general be unacceptable). Fram (talk) 12:17, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Please don't add a PS to a comment you have made, after a reply to that comment has been posted. It makes it very hard to follow the order of posts and replies afterwards. As was quite clear from all these discussions , my statement "not been shown .. considered authoritative or even truly noteworthy for trams" is about your book, not about the trams. The book wasn't around in 1974. You are arguing for the inclusion of a mention of a tramtype you helped develop, sourced to a book you compilated. If this isn't a serious violation of our conflict of interest guideline, then I don't know what is... If the trams were so noteworthy, some other sources besides your book would be available, perhaps more clearly and neutrally describing what wsa the importance of these trams: in that case, you should use those sources, not your own. On the other hand, if the trams have not been remarked upon in other reliable sources, then they are not notable by Wikipedia standards, and should not be mentioned in general articles. Whichever the result, you should not add a reference to your book in most articles, including "trams" and "history of trams".

If you think that the tramtype GTL8 deserves a mention, then give us other, independent, reliable sources about this tram. Fram (talk) 12:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I already apologized: because I'm Aged too, as you probably understand, while you turned my posting PS that I'd have to type in again of "EC" I had mentioned.! (EC). I'll surely read your comments, but can't do this in hurry. To my opinion people are very fast forgetting this milestones, like e.g. the first Electric Tram was stated in Berlin where it was trackted in Groß-Lichterfelde on May 16 1881. As an example: the prologue to GTL-series was written in "Modern Sneltrams" by NS-colleguae ir. H.P. Kaper ISBN 90-6007-558-7, as in the still listed simular book "Modern Trams" by authoritive (A'dam) writer: Van der Gragt.*) The here related compilation is the full 3rd edition of a reprint from a first review around mid eighties, all being reserved for an aimed 'Tramencyclopedia' - apart from the also more than 100 said references. I'll remain obligated D.A. Borgdorff, dAb +> 86.83.155.44 (talk) 13:33, 2 September 2008 (UTC) *) See: ISBN 90-6007-518-8

Faye Tozer

I do not agree with your removal of facts from the Faye Tozer page. You have determined the source to be non reputable. Am I to assume therefore that only internet contains facts. If I could reference the UK land Registry I would, but that specific data is not online for obvious reasons. If we were to remove all non-internet sourced facts from Wiki we woudl have precious little left. Please go back and correct the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seeourbee (talk • contribs) 08:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

No, I prefer non-internet sources actually. The source used was a copy of Wikipedia, which would mean that everything someone wrote in Wikipedia would be assumled to be true as soon as one website mirrored it. We have a policy on biographies of living people, which means that all unsourced or poorly sourced personal or contentious info on living peope should be removed on sight. You can add it back if you have references from the BBC or Hello! Magazine or whichever more or less reliable source you prefer, otherwise it stays out of the article. If no reliable sources provide her private address, it is because they don't think it is important, or because she feels that it is private information which should not be made public. As it has no relevance on her career and on what makes her notable, we should respect that. Fram (talk) 08:53, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Notability of Walter J. West

Thank you for your concerns on the notability of Walter J. West. The Wikipedia:WikiProject College football considers all head coaches (past and present) of notable teams to be notable. You can read and discuss notability of college football coaches at the College Football Notability essay.

The College Football project considers notability discussions of existing articles in the project a priority. While the project maintains in good faith that the article does indeed meet notability standards, we will begin additional work to improve the article in question through addressing specific concerns, providing more details, and supplying stronger sources as much as is appropriate. In return, we ask that you consider our essay on notability. If you feel an article needs a specific improvement, please feel free to make those changes yourself.

Also, this deletion notification does not seem to follow the traditional WP:AFD methods that I am used to... has the procedure chagned?--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:11, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

This is the standard proposed deletion procedure, a method often used to delete articles. It has been around for quite a few years now. Articles where the proosed deletion is opposed (which can be done by anyeditor, albeit preferably while adressing the issues raised in the nomination) are either left alone or taken to WP:AFD afterwards. As for this article: yes,I have read the notability essay from the project and find it sorely lacking. The standards used there are significantly different from WP:NOTE, WP:BIO and even WP:ATHLETE. E.g. athletes (and let's, for the sake of argument, equal coaches with athletes for now) are only notable if they have played at the top amateur level in a non professional sport. Football is a fully professional sport, so playing or caoching at amateur levels is not sufficient. What is needed is multiple reliable independent sources discussing this coach in some depth (not just mentioning him as the coach of the team), or some other reasons why he is notable (also sourced, obviously). I have also read the argument that coach X should be kept because he is part of a succession of coaches, some of which are notable. This, obviously, is completely incorrect. The correct Wikipedia way in such a case is to make a list of coaches of team A, where every coach gets a short mention (years coached, win-loss ratio, whatever), and the notable coaches are linked and have their own article with more info. Fram (talk) 13:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The existinece of the NFL does not negate the notability of college football, and WP:ATHLETE does not in any way indicate that it would. Please see the article talk page for continuation of the discussion. Thanks for your input!--Paul McDonald (talk) 23:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi Fram, just wanted to drop a thanks for reverting edits made to one of my subpages. Having been away for a few days its good to know that someone responsible is willing to clear up automated edits made by users who aren't so ... responsible. So thanks again and keep supporting wikipedia. :) UKanime (talk) 22:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Sacred name Bibles

In the study of English Bible translations, any cluster of 8 translations following a common approach is of considerable significance to those active in the field. I am not a partisan promoting this approach, merely a scholar in the field documenting this unique approach to translation. I will add more sources, but please do not rush to delete an article that may be notable to those who are active in a field that is not familiar to you. Pete unseth (talk) 11:48, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

But is this "unique approach" discussed elsewhere? Is it perhaps better known with another name? What is needed is not sources for individual translations (those are welcome, but not relevant for the notability discussion), but for the concept, the field of "sacred name bibles". Otherwise your grouping of a number of translations is a form of original research. Fram (talk) 14:18, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your clear request. Yes, I believe that this unique approach is, indeed, discussed elsewhere. I cited a published source that had "sacred name Bibles" in the article title. Also, other paper publications (such as Neufeld) discussed the topic as a whole. Those are formal paper publications. A review of one of these translations also spoke of a class "sacred name translation" (Petah Tikvah Magazine 19.4: 25). The web-based world shows that this approach is seen as distinct, by both supporters and opponents: they all lump these translations into a unified category. I trust this is adequate to substantiate the the topic as being adequately noteworthy.Pete unseth (talk) 23:48, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Jan Matejko's gallery

I will support deletion if commons:Jan Matejko has all the same captions and pictures). Currently it seems to me this is not the case. So - first let's merge them, than let's delete the unencyclopedic gallery.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:20, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

For Better or for Worse

Hello Thank you for your courteous note. As I posted on Talk:For_Better_or_for_Worse#Name, it is pretty clear that this article should be named as I moved it. While your point about the consistent capitalization of the strip is probably true, it is irrelevant to the naming of the article, as it is explicitly contradicted by the style guidelines. Please post on my talk if you need me. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:48, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Additionally I forgot to mention that I have previously listed this as an uncontroversial move at WP:RM when it was, in fact, moved. Otherwise, I did not post any discussion about this at it seemed unnecessary. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:49, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

You're right (on all accounts). I hadn't seen the talk page, since I noticed it by watchlisting For Better or for Worse characters, not the main article. And I was under the impression that book titles should be rendered exactly as they were, but our MoS says indeed that "small words" (paraphrased) should be lowercase, regardless of the original capitalization. Fair enough, and thanks for the swift reply! Fram (talk) 06:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

9/12/08 DYK

On 12 September, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article McNaught Syndicate, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Thank you for your contributions! -- RyRy (talk) 07:38, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I have changed your comment to reflect the actual article you meant. If you object to me changing your comments, please let me know. Fram (talk) 07:41, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, no problem. I gave you the wrong article and instead gave you the one above your nomination at T:DYK/N. Thanks for letting me now! -- RyRy (talk) 07:48, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Anand discord

Hi Fram, if you get a chance to put fresh eyes on this it would be good. On the article Anjum Anand there's some tugging between myself and Neihu888 as well as various similar IPs that seem like the same user. After appearing yesterday with a score of edits that did add some references but took the article backward in terms of various MOS, I incorporated quite a few elements while reverting back to the ref and style standards [3]. This got cold reverted and further built on, which I found discouraging considering all the MOSwork that got discarded. Again I reverted but added the bulk of the sourced material [4], but the same happened again, but this time with an image which might get some problems. My take on the history anyway.

I haven't reverted again because I'm at a bit of a loss (and I guess it would make me a 3R guy!) I know I ought to reach out, but I rather dread to as this doesn't appear to be a communicator. I'll just give it some time but would appreciate a different perspective on it if you get a chance. MURGH ^disc. 07:50, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Still, it would be best if you first tried to discuss it at the talk page of the article. Every further step in duspiute resolution (from a third opinion to protection and so on) depends on that, since it isn't a clear case of vandalism. Try to discuss the dits you have problems with, explain why you did such or such thing, and see if you get an answer. If you don't come to an agreement, try a third opinion. Fram (talk) 07:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. I'll do that. I do think that reverting and deleting reference information is a form of vandalism though. MURGH ^disc. 09:14, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

User:WJH1992

I think that he DEFINATELY should be given another chance.Worcesterboy1992 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Worcesterboy1992 (talk • contribs) 15:07, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Sophia Mirza

Please do not attack other editors. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 13:02, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I have no plans to even start doing it, so I can hardly continue to do so. Fram (talk) 13:24, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Fancy signatures

Hi, thanks for this explanation - there was me thinking that the item was just waiting for this to happen. I thought my signature complied with the guidelines - otherwise it wouldn't have been accepted when I changed preferences. But my knowledge of HTML markup is next to nonexistent - so if I've coded my signature awkwardly I'm open to suggestions. ϢereSpielChequers 21:42, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I have to say that the signatures were the only reason I could think of that would stop the archiving, since the archive bot looks at the timestamps and normally has no problems doing that. What the exact problem was is harder to tell (for me), which isn't of course much use for you. Fram (talk) 04:44, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I've marked the issue as resolved, both because it now has been and in the hope that the archive bot only archives sections from there that are so marked. ϢereSpielChequers 07:58, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

It has now been archived. One of the dates in there was in 3008, so it would have stayed up for a thousand years if someone hadn't put a comment between the 30 and the 08. ϢereSpielChequers 11:00, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, so it wasn't due to your signature after all. My mistake. Thanks for being patient about this, and for reporting back what the actual problem was. Fram (talk) 11:03, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Paulus!!!

hi Fram, I copy-edited the article Paulus the woodgnome a little bit (will do much more), and created a new article for Jan van Oort, comparable to your unused sandbox article. Please be so kind as to help out with augmenting either article. Wim van Dorst (talk) 22:17, 17 September 2008 (UTC).

Thanks! I'll give it a look and help a hand where possible. Fram (talk) 04:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

The Holy Synod of the Coptic Orthodox Church

Fram, you wrote:

Regarding your revert of my edit on this article, you are wrong on both accounts: "His Eminence" and so on is not comparable to "Brigadier", Brigadier is comparable to Archbishop or Metropolitan: it is a job description, not a style of address. This is explained in the manual of style, a guideline of how we are supposed to write our articles. Furthermore, you and I have every right to change this, this is the Encyclopedia anyone can edit, and no organization or institution can decide how we describe and call people. Articles like Elizabeth I of England don't use "Her Royal Highness" anywhere in the article.

I have read the "manual of style" and all related subjects and all it says that the article should not be entitled or started with the "honorific" title of the "job description" as you have described it. And in as much as each of us and anyone for that matter has the right to change that, I ask you to be considered and sensitive to the culture of the those who describe the titles of the religious leaders in the way that is appropriate and dignified with their position and responsibilities. These descriptions of the titles has existed since the begining of the inception of these titles for those "job descriptions", and since they have a particular meaning that coincides with the title of the holder of the position, then it is appropriate to consider the "execptions" which is mentioned in the "manual of style" and the "honorific titles". So be kind enough to revert your edit, which you started, in spite that this page and other pages of the same edits that you made existed for over two years and no one objected on the style, but everyone respected the cultural and religious reasons behind the usage of this descriptive honorary titles of the position holders. I hope that you understand and respect that. Thank you. Orthopraxia (talk) 08:07, 18 September 2008 (UTC)Orthopraxia

We are not supposed to be catering for the sensitivities of anyone. Wikipedia is not censored and is neutral, and that means including images of Mohammed or of a sexual nature where appropriate. As for the honorifics and the manual of style: Please check WP:MOSBIO#Honorific titles, which starts very clearly: "Wikipedia guidelines permit inline use of titles but forbid inline use of honorifics." I have left the titles (Metropolitan, Archbishop, ...) and removed the honorifics (His Beatitude, His Grace, His Eminence, ...). By removing "His Holiness" from the name of a pope (no matter which denomination), we don't say that he is not holy, but we keep a neutral position, instead of following the opinion and tradition of one group. If I (or aynoe else) would start labelling people as "his unholiness" or "the satan" or whatever, you would be more than correct to revert me and to have me probaby blocked. Still, many groups, cultures, leaders describe e.g. the US as "The Satan". Should we do likewise to be sensitive towards these people and because it describes in their opinion the position and actions of the US accurately? Being positively sensitive about someone is just as non-neutral as being negative. The honorifics add no info and are not neutral. Fram (talk) 08:35, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Google unique page hits

Heh :) Yes, I know, but on the other hand there's a lot less than 189,000 unique pages with that string in as well! To be honest, when I'm closing AfDs I tend to ignore Google searches (unless they're Google News etc, or there's few hits at all). For something computing-related like this example, the hits are meaningless anyway because you just pick up thousands of forum and blog postings. Ironically, I think that particular distro is notable anyway! Black Kite 16:23, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Per MoS?

Please read Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(people)#Qualifiers_not_between_brackets and pay attention to the given example. There is no need to move episcopal titles into parentheses. There is disagreement on whether that is aesthetically superior. Personally, I think not. Srnec (talk) 23:07, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I found the section of the MoS (that I wish you had referenced with a link in your summaries) that you were relying on. It was added in its entirety by a single user in April after a short debate in March yielded one support, one "weak" support, and one oppose (me). I have removed it, since I think it has no consensus behind. But we must always bear in mind that the style conventions, guidelines, and even policies take a back seat to making a better encyclopedia on an article by article basis. Srnec (talk) 05:46, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Srnec has already said what I was going to say. Adam Bishop (talk) 10:29, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see how this has anything to do with WP:IAR. Neither the original titles nor the new ones are necessarily better or worse, only more consistent. When reading the page and section you linked to, the example I see is "For example John Forrest (friar) is preferred as the name of the page where the content is, above Blessed John Forrest, which is a redirect page.". Anyway, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Clergy) takes precedence over the page mentioned above. I was following a version which had stood there over five months, so reverting this because you don't agree with the version, and simultaneously removing the change is not really the best way to proceed. I note that the guideline has been rereverted shortly thereafter. In general, if you have two John Smiths, they will be disambiguated John Smith (artist) and John Smith (bishop). Now, when there are several bishops with the name John Smith, further disambiguation is needed. To suddenly change the format to John Smith, Bishop of X and John Smith, Bishop of Y is strange when you can just follow the earlier, everywhere used disambig system of putting the disambiguating terms in brackets: John Smith (Bishop of X) and John Smith (Bishop of Y). Notice also that we have the section "Qualifier between bracketing parentheses" a bit below the one linked above. Fram (talk) 20:02, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:IAR applies always to everything (it is listed under "global" at WP:LOP). That said, the section you refer to at WPNC (Clergy) is a unilateral addition which did not have wide support or anything like consensus. I removed it, it has been re-added by an uninformed (and incorrect) user. No one is dispute the need to disambiguate, but some of us think that ", Bishop of X" is better than "(Bishop of X)". Srnec (talk) 23:48, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

IAR appleis to everything, but should be used very sparingly. Furthermore, I still don't see how it has anything to do with our current situation. I follow a guideline which has stood for five or six months and which is in line with more common disambiguation schemes, you disagree with that version of the guideline and my application of it. Fine, no problem, but who is supposed to "ignore all rules" here, in what direction, and why? Fram (talk) 06:47, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

The specific problems with the two I reverted are that "Joscius" unqualified is not very informative; "Joscius of Tyre" would be better. Same for any of the other ones you moved to a single name. I don't like single names for any obscure medieval people (unless they're Charlemagne or something, it just doesn't work). Frederick has another name we could use, Frederick de la Roche, and many of the others probably have a similar solution. Since the guidelines are created by random people who don't necessarily have any idea wjat they're talking about, I'm not sure we should ever follow any of them at all; here they are unnecessary. Adam Bishop (talk) 10:43, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Being informative has never been the starting position of our naming conventions. Using the simplest unambiguous form is usually the preferred option. Dropping the clergy naming conventions for a moment (since the current version is not accepted by you), we come to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people). Now, Wikipedia as a whole is written by "random people who don't necessarily have any idea wjat they're talking about", but that's the way it works, and we shouldn't ignore their consensus unless we have very good reasons to do so. "Joscius" follows the guideline as explained in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people)#Single name, while "Joscius, Archbishop of Tyre" doesn't. Now, if Frederick is often known as Frederick de la Roche, then it is perfectly allright to move it to that name, and I will not object to such a move. But unless you have a better reason to move Joscius to Joscius, Archbishop of Tyre then "not informative", I do object to your move of this one as going against both the specific clergy guideline and more importantly the general naming conventions guidelines. Fram (talk) 11:13, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Order of New Zealand: "Removed all honorifics (his eminence and so on) per WP:MOSBIO#Honorific titles"

I don't dispute that your edit was correct... the only reason why that article had them in the first place was because Order of Merit and Order of the Companions of Honour had them---the original editors put them in knowing that the whole thing was in imitation of them.

Perhaps you should prune them as well?... just a thought. ( :D )

118.90.101.9 (talk) 08:59, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm going through all articles with "highness", "eminence", "beatitude" and so on in them, and am removing those where necessary. If I come across these articles you mention (I may miss them, my searches are far from infallible), they will receive the same treatment. Fram (talk) 09:02, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Would you please tell me why you have decided on this action? Is there some political reason behind removing the correct form of address, or is it that perhaps you are unaware how important the correct form is? It can be regarded as highly insulting if you refuse (either through ignorance or silliness) to refuse to address someone correctly. You would not call the Archbishop of Canterbury a Vicar, because that is not his correct title. It follows that His Highness, Serene Highness, Royal Highness, Eminence or whatever denotes many, many different degrees of status, that are much, much older than you or I. Please respect peoples deeply held feelings and do not impose your attitudes on others. It would be so nice if, for once, Wiipedia was seen as being correct in its wording. Captainclegg (talk) 18:41, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

We don't respect or disrespect anyone here, we provide neutral, factual biographies. We are not addressing someone, we are writing about them. This has no political background. This is reflected in many style guides, e.g. Wikipedia:WikiProject British Royalty/Style guide. The main guideline for this is Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)#Honorific prefixes. As you will notice, in most articles I have left the section discussing the different styles used to address people (nobility, royalty, clergy, ...). This is perfectly acceptable, of course. However, these styles shouldn't be used throughout the article. We use the name of persons, and/or their function (Queen, Bishop, ...). Fram (talk) 19:02, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, that is most informative. However it does not get away from the fact that even if factual biographies are being compiled, there is absolutely nothing wrong with using their correct form of address. Indeed I would argue that it is a function of a good encyclopaedia to show what the correct form of address should be. A Cardinal: 'Your Eminence' would be most helpful. It worries me greatly that certain 'editors' may be using their own objectives to 'influence' the outcome of an article. In other words they become judge AND jury. Not exactly partial. But you unfortunately neglected to respond to my question that perhaps respect for peoples position and feelings should be taken account of. Captainclegg (talk) 19:35, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

The "correct form of address" is only what is used in some circumstances. We are not addressing the cardinal. However, our general article Cardinal (Catholicism) briefly addresses this, which should be sufficient. As our article His Eminence says: "His Eminence is a historical style of reference for high nobility, still in use in various religious contexts." Wikipedia is not a religious context. As for being judge and jury: I have not written the Manual of Style (or the article on His Eminence), so I'm only the executioner: other people were the judge. Finally, we don't respect any position, neither for or against anyone. We don't address people respectfully or disrespectfully. Our article on Benito Mussolini mentions his title "His Excellency" once, but doesn't address him like that. Our article on Hirohito states his title and that he, at the time, shouldn't be adressed like Hirohito, but goes on to only call him Hirohito anyway, not His Majesty or something similar. These are articles I had nothing to do with, but which follow our general method of discussing people with such forms of address. I am only bringing some articles in line with the majority of similar articles and with the manual of style. If that hurts your feelings, then that is too bad, but it will not change my behaviour or the manual of style. Being neutral is not the same as being disrespectful, but writing articles starting from a position of respect for peoples positions is not neutral but hagiographical, which is not the objective of Wikipedia. Fram (talk) 04:43, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

You have made your position clear about respect for peoples status (are you a republican by any chance?!) but I continue to hold my views. But as for you saying, totally incorrectly, that the Season has not received "widespread attention", that is completely preposterous and what is your definition of 'widespread'? In Monaco? In France? or where you live? From the distance that you are starting from, it could easily be argued that the Chichester Festival Season does not receive "widespread attention", but as anyone who is interested in cultural activities knows, it has a huge reputation. But then maybe a TV 'soap' is of more importance to some people! I could refer you to the box office receipts which show that the Season is a huge financial and artistic hit both in Monaco and with the Brit-speaking ex-pats nearby in France but as the receipts and indeed the letter formally conferring HSH Prince Albert's High Patronage are privileged information, I do not see that it is up to me to have to prove anything to a third party or on behalf of a third party. Crowley666 (talk) 11:33, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

My personal opinions and preferences are not relevant. Neither are other articles (even though I'm generally opposed to most TV episode articles, as can be seen from my participation in relevant discussions). Information that is not sourced may be removed. If the only source for the info are non-public documents, then it is not verifiable and should be removed. As for the Chichester Festival Season (which hasn't got an article), it is not very well known under that name. The "Chichester Festival" gets more than 1,000 Google News Hits though[5]. "Widespread attention" means attention in different publications, preferably for more than one paragraph. Art festivals and theatre festivals often get complete articles in a number of newspapers. I don't expect the British FestivalinMonaco to receive the kind of attention the Festival d'Avignon has, but a few things more than can be found through Google would be more than welcome. Fram (talk) 12:07, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought that this matter was now concluded, as what ever I say or do is immediately altered by you. May I ask how you get to be, as you so succinctly put it, the 'executioner' and what your qualifications are for making long-distance judgement calls? I ask this with great respect of course. Crowley666 (talk) 13:25, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I am not the executioner, I am an executioner. Everyone is free to correct articles where they don't follow our guidelines and policies. As for judgment calls: it is up to those wanting to keep an article to provide evidence that it meets our notability guideline. The article did not give the impression of being about a notable subject, and neither my Internet searches nor the replies by involved editors have given me the idea that that first impression was incorrect. All we have are reprints press releases and one very short announcement in a newspaper. As for my alterations: to be clear, I have not changed any discussion statements you made. I have undone changes you made to the article ,since they were not correct. When you add a reference to a paragraph or sentence, the reference is supposed to be evidence of that paragraph or sentence. The references I removed did not contain the info they were supposed to refer to. The first source was the website of the theatre, which didn't mention the British Theatre Season. The fourth pointed to a newsletter, which didn't mention the Season either. The fifth ref does not work. And the sixth ref was the same as the fourth. After removing the fifth and sixth ref, the final sentence was unreferenced. The other thing I removed was "the best of", which is a non neutral comment. Fram (talk) 13:42, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Four points: 1) The idea of a 'notable subject' is entirely subjective. I would happily argue that no UK footballer is a 'notable subject' as I have a particular dislike of the sport. My interests lie elsewhere. 2) Monaco is a very small country. What is important there maybe seen as disproportionate elsewhere, but it does not mean it is not notable, just because of the coverage. 'Big Brother' probably has more internet hits than Wagner. Under your rules, we can see which article would be 'edited' beyond recognition. 3) I think that your reliance on the internet is strange as many papers and magazines are not necessarily reproduced on the web. One theatrical trade-paper (the main one) has only started to be on-line for two years. Under your rules, this means that nothing prior to that should be included as it cannot be sourced by your narrow definition. 4) The newsletter that you mentioned and that I had sourced DOES mention the Season. On page five, a half page article, in detail. It is then mentioned every month in different articles for four months. I could go on, but have got to the stage now, when all I was trying to do was expand an encyclopaedia with authoritative detail, but have obviously ruffled the feathers of people with agendas that are unknown to me. What a pity. I had a lot to offer. I am obviously wasting my time. As GB Shaw said, "nothing is more damaging than a bully with power". Please do not take this as a personal comment. Merely an observation. Crowley666 (talk) 14:06, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:NOTE tries to give an objective measure for notability. While not perfect, it has nothing to do with "I don't know it" or "I don't like it". As for my reliance on the Internet: you are more than welcome to provide offline sources, and I have not indicated otherwise. However, when no such sources are forthcoming or given in the article, all I can do is look on the Internet, and give you the results of that search. I have no dismissed any source for not being available on the Internet. Finally, you had linked to the main page of the newsletter website, which has links to two years of individual newsletters. If you could indicate which individual newsletters are about the season, the link may be useful. All you have done now is given us a website where we are supposed to go looking through all subpages for the ref you meant. Finally, as for "a bully with power": I have not used any "powers" here that you don't have as well. But it would be better if youstuck to discussing the article and stopped making "obesrvations". WP:NPA says it quite clearly: "Comment on content, not on the contributor". Fram (talk) 14:11, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

The ref is http://www.bam.monaco.mc/newsletter.htm newsletter Oct 07. Page 5. But I have no idea (and now little desire) to work out how to make that clear on the site. I assumed that your readers had a modicum of intelligence to maybe research a little themselves. Finally, I made it clear that it was not a personal comment, but perhaps editors should discuss before deleting more. Don't you agree? Crowley666 (talk) 14:22, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Not that difficult: [6]. But no mention of Price Albert, so at least the second use of the reference had nothing to do with this pdf... And as for readers to go and research for themselves: no, we are supposed to make life easier for them, not to give them a page with 30+ links and let them guess which one you intended. Fram (talk) 04:35, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

There would not be a mention of the High Patronage on the BAM site. The Official mention of it is in the Gazette from the Palace which is not on line. So, what can I do? Crowley666 (talk) 10:52, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Why did you use references which did not support the sentence they were supposed to reference? Anyway, you can use something like template:citenews to reference offline sources (the template has a url parameter, but this one, like all others, can be removed). If some official publication of the palace mentions that the Season has the patronage of the Prince, then that is a perfectly acceptable source. It may not be sufficient for notability, but that is a different discussion; it will however be enough for verifiability, which was the reason I removed the line about the patronage. Fram (talk) 11:27, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

(Apologies to Fram for addressing Captainclegg and Crowley666.) Hi Captainclegg and Crowley666: I think the reasoning behind the no titles rule is because an encyclopedia ideally describes what people do , rather than doing what people do (sorry, I can't find a better way to express this idea). Example for titles: compare

Joe Bloggs, the hereditary head of state, made a ruling that ...

to

His Majesty King Joe promulgated a Royal Decree that ...

The second is undesirable since it is overflowing with the terminology that the subject uses, with all its own subtleties in meaning and so on (i.e. words by and for people involved). The former just describes the generalities, making it relevant to an encyclopedia reader. It is a problem dividing the two, since English people will invent English terminology :D. But it does not mean that general terms understandable by all do not exist in English!

=> Titles are used for the benefit of those doing the "work of the topic of the article", but the "work of the reader" does not need it. Sources use titles, because (surprise, surprise) the sources are written from the pov of the people who use the titles! 118.90.113.2 (talk) 01:36, 26 September 2008 (UTC) (I am the same IP as at the top of this thread.)

Nation Master

Hello, sorry this website is not a mirror[7] of Wikipedia. - Vootarr (talk) 11:46, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Can you show me which Wikipedia article that text is mirrored from? Thanks. - Vootarr (talk) 11:54, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Answer

Ok, You are right. GDP data I provide is not only estimation for year 2008, but 2007 also (updated in October 2007). But I found GDP data (for year 2007) on IMF site that is not an estimation, but factual data (updated in April 2008). I think that Wikipedia has to base GDP data on just one source (in this case IMF). For example, GDP data for your country (currently is little bit outdated):

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2008/01/weodata/weorept.aspx?sy=2004&ey=2007&scsm=1&ssd=1&sort=country&ds=.&br=1&c=124&s=NGDPD%2CNGDPDPC%2CPPPGDP%2CPPPPC%2CPPPEX%2CLP&grp=0&a=&pr1.x=62&pr1.y=12

May I edit if I cite this source (for year 2007)? Thanks. - User:Gggh (talk) 18:50, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

These seem to be exact figures, and the IMF is obviously a reliable indepenent source, so I have no objection against using these figures. Thanks for searching for these! Fram (talk) 19:10, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Request for semi-protection

Could you please protect the Croatia article, so that unregistered users can't edit it? Unregistered users constanly edit the whole article into insults. Thanks. - User:Gggh (talk) 12:24, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Ask

Hi yes you may think that this is a sock-puppet of WJH1992, but IN FACT, it's Dodgechris! I want WJH1992 to be unblocked, i think hes really sorry, as well as Dodgechris to be unblocked, in which i know is sorry and wont do what i did again, as its me! Im sure WJH1992 wont do the bad stuff he did again as well. HH124 16:35, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked this user for sockpuppetry. Hut 8.5 18:44, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

album list, a source opinion needed

Hi Fram, over at the best selling album list someone recently added this source for the 43 million figure. Although he won his case, I don't believe this source at least really establishes that the figure is 43 million. Nowhere in the source does it say that the court agreed with the specifics of that claim, we don't even know if the claim of 43 million was definitely heard in court, or whether it's a figure he regularly proclaims. I think we need a more in depth recount of the court procedure and ruling before we include it. For now I have left the claim in, but in its current state I'm prepared to remove soon. There is too much vagueness and original research for this to stand alone. — Realist² 01:43, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Scrap, [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7108975.stm more than 30 million according to court documents. I'm removing. The actual court documents against his word. — Realist² 01:46, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Yep, definitely follow the BBC (i.e. the court documents) in this case, and not the say-so of an involved person. Fram (talk) 07:24, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Article deleted

In the process of moving Richard Marsh, Bishop of Durham to new titles, it appears you accidentally deleted the entire content of the article. I assume you can undelete it. --Russ (talk) 18:23, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, that's quite a mistake... I have no real idea how it happened, but it looks like I moved it twice, where the second move put the redirect over the contents of the article. As an admin, I can delete the destination of an article move (needed if it is e.g. a redirect with more than one revision). Of course, when you delete the destination twice, the second time it deletes the actual article... My apologies, and thanks for assuming good faith here. Fram (talk) 06:44, 30 September 2008 (UTC)