User talk:Fram

List of American suffragists by state

Hi Fram! I just reverted one of your edits and will be reverting a few more. I appreciate you putting the smaller lists inline for the list of American suffragists by state, but it's not going to work in the long run. I am doing a long-term project where I am listing all suffragists by either state or national level. Many of the suffragists on the national page need to go to the smaller pages. These lists, like the one for NY will get very long very quickly. Please leave individual state lists as stand-alone. Thank you! :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:14, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

The right thing would then have been to split them again in the long run, at the time when the length of a state list overwhelmed the general page. Not what you did now. I'll not revert as it is rather tiring to go against so insisting on the need for separate pages for some reason, but it really is not the right way to deal with these things. Please don't create other one-person lists. Fram (talk) 07:12, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

CfD nomination at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 August 3 § Early Austria disestablishment categories

A category or categories you have created have been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 August 3 § Early Austria disestablishment categories on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 18:57, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Post-resignation violence against Hindus in Bangladesh, 2024

ZeetBaralWiki (talk) 16:21, 6 August 2024 (UTC) Hi, Fram. You told 'While this topic deserves an article, it shouldn't be this one. A blatantly one-sided, very badly sourced instead of a neutral, factual one where the sources actually reference the paragraphs they follow instead of being seemingly randomly inserted' I have checked the references. There are many mistakes in them. I am removing those and inserting the correct references. How the government is viewing the matter, what steps they have taken, what international organizations and countries have commented—I can mention these with references. Also, I can include the opinions of those who are attacking. I think that will make it impartial and unbiased. Will I proceed with the article - Post-resignation violence against Hindus in Bangladesh, 2024? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZeetBaralWiki (talk • contribs) 16:31, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

You are copying sentences and paragraphs straight from the sources. This is a copyright violation and not allowed on Wikipedia. You need to write the article in your own words, summarizing the sources. Fram (talk) 06:34, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

ZeetBaralWiki, this is a very important topic that needs to be covered properly. If you engage in copyright violations or any other significant policy violations, that will only delay the coverage of this topic on Wikipedia. So please be careful to follow Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Cullen328 (talk) 06:54, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Canines Cushing-syndrome

The reason for that mess of a title is that the editor was paid to use AI to translate an article with 0 incentive to anything more than get it past AfC. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:05, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Ah yes, I know of that problematic project, recently I have taken one of their creations to AfD for being unscientific, outdated, and completely unchecked by the translator. Sounds like easy money for them! Fram (talk) 07:07, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1850s disestablishments in the German Confederation

A tag has been placed on Category:1850s disestablishments in the German Confederation indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:08, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

My style of writing

Hi Fram, I just dropped you a lengthy explanation on why I use technical complex wordings to exaggerate the content articles as I also think of the fact that it is paramount important for me to convert the stub class article into a start class article by capitalizing on my strength in the form of writing. I also take inspiration from English literature subject where I have learnt the basic literary techniques like metaphors, similes, euphemism, paradox and I also take note of some of the prominent writers works such as Maya Angelou, Cat Stevens, Edward Lowbury, Gabriel Okara, Jacques Prevert, Gabriela Mistral, Yasmine Gooneratne, Sonali Deraniyagala and Wisława Szymborska on how they captured the plight of daily life situations through their exceptional writing framework. In addition to listening to cricket commentary, I have also given so much emphasis to the prominent notable literary works of the some of the highly talented writers as I have mentioned earlier. I also ended up writing an article about Barnewall Two-way Model few months ago which I in fact learnt as part of my behavioral finance module in Business Management. I literally referred to all the notes and tutes and compiled a fresh article right from the scratch and presented it a one step destination so that it can be used as an education tool by others to get a basic idea of what that model is all about. Abishe (talk) 17:06, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

I think, in terms of technique, you might want to think about Finnegans Wake :D SerialNumber54129 17:59, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

I've taken a look at Barnewall Two-way Model as not only your writing style is a problem, but the contents of that article were frankly dreadful. Things like "Passive investors do not have the bargaining ability to make crucial decisions as they work under bosses on a contractual basis and are obliged to comply with the terms and conditions set by their employers. " or "However, there is no guarantee that passive investors can have the ability to enhance their level of independence, and they will not be able to make their own decisions as they always have to depend on what their superiors instruct and act accordingly." are not supported by the sources at all. Never mind the nonsense of "Generally it is perceived and assumed that people who have fewer economic resources and especially those who have little to no access to even basic facilities tend to become passive investors." People with no access to basic facilities are not the people discussed by the model or the sources... I will keep an eye on your new creations and may request removal of your user rights as I don't think you are the kind of editor who should be autopatrolled or who should be reviewing new pages or pending changes. Fram (talk) 07:13, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

This is an eye opener for me as my article has been termed as delusional and my writing pattern lacks the basic common sense. I admit my mistakes and I take the responsibility for it. I thought of always applying whatever I studied at school or college level to full effect in practical aspects and as a result I decided to execute my knowledge prowess through such encyclopediac articles. I am always keen on enhancing knowledge and to share the same with others without expecting anything in return. Maybe I was overexcited and pumped up whenever I get an opportunity to use my knowledge to the best of my efforts. I also admit the fact that my style of writing has also been influenced with the advent of college semester report writing, assignments as we are expected to give an in-depth analysis on explaining a particular segment to gain more marks and also to top the rankings like first class honours etc. My knack of writing is clearly evident with how you are making suggestions on the necessity to trim down unnecessary wordings and to ensure a neutral point of view. I am always eager to apply whatever knowledge I have at my disposal which can benefit me and others and that is why I feel maybe I have exaggerated my style of writing. Hopefully I can turn things around to stay alive and remain upbeat about the weight of expectations on me. Hopefully I can see a glimmer of hope and possibly see light at the end of the tunnel. I strive with the emphasis on improving myself and I guarantee that I can make a resilient comeback and become an inevitable Wikipedia editor. Abishe (talk) 15:29, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Orders of magnitude

You nominated the article "Orders of magnitude (angular frequency)" for deletion. Why? Why is this article any less desirable than all the other articles titled "Orders of magnitude (quantity)"? Solomonfromfinland (talk) 09:26, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I have no idea if the other ones are better or deserve deletion or redirecting as well, but the one you created is, like I said, a random selection of examples, not based on an overarching source. An article which exists only of examples is not an encyclopedic article. Fram (talk) 09:28, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Deleting page Baron of the Bachuil

Fram, I noticed that you deleted the premier baron of the realm page that I created it's the oldest extant title of nobility. Rather than outright deletion, I believe it would have been more constructive to start a discussion about any concerns you had (as you have often poked at me), particularly given the historic significance of the title and the numerous sources included in the article. I've observed that we've had several interactions in the past, and it seems like you might be closely monitoring my contributions. I can't help but feel that this might be causing unnecessary friction between us. I would appreciate it if we could focus on constructive dialogue moving forward, rather than actions that could be seen as disruptive. Kellycrak88 (talk) 15:10, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

First, you should not have created the text someone else created as your own in mainspace, such copy-paste moves are not allowed. Secondly, the first source in the article, claimed to be checkec today, was a weird commercial casino page, not a reliable source at all, where the source was vaguely related to the pahe subject but not to the facts it sourced at all. You are an experienced editor, you should do better. And no, I wasn't "closely monitoring your contributions", I saw the page among the new pages which I was checking. The page was created at 13:33, 22 August 2024, I also edited a page created at 14:19, 22 August 2024, one from 14:03, 22 August 2024, one from 14:46, 22 August 2024, one from 11:22, 22 August 2024, ... Fram (talk) 15:29, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Plumber and I collaborated on the article, and he asked me to publish it. I wasn’t aware that this approach violated any specific rules, but I appreciate you bringing it to my attention. I'll review the sources with Plumber to ensure they meet Wikipedia's standards, and we'll work together to address any issues so we can move forward with getting the article live. Kellycrak88 (talk) 15:42, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Oh, and moving a page to draft is not "deleting" a page, it's making sure that it isn't in the mainspace when the sourcing is so dubious. It hasn't been in the mainspace since 2001, a few more days or weeks won't hurt. Fram (talk) 15:30, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

I stand corrected, thanks for the clarification. Kellycrak88 (talk) 15:42, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

(edit confmict)Finally, even without the sourcing issus, it is really not a good article. It starts with some general vague text about 1556, instead of kdiscussing the history of the actual barony, which is claimed in the infobox to be from the 9th century. Reading the article doesn't really inform readers about the barony, which should be the purpose after all. It's a jumble of largely unrelated paragraphs, e.g. suddenly talking about " In a 1951 ruling, the Lord Lyon found that the Coarbs of St Moluag had existed for centuries without acknowledging any secular authority or hierarchical structure." without any indication what this is about or why this is important. It's a lot more informative to read the existing article on Clan Livingstone. Fram (talk) 15:43, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

While I concur regarding the absence of the history section, I do not consider the text in question (which is a dedicated section) to be vague. Initially, it elucidates the essence of baronial allodial fiefdoms in Scotland, where the holders are barons par la grâce de Dieu (by the Grace of God), owing to the allodial nature of their fiefs and their refusal to acknowledge any superiors.

Moreover, I contend that the title stands as one of the oldest in the introduction. To reinforce this claim, I cite an instance where the Duke of Argyll addressed the Baron as "my lord", highlighting the antiquity of the barony and its significant seniority (allodial in origin, predating Scottish feudalism). I have appropriately attributed this information to credible sources.

Furthermore, the ruling by Lord Lyon is not arbitrary but grounded in specific findings. He observed that the Coarb of St. Moluag (Baron of the Bachuil) recognised no higher authority, as their fief is allodial, affirming the Livingstones' status. The concluding paragraph underscores the heraldic privileges linked with an allodial barony, which the Livingstones possess, thereby solidifying their position as barons "by the Grace of God".

Regarding the mention of the King of Scots, I included it solely to offer additional context (the King of Scots filled a high king position, not superior among equals, emphasising the allodial aspect in medieval Scotland). It merely serves as a starting point for the actual content. However, I agree that the Duke of Argyll's inclusion in the section is irrelevant though. Daniel Plumber (talk) 07:24, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

The Lord Lyon line came completely out of the blue, no indication at all was given what the "Coarbs of St Moluag" are or what they had to do with the Barony. Fram (talk) 07:50, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

It also helps if you link to the sources you use wherever possible (e.g. this), and please try to write in your own words instead of closely paraphrasing, like you did here (see how e.g. the aside "- which itself was a developed form of tribalism in Western Europe -" compares to the similar aside in the source "—which we shall see was, inWestern Europe at any rate, itself a developed form of tribalism—"). See Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Fram (talk) 07:59, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for the advice. Daniel Plumber (talk) 09:41, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of windmills in Friesland (T–V)

Hello, Fram,

I just noticed that this bundled nomination is not formatted correctly. This will result in our editing tool, XFDcloser, taking action on the article in the title and ignoring the other articles you meant to include. You can't just arrange the articles in a list, they have to have the proper formatting to be a real bundled nomination that will allow XFDcloser to take action on all of the articles. Luckily, the necessary changes aren't complicated. Just go review, the WP:AFD section on nominating multiple articles and follow the instructions there to redo your list of articles to be considered. It should only take a few minutes but it will save the eventual discussion closer a lot of headaches if you take care of this prior to closure. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:23, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Here's what a correctly formatted bundled nomination looks like: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Korea Jesus Presbyterian Church. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:39, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Done, can't recall having seen this before when I did multi-noms. Fram (talk) 07:15, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

New pages patrol September 2024 Backlog drive

New pages patrol | September 2024 Backlog Drive
On 1 September 2024, a one-month backlog drive for new pages patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Each article review will earn 1 point, and each redirect review will earn 0.2 points. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:09, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 2

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Austro-Daimler, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Austrian.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:53, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Missing something

The title is claimed to be exactly years old [1] Polygnotus (talk) 04:19, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

numlock issues. From 1624, so exactly 400 years old! At least, that's what the infobox says... Fram (talk) 06:44, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

olive branch

Hi Fram,

I wanted to extend an olive branch and reach out directly. I know we’ve had our differences in various discussions, and things may have escalated more than they should. My intention is always to contribute constructively, and although we may not always agree, I’m hoping we can find some common ground moving forward. I’m committed to improving my contributions and continuing to learn. I’d really like to turn this into a more collaborative relationship.

Thank you for considering this, and I hope we can move forward positively.

Best regards,

Kellycrak88 Kellycrak88 (talk) 16:49, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

I have no problem with you wanting to edit constructively, and have stated in my ANi post explicitly that you are a good-faith editor. But I do hope that in the future, you will try to learn from issues you encounter, and keep your promises of being more careful and going slower, instead of just continuing in the same vein, which was what lead me to the ANI report. Articles should be factually correct, well sourced, neutral, free from copyright violations, and essentially about their title subject, not a vehicle to add loads of unrelated information or to focus on one tiny aspect only. Fram (talk) 06:48, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	For your tireless efforts in keeping the 'pedia clean, I truly appreciate your work. Frost 10:09, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Hostility on Baidwan sept of Jat-Sikh lineage

Hi Fram, you mentioned getting hostility and claims of vandalism at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baidwan sept of Jat-Sikh lineage, do you mean the edit summary the sockpuppet gave you in the edit summary when they reverted you? Or did you also get something somewhere else? Might be an unaccounted for sock if so. -- asilvering (talk) 18:08, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

The edit summaries (most of them were machine generated it seems, but a few were accusations of COI, move vandalism, ...). BTW, thank you for not letting my oppose stop you from working together like here, I've always tried to forget whoever supported or opposed me in particular discussions (even RFAs) as to not let that cloud later actions or interactions, and it's nice to see others act the same. Fram (talk) 18:17, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Always. (Honestly, I'm glad you voted as you did. A well-earned oppose from someone you respect is a badge of honour.) -- asilvering (talk) 19:38, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

And it's more realistic to be 99.5% perfect than to be 100% perfect! Fram (talk) 07:12, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Oh, and about the hostility, see User talk:Repulsive hegemony card (section "Answer Me !! My Lowkey opinion whats going on with you @User:Frost &Fram", direct link doesn't work. Top of the talk page says "humanist", but apparently not then... Fram (talk) 08:09, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Geez. I spent a while yesterday trying to figure out what was going on with all the page moves in their contribution history, but I decided I was too tired to work it out and gave up. Glad to see some admins have popped by in the meantime. Can't imagine they'll keep their talk page access for long. -- asilvering (talk) 16:12, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Unreliable Sources- Appendix N

Hi,you've flagged the Appendix N article with unreliable sources. Please could you specify which sources so they can be investigated? 46.208.1.154 (talk) 14:27, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Blogs, fandom wiki, perhaps others (I haven't checked them all, but if there are fora, fan websites, personal websites from non-recognised experts, ... then these as well). Fram (talk) 14:30, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying, Fram. How does it look to you now? I have removed the fandom wiki and one of the blog references. I left one blog reference in for the blog by games designer Martin Ralya in the "Legacy and cultural impact" section at the end as I thought it provided evidence of a notable person's involvement, but we can remove that as well if you think it is holding the article back from having the flag removed. Silverwood (talk) 15:14, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

I think this needs to go, and I don't see the value of this. A link to a store[2] to make some point that this release is related to Appendix N, even though it nowhere says that, seems more like WP:OR than something worth including. Yes, the inspirations for D&D will inspire D&D, that seems rather logical. The Hugo Award nomination can be removed as well, as the article clearly notes that they are a mockery of the original process, making nominations virtually worthless or meaningless. I doubt that the inclusion of this is warranted either, a random blog (of some quality). Otherwise feel free to remove the tag, it's just my opinion. Fram (talk) 15:36, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

These are all fair points. The release in question was a different RPG rather than D&D, and was directly inspired by Appendix N rather than by D&D, but your point is correct that the link does not support the claim, so it needs a better source or it should be removed. I will remove all of those links you have mentioned and will remove the relevant text unless I can find better sources before I consider removing the tag. It's for the best if people don't remove these kind of tags without getting input from a second editor first, so thanks for the input. Silverwood (talk) 17:16, 18 September 2024 (UTC)